Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 21, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 21, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on April 21, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella Sonsteby - stated about a month ago there was a grass fire in the back of her land. She has discovered that one of her large spruce trees was cut down, and she was told that it was done so by the Fire Oepartment. She stated there was no way that tree was burning and asked that that be investigated. Councilman Peach stated he was on the fire scene; it was a cedar tree; it was hollow; and it was burning. The tree was then cut down by the Fire Department. Ms. Sonsteby - stated there has been a lot of storm water running into her property from the Good Value/Adolfson property. She felt that with any more rain, it would be backing up into her garage, and asked that something be done about it. She also requested three additional sanitary sewer stubs be placed on her property in the Southwest Area project. She is withdrawing her plat for that area, but understood that the installation of the sanitary sewer stubs does not mean the Council will allow the splitting of some lots in the area. She also understood that she would bear the assessments for the installation of those stubs. Mr. Schumacher raised the concern as to whether the installation of the stubs will control the location of the lots in any future plat of the area. Normally the City extends service to the property line, but in this case no road is going to be constructed but the line is in the easement. It was agreed to put the item on the Agenda. John Zi1hardt, 3753 145th - asked if the Attorney had rendered an opinion relative to the homeowner connecting to the sanitary sewer himself. Attorney Hawkins stated he researched the issue and found that under the State Law, the homeowner can do the plumbing only in that portion that is occupied by him, the house. That portion outside the home cannot be installed by the homeowner but is required to be done by a licensed plumber according to the State Plumbing Code. He saw no other solution. AGENDA·APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Agenda as published with the following revisions: delete Items 5f, and 5h; and add Items 5j, Fees/Connection Charges; 5k, Water Ordinance; and 51, Sewer Stub/Sonsteby, and 5m, Tax Forfeit pro- perty. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. r·1otion carried unanlmously. PUBLIC HEARING - RFP/CABLE TV Councilman Jacobson, the Council's representative on the Anoka/Champ1in/Ramsey Cable Commission, reviewed the Commission's request for proposals and the proposed minimum requirements that the applicants are asked to provide, although applicants are en- couraged to exceed those requirements. Councilman Jacobson also had a color-coded map indicating all the areas in Andover of 40 homes per cable mile which would be ~_.- ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-APRIL 21, 1981 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - RFP/Cable TV 5. Discussion Items a. Project 1980 '-3/145th Avenue Deadend b. Sanitary Sewer Feasibility/Bruce Hay c. Special Use Permit/Hand Construc~ion d. Resident Letters, 1979-2, 1980-1 e. Pumphouse Change Order No. 5 f. Feasibility Report/171st Avenue g. Red Oaks Driveway Complaint h. Sewer/Safety Equipment i. 1980-3/Change Order No. 5 j. k. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Termination/Keller b. Water Permit/Wallace c. 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment ~ -. ..- .- Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - RFP/Cab1e TV, Continued) eligible, intending those areas to be serviced within three years, although there are some remote areas where service may not be feasible at this time. John Zi1hardt - asked if participation is voluntary on the part of the homeowners. He also asked if a survey has been taken. Councilman Jacobson stated it is completely voluntary with no cost to the homeowner if he does not want to participate. All costs on the part of the City and the Commission will be paid back by the companies when they submit their bids, and the firm receiving the bid will pay the rest. No City funds will be expended for the program. Councilman Jacobson also stated that a sample survey was taken in the City, as is required by the Minnesota Cable Board. Discussion was on the servicing of the remote areas within the City. Counci 1man Jacobson stated that it is intended that all areas of 40 homes per cable mile would be serviced within three years, but it may be difficult and/or costly to reach the remote areas within that time period. The applicants are asked to make a recommenda- tion on the more remote areas. The Commission will then use its discretion as to determining which areas would be considered remote. It was also noted that the housing developments, are scattered in the cities of Ramsey and Champlin simi1iar to Andover's situation. The areas designated now are the initial service area; and at the time the other areas reach a certain density, the franchise is required to extend the service into those areas. Councilman Jacobson also stated that the Commission is requiring that there be a single fee for all users for all cities involved. The proposals will also show a yearly construction schedule to be completed within three years. He felt that in the future, if cable is run past 2~-acre lots, it may be possible for those areas to tap into the line, although they would have to pay for the additional line if it is needed. It was determined that the Andover map was prepared by Mr. Winner, who stated he spent the equivalent of two working days on it. The City will ultimately be reimbursed for that time. f10TION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution adopting a Request for Proposals for a Cable Communications System for the City of Andover, as presented. (See Resolution R26-81) Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT 1980-3/145TH AVENUE DEADEND (Reference April 14, 1981, memo from Larry Winner recommending the contractor not construct the T-turnaround at the end of 145th Avenue NW in Auditor's Sub. 82.) Mayor Windschit1 expressed concern for the safety factor of having the road equipment backing out into an intersection, especially where children are concerned. Mr. Zi1hardt - stated there are only two homes on that street and the snowplows have hlstorica11y backed out of that street. Discussion noted that there are other short streets in the City that have been constructed without T-turnarounds; that this street does not service open property; and that a change order would not be involved but the deletion would appear in the compensating change order at the end of the project. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Council authorize Larry Winner, the Clty Engineer, to delete the turnaround in Auditor's Subdivision 82 on 145th Avenue NW. DISCUSSION: Ray Sowada, Public Works, didn't feel that intersection is as bad as those on a curve. He has been using the four-wheel drive in there, which can almost turn around in the area. He hasn't had a problem plowing with the big truck, and visibility is good when backing with those trucks. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 SANITARY SEWER FEASIBILITY/BRUCE HAY Mr. Schumacher reviewed the Report to the Andover City Council for Feasibility of Gravity Service to Bruce Hay Property Through the Coon Rapids Interceptor dated April 17, 1981, noting the conclusions, recommending the City not extend service to this property through the Coon Rapids Interceptor but continue to pursue service to this area through the CAB Interceptor. He stated he considered the developable area as that area above the flood plain, and it would only be developable below 870 as allowed by the City's Flood Plain Ordinance. Discussion noted that the property in question is owned by two individuals: Bruce Hay and Rosella Sonsteby. Discussion was then on the current staging plans of the CAB Interceptor. Mayor Windschit1 understood that the CAB is going to be constructed in the City of Anoka this year. The Anoka Treatment Plant is being considered as part of the CAB, and there is some speculation that that treatment plant may be enlarged. That initial phase does not include any service to Andover. Discussion noted that part of the pipe to service Andover is already laid, but the question is with the expansion of the treatment plant, whether the internal lines in Anoka have the capacity to handle the western portion of Andover through the existing interceptor. Bruce Hay - stated the CAB would be hooking into the existing stub, which is a 36- inch 11ne. He did not know exactly where it was located in the City of Anoka, but it connects to Anoka's lines, which are small and not able to handle that much capacity. Mr. Hay stated they need a request from the City that the bottom end of the existing stub be completed into the CAB Interceptor so he can get sewered in his area. Mayor Windschit1 then read a letter from Rosella Sonsteby dated April 21, 1981, for the record, of her request that sanitary sewer be made available as soon as possible to all her property in the CAB service area. Timothy Thornton, Mr. Hay's Attorney - stated that a substantial portion of the property south of Mr. Hay's property to the City limits is owned by Mrs. Sonsteby, and both property owners are requesting sanitary sewer service. He stated they would urge the Council to make the request for the CAB Interceptor to the Metro Council, but they are also interested in tying into the Coon Rapids Interceptor on a temporary basis. ~s. Sonsteby - estimated she owns 80 buildable acres in the CAB designated area. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, directing the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution stating that the Council finds that the Bruce Hay/Rosella Sonsteby property does not presently have access to the Coon Rapids Interceptor sanitary sewer system, stating the engineering and policy reasons stated in the Report of April 17; and stating the need for the CAB Interceptor in that area within our MUSA area justifying such a need for this request by the requests by Mr. Hay and Ms. Sonsteby, and have that forwarded to the MWCC and the Met Council. DISCUSSION: It was suggested the motion be split into two motions, acting on the second portion, the request for the CAB Interceptor, first. Councilman Peach AGREED to the suggestion. Second still stands. DISCUSSION CONTINUED: Councilman lachinski questioned if a feasibility report should be prepared and to have input from the other property owners involved as well. Councilman Peach stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan already designates that area as the CAB area. Councilman Ortte1 also explained that the City has been told by Met Council that when requests come in showing a need for this service, they would like to be notified so they can include it in their plans. Councilman Lachinski felt the request would be adverse to what the City is trying to accomplish with the Metro Council at this time relative to the developable land in the urban service area through 1990. He felt that the expansion of this may jeopardize what is already f . . Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Sanitary Sewer Feasibility/Bruce Hay, Continued) constructed in the Coon Rapids Interceptor line if development and connections in that area is slowed or delayed as a result of the CAB expansion. Councilman Peach stated his motion is to inform the Metro Council that the City now has requests for the service from the CAB and also to protect Mr. Hay's property rights since the court decision requires him to request service within two years of its availability. But it is found from both engineering and policy standpoints that sewer service is not presently available to his property. Mr. Hay also stated that between Ms. Sonsteby and himself, the CAB sewer line would not have to leave their property to provide service for them. Mr. Thornton also stated that Mr. Hay and Ms. Sonsteby own 99 percent of the property that would be served except for the gas company. Councilmen Ortte1 and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the feasibility report and recommendations of gravity service to the Bruce Hay and Sonsteby property through the Coon Rapids Interceptor as prepared by the City Engineer; and that in addition to accepting the feasib1ity report and its recommendations by the City Engineer, that the City of Andover does not consider the said property to have sewer availability at this time through the Coon Rapids Interceptor because we agree with the recommenda- tion. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hay took exception with a lot of things stated in the report, but did not go into detall at this time. Mr. Thornton stated they have given the Council a collection of statements made by the Metro Council on the City's policy and ]uide1ines. He commented on the dire need for moderat~to low-income housing in the urban service area, feeling this proeprty is most avai1ab1e for that. They are re- questing being given temporary access to the Coon Rapids system, and suggested the Council make a request to the Metro Council, based on Metro Council's own guidelines about the need for this type of housing, to grant Andover an additional 55 acres in the pre-1990 development area because of the unique opportunity for this 55 acres to be developed to provide this type of low-income housing. That would then proivde an opportunity for them to convince Metro Council to give the extra 55 acres and to be allowed to temporarily hook into the Coon Rapids Interceptor, pending the potential availability of the CAB. In view of the fact that Mr. Hay has been waiting in line for this service since 1974, because there is a need for this type of housing, to be consistent with the guidelines promogated with the development of the Comprehensive Plan, and to be consistent with the City's responsibility to provide this type of housing, Mr. Thornton felt this request is reasonable. He requested the motion be denied and a new motion made allowing Mr. Hay to temporarily tie into the Coon Rapids line, supporting the request that the City ask the Metro Council to extend the CAB line to service the property ultimately. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach that the Clerk prepare a Resolution stating our need for the CAB Interceptor in our MUSA area, justifying such a need by the requests from Mr. Hay and Ms. Sonsteby for such service, and that the Resolution be forwarded to the MWCC and the Metro Council. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Clerk be directed to prepare a Resolution to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission stating that the City of Andover has two specific requests from Bruce Hay and Rosella Sonsteby for the extension of the CAB Interceptor and the City would like to again be included into the planning for the extension of the CAB Interceptor. Motion carried unan imous 1y. It was agreed that any documents submitted by Mr. Hay and Mr. Thornton could be enclosed with the Resolution, with Mr. Thornton agreeing to submit a letter summarizing Mr. Hay's position. Councilman Peach also asked that the Minutes reflect that this activity is in no way the Council's endorsement of whatever development plans they have for that area. A lengthy discussion then ensued between the Council, Mr. Hay and f· . Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Sanitary Sewer Feasibility/Bruce Hay, Continued) Mr. Thornton on the request to the Metro Council to allow Andover an additional 55 acres for pre-1990 development and to temporarily include Hay's area in the Coon Rapids line. The Council generally took the position to take no action on that request until after an agreement can be reached between the City and the Metro- politan Council rea1tive to the pre-1990 urban service development issue with the City's Comprehensive Development Plan. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/HAND CONSTRUCTION Jerry Johnson, P & ZCommissioner, reviewed the April 8, 1981 . memo of the Commission's recommendation to approve a Special Use Permit for Hand Construction to build a twin home with zero lot line on Lot 3, Block 1, East Brook Terrace. Attorney Hawkins also stated there was a question as to the effect of public opposition when making a decision on the matter, as there was substantial neighborhood opposition to this project. The fact that there is neighborhood opposition is not in itself a reason for denying a use allowed by special use permit. But if the opposition raised falls within the classifications the permit must meet under the ordinance, then it can be considered. Discussion noted there are two other multiples on the street, Lot 2 and Lot 8, plus one on the corner, Lot 6. There are also three vacant lots, Lots 3, 5, and 7 on that side of the street, plus one vacant lot on the other side. Frank Stone, 2725 134th Lane - adjoins the property in question to the east. Mr. Stone stated they petitloned the neighborhood, and 90 percent of the people living there felt the lot should be left single family residential, including those living in the multiples. The main concerns are the tearing up of the streets to bring in the extra sewer lines to serve a double and the traffic problem already in existence because, of the multiples there. He stated that Mr. Hand has indicated he would put in a single home if this request was denied, and the residents would rather see a cheap single-family home there rather than a double. Mr. Stone also stated that it is a quiet residential area except for the traffic problems, which have been solved some- what due to a "good" landlord on the end. He is also concerned with the effect on property value and on the problem of transient owners, citing his experience with high occupancy turnover of such dwellings and the deterioration of the building itself. Eldon Miller, 2732 134th Lane - across from the lot in question. Asked if it has been investigated as to whether the size of the sewer will be sufficient to serve the additional units and who pays for it if there should be sewer problems. He felt that if a double is allowed on this lot, there is nothing to prevent multiples from being constructed on the remaining vacant lots as well. Mr. Schumacher assured Mr. Miller that the capacity of the sewer line is sufficient to accommodate a double on that lot, the size originally determined on a mixture of single and multiple units in an area. There is an 8-inch line there, which is the minimum standard for a lateral line. The line from the house to the street is the homeowner's responsibility to maintain; and though he didn't foresee any problem with the street lines, if there is, it is theCity's responsibility. Council discussion was on the mechanics of implementing Mr. Hand's request, noting that the separate ownership of a twin home was never done before in the City excpet under a Planned Unit Development where it is tied to a contract, lot plan, and party wall agreement. This plan implies a lot split is involved to sell the two units, and the question is if a lot split is allowed if the area does not meet minimum standards. Attorney Hawkins advised that if a special use permit with zero lot line is approved, the Council may want some documents tied to it such as a party wall agreement. It was agreed to recess to allow the Attorney time to research the ordinances as to whether the proposal is allowed. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Special Use Permit/Hand Construction, Continued) Recess at 9:24; reconvene at 9:38 p.m. Attorney Hawkins stated Section 6.02 of Ordinance 8 provides that single famiìy homes in the R-4 district need 13,000 square feet, but for two-family homes only 7,000 square feet is needed. If the individual wishes to have a double and wishes to split the lot, he can do so by making application for the special use permit and a lot split providing it meets the ordinance requirements. Apparently the City has not been enforcing the policy of asking for a lot split for two-family homes, but he felt it could be treated as a part of this application. A variance would also be required to vary from the setback requirements. Les Hughes, 2720 134th Lane NW - across and down one lot from the property in question. He stated the amount of traffic on the street cannot be realized until one has lived in the area. The traffic is all the time, day and night. Mr. Hughes stated the owner of Lots 5 and 7 has indicated he wants to put doubles on them; and with the current traffic this would amount to another six families on that street. Dick Hand, 3775 217th Avenue NW, Anoka - stated he could build a single family on there; but the lot and assessments were quite expensive, and he felt he could build a nice double and sell each side for approximately $50,000, which could be sold easier than a $70,000 single home. He has to compete with Good Value selling for $59,000. Mr. Hand felt the lot is large enough for a double, and he was told when he purchased the lot that a double is allowed by ordinance. He also built a lot in Andover and elsewhere and didn't feel he's built a "shack" yet. He also stated he must have two wells to build with a zero lot line in order to get financing. Mr. Hughes - commented that they had to pay assessments on their property as well. He didn't feel the value of the lot has anything to do with the value of the home to be constructed, but it should be built according to the existing homes. Mr. Hughes also stated that there were more names on the petition presented than existing lots because some signatures were those of renters who did not want a double there either. Council discussion noted the issues of a special use permit to allow construction of a double-family house, the lot split to provide for separate ownership, the variances from the setback requirements, the number of wells, and the documentation for a party_ wall agreement. Because of the many issues and because it is the first time this concept has been considered, there was uncertainty as to the mechanics of implementing the request. Mr. Stone - stated three years ago when he purchased his home he was told the remaining vacant lots would be single family homes based on the one sanitary sewer stub per lot. If multiples are built on the remaining lots, he is in the middle of a group of double bungalows, which wouldn't benefit him at all. Council agreed that the question of the criteria to be considered to determine the number of doubles to be allowed in an R-4 single-family residential area needs to be addressed. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the issue of multiple units in single-family resldentia1 areas, including the zero lot line concept for those multiple units, be referred to the Planning Commission to hold the appropriate hearings for any amend- ments they deem necessary. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we table discussion on the Hand Construction Special Use Permit until the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow Mr. Hand time to forward to the Attorney his agreement for the zero lot line considerations. DISCUSSION: was that the Attorney and Clerk should draft a motion for the next meeting listing all the requirements. Mr. Hawkins felt that all the provisions of the lot split ordinance can be met prior to the next Council meeting. Councilman Jacobson Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Special Use Permit/Hand Construction, Continued) stated he would probably opposed the request in terms of the general welfare of the residents and the effect of having doubles on the remaining vacant lots. He didn't feel people in single-family homes should be surrounded with doubles, feeling there should be a percentage of them in an area. Mr. Hand - stated he is withdrawing his request for a special use permit and will build a slngle-fami1y home on that lot. He then left the meeting. Councilmen Peach and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. 1980-3/CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 Mr. Schumacher explained the change order is for 1) to put in additional pipe for backyard drainage between Woodbine and Xenia to continue functioning since the street section has been changed from the modified ditch section to concrete curb and gutter and to fill in the ditch, cost of $5,585; and 2) to move· the low point on l4lst Lane in Quickstrom Addition approximately 70 feet to the east to prevent the removal and replacement of a large concrete driveway near Round Lake Boulevard, cost of $2,772. Art Speaker, 14346 Woodbine Street - reviewed the reasons the storm drainage system was lnstalled years ago; but he couldn't understand why, when it was originally put in, it wasn't adequate to meet the pipe system. The ditches along Xenia and the drainage to the pipe are still necessary today. He felt that the problem could be solved by putting additional pipe to hook into the existing pipe under the driveways and run it down and across the street. The ditches are now filled up from this project, and he related incidences of near flooding as a result. He didn't understand why the ditches were allowed to be filled without giving some thought as to where the water is to go. Mr. Schumacher stated that the change order proposed is exactly what Mr. Speaker has suggested. Rosella Sonsteby - drew a sketch on the blackboard of the drainage area, and stated the City has no easement to run storm drainage on her property. She had originally agreed to have culverts installed and the ditch to run the water to her land temporarily, out of the goodness of her heart, so those houses would not be flooded. But there is no easement there, and the water would now be running into her lot to which she objected. With the storm sewer being installed in the project, she felt that should take care of the problem and the water should no longer run to her property. She is also not willing to grant an easement for this. Mr. Schumacher stated that with the proposal, the water will continue to drain as it always has, that the drainage will not be rerouted in any way. Mr. Hawkins stated if the water has always run there and it still goes to the same place, he didn't see any difference whether it runs in an open ditch or through an underground pipe system. He didn't see a problem if the water follows the existing course. Ms. Sonsteby stated it hasn't been draining there all the time but it was just to help out those people at the time. There is no easement there, and again suggested the water be run through the other storm sewer system. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the reasons for the change order in Quickstrom Addition. Dick Martin, 3552 141st - his lot was built on the existing street and either the low point has to be moved or approximately 2/3 of his driveway taken out. It would leave him with a driveway that goes downhill, plus his lot would have to be built down to the driveway. It appears they can move the drain spot further down to accomplish the same thing and leave the level of the road where it originally was to meet his drive- way. It was an engineering mistake that will now cost either $3,000 to remove his driveway or $2,700 to move the low spot. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Change Order No.5 to the Southwest Area Improvement project in the amount of $8,357. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (1980-3/Change Order No.5, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we direct TKDA to look at alternative solutlons to solving the problems in Auditor's Subdivision 82 indicated in Change Order No.5. Motion carried unanimously. FEASIBILITY REPORT/171ST AVENUE Mr. Winner reviewed the April 17, 1981, Feasibility of 171st Avenue NW Extension, noting the estimated project cost to De $16,300, the estimated cost of the cu1-de- sac to be $6,250, and reviewing the alternative methods of assessing the project. Discussion was on the construction of the cul-de-sac, with the Council feeling two lots could be created on Mr. Loftus' property without the cul-de-sac and that the construction of the cul-de-sac is not germane to this project. Council also questioned the estimated cost of the extension of 171st, feeling $16,000 was quite high. Discussion was also on the method of assessment, questioning if a unit assessment can be justified when the lot faces another street (referring to Lot 1 in Oakwood Estates), and questioning if some of the assessment should be spread over the White Oaks area project since the primary reason for the extension of 171st is to provide another access for that deve 1 opment. Larry Carlson, developer of Oakwood Estates to the south of the proposed extension - understood that the primary reason for the extension of the road is for fire and police protection. If so, it seemed to him the cost could come from general funds. He felt Mr. Winner's figures are high, with the side lot assessment coming close to his total construction cost per lot including grubbing, clearing, asphalt, etc., which he estimated to be between $5,500 and $6,000 per lot. Mr. Carlson talked with his road builder briefly, who felt he could do the ground work for between $2,500 and $3,000, but that is not a bid. Mr. Carlson also suggested assessing Mr. Loftus to what is simi1iar to normal development costs and let the excess fall into the general improvement. Or assess Mr. Loftus what is normal deve10ment cost and divide the remaining costs either by 34 lots or 37 lots, which would include his lots as well, indicating his calculations for possible assessments if done in that fashion. He also noted that his contractor will be finished and will be pulling his equipment tomorrow. Discussion noted that since the initial ground work is less than $10,000, that the Council could simply solicit quotes for that portion of the project. Discussion was then on various proposals of assessing the street extension. Bob Loftus - asked several questions relative to clarifying the Council's suggestions. Council response was that it is anticipated that Mr. Loftus would be assessed for two units since he would be able to develop two lots in that area; that it is felt two buildable lots could be created without the construction of the cul-de-sac; that the unit assessment would be the same as for those lots in the White Oaks improvement project; that the intitial grub work for the extension could be done on a quote with the gravel and blacktop done with the White Oaks project; and that all costs would go to the White Oaks project to be divided among all units involved, including two lots of Mr. Loftus. There was also some questions of Mr. Loftus as to his waiving the 429 proceedings to expedite the project. Mr. Loftus stated at this time he foresaw no problem with the proposal but could not make a comnitment this evening until he has talked with his lawyer. Discussion was postponed until a motion could be drafted on the issue. PUMPHOUSE CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we deny Change Order No.5 for epoxy coating on the pumphouse floor and direct City Staff to purchase materials and apply the sealer itself at the appropriate time. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Pumphouse Change Order No.5, Continued) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1 Motion carried. Councilman Ortte1 stated that according to the memo from TKDA, this should have already been done, and it further states that our staff does not have the time to do it. He didn't feel the Council should jeopardize the job. Mr. Schumacher stated that by doing it as soon as possible the chance of any staining on the floor is eliminated. Councilman Lachinski felt that with the amount of time spent on this to save $200 or $300, no money was saved at all. The principle of it was the reason he voted no. In answer to Councilman Peach's question, Ray Sowada felt that Kevin Starr would have the time to do the job within the next few weeks. RED OAKS DRIVEWAY COMPLAINT It was agreed to postpone action on this item since Mr. Buckhouse was not present. RESIDENT LETTERS/1979-2, 1980-1 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to approve the letters as dictated by the City Englneer regarding 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement Nos. 1 and 2, Eidelweiss Street North of Bunker Lake Boulevard and 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement Nos. 1 and 2, except 138th Avenue, Xavis Street, and Eide1weiss Street North of Bunker Lake Boulevard, and authorize the City Clerk to mail said letters to the individuals involved setting the date for the public hearing for the second regularly scheduled City Council Meeting in June. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, directing the City Clerk to send out letters written by the City Engineer regarding the 1979 Street and Drainage Improvement No. 2 to the involved property owners, setting the date for the public hearing as the second regularly scheduled meeting date in July. Motion carried unanimously. SEWER STUBS/SONSTEBY Mr. Schumacher stated that the road will not be constructed now. His concern was that if services are supplied and if the property were to come back platted in a different form, maybe the services would not be needed where they are asked to be installed now. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the installation of sewer stubs on property owned by Rosella Sonsteby in the City of Andover with such locations being agreed to by the Engineer and Rosella (Sonsteby) and acceptance by Mrs. Sonsteby of the costs thereof in writing. Motion carried unanimously. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we have the Clerk contact the County of Anoka ìn regards to acquiring two parcels of tax forfeit property, that being the piece in Cedar Crest Estates which abutts the City park and the piece to the immediate east of Tulip Street in Section 17. Motion carried unanimously. TERMINATION/KELLER MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that due to the fact that Ron Keller has obtained full-time employment, his temporary full-time employee status with the City of Andover be terminated with the understanding that should he be needed for part-time work he can be contracted to work in that capacity as needed. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 19S1 - Minutes Page 10 WATER PERMIT/WALLACE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that City of Andover takes noted that it has been notified of the application for permit through the State of Minnesota by Mr. Mike Wallace to take water out of Coon Creek for the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 32, Range 24, County of Anoka. Motion carried unanimously. ¿71ST AVENUE, CONTINUED MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council agrees in concept to allow Mr. Loftus to create kwo additional lots under the Lot Split Ordinance on the following described property (insert legal), with the following contingencies: that Mr. Loftus will pay $200 in park dedication fees; that Mr. Loftus will dedicate right of way for construction of 171st Street; and that Mr. Loftus will waive the 429 procedure and agrees to accept two unit assessments equal to other lots within the White Oaks area. which is approximately $6,SOO for two lots; and that the City Council directs the City Engineer and City Attorney to work with Mr. Loftus to obtain the necessary documents and lot split; and that the City can obtain a release agreement from NSP to build 171st on their property. DISCUSSION: The implication is that all funds expended for the construction and improvement of 171st Street extension will be added to the White Oaks project and divided on a unit assessment. Council discussed the number of units receiving benefit in the project, questioning whether those lots on 172nd are receiving benefit by the extension and questioning whether those two un- platted areas abutting White Oaks should be assessed as well. The Clerk also noted that if the idea is to charge a cost of the 171st extension to those in White Oaks, they must be notified and a public hearing held on the project. She also noted that the Council previously scheduled a public hearing for the extension of 171st for May 5. There was no consensus by the Council at this time as to whether or not those on 172nd receive benefit and can be assessed for a portion of the 171st extension. It was generally felt that the unplatted areas abutting White Oaks should not be included in the project at this time. Mr. Carlson estimated it would cost him approximately $15 per linear foot to construct the 171st extension, noting the total cost would be less if it weren't coming into the public hearing process. It was then agreed that all lots in the White Oaks area project are to be notified and included in the May 5 public hearing for the extension of 171st. Councilman Lachinski CHANGED MOTION: that that portion of the motion waiving the 429 procedure be taken out. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that all residents in the 81-1 project be notlfied of the May 5 public hearing which would include the costs of 171st. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Winner was asked to have as accurate cost estimates as possible and to obtain informal quotes from Burton Kraabe1 and Mr. Thayer to bring the 17lst extension to grade. WATER ORDINANCE It was agreed to discuss this item at Thursday's special Council meeting. LIQUOR STUDY COMMITTEE/LIQUOR ORDINANCE Jim Elling, Liquor Study Commitee, stated the proposed ordinance is the first draft, and all suggestions made by the Attorney have been made except for Items 1 and 5 of the letter, which the Committee felt should be left to the Council's discretion. The Council and Mr. Elling then reviewed the proposed ordinance and made the following comments, suggestions, and recommendations: Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 (Liquor Ordinance, Continued) pa,e 1, Section 2: Discussion was on the requirements of minimum seating capacity, do lar limit of capital investment and/or percentage of gross sales for food. The Council's concern was to attract a "nice" restaurant, some feeling that the minimum seating capacity should be 125 to 150 guests rather than 30 as suggested in the proposed ordinance. There was also concern about setting a dollar limit on the amount of capital investment as it would require an adjustment to that figure periodically because of inflation. Some felt it would be best to require a certain percentage of the gross sales to be for food, or a combination of percentage and minimum seating capacity or capital expenditure. It was suggested that for the next discussion, each Councilman review the original summary made by the Liquor Study Committee on licensing requirements of the surrounding cities and be prepared to make a recommeda- tion on this issue. Page 1, Sec. 2, Subdivision 4: lhe question was on the issuance of "off-sale" to drug stores. Attorney Hawkins noted this is State Law but would research as to whether it could be excluded in the City's ordinance. Page 1, Sec. 2, Subdivision 5: Attorney Hawkins stated this is from the State Statute. Mr. Elling stated that the City could issue one of the original six "on-sale" liquor licenses to a Club to begin with and after it has been in existence for 15 years or more, they would qualify for a Special Club License, which are licenses in addition to the six liquor licenses the City is allowed to issue. Page 1, Sec. 2, Subdivision 3: Mr. Elling stated the reason no minimum requirements are established for "on-sale" wine licenses is to allow their issuance to a "Shakey's"- or "Pizza Hut"-type establishment, but the establishment must meet the qualifications under MN Statute Sec. 340.11. The issuance of eight "on-sale" wine licenses is an arbitrary number compromised by the Liquor Study Committee. Mr. Elling explained that the State Statute dictates that the City is allowed to issue six "on-sale" licenses at this time, subject to change with a population increase. Strong beer would come under the liquor license and 3.2 beer is regulated by Andover's Ordinance No. 28, which is compatible with this proposed ordinance. Page 2, Sec. 3, Subdivision 2: Question was on the bond being provided at the time the app1icatlon lS needed, feeling the bond would run with the length of the license and wouldn't be provided at the time of application. Mr. Elling felt the intent is to show that the applicant is bondable and insurable. Attorney Hawkins will research this further. . paåe 2, Sec. 3, Subdivision 1: Attorney Hawkins clarified that intoxicating liquor an llquor does lnclude wine under the State Statute. Page 2, Sec. 3, Subdivision 4: Discussion was whether "on-sale" liquor should also be included. Attorney Hawklns stated that the State Commissioner of Public Safety does not have to approve "on-sale" liquor licenses. Last line of Subdivision 4: It was suggested that it read "...security as required in Subdivisions 2 and 3 shall be cause for automatic revocation..." Page 3, Sec. 4, Subdivision 1: Second line, Correct to "...$150.000 for an..." Page 3, Sec. 5, Subdivision 1: Third line from bottom, add: "...or other appropriate departments." Page 4, Sec. 5, Subdivision 3: Discussion was on the last sentence relative to any transfer of stock or a corporate license is deemed a transfer of the license. Some argued that this could be unnecessarily restrictive if the Council would approve every stock transfer, suggesting that a controlling interest, a majority of stock transfer, or a specific percentage be specified instead. Attorney Hawkins was directed to reword Regular City Council Meetirig~ April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 12 (Liquor Ordinance, Continued) the section to allow for a percentage of the stock transfer without prior Council approval, leaving the specific number blank. Further consideration on the item will be given when the ordinance is discussed again. Page 4, Section 6: Discussion was on the requirement that the license cannot be issued to an individual who is not a resident of the City, with several Councilmen feeling that requirement is too restrictive. No action was taken at this time. Oiscussion was also on the third sentence of not issuing more than one intoxicating liquor license to anyone person. Mr. Elling stated the reason is so one person cannot monopolize the licenses in the City. Council suggestions were that no more than one of the same type of license would be issued, but felt further investigation is needed to allow issuing several licenses to an individual for the same location. Mr. Elling stated that the Liquor Study Committee originally considered combination licenses but dropped the idea after receiving negative responses from the Council. Page 4, Sec. 5, Subdivision 2: first line, add, "The City Council or its designee shall investigate..." Page 4, Subdivision 3: last line, change to: "...prior Council approval shall be cause for revocation..." Page 5, Subdivision 3, top of page: Discussion was on the distance from school or church, with some debate over whether the distance from a church should remain at 400 feet, which is compatible with the City's other ordinances, or should it be raised to 1,000 feet to be equal to the distance from a school. Debate was also on how the distance should be measured -- from building to building or property line to property line. After a lengthy discussion, it was suggested the subdivision read that no license shall be granted within 1,000 feet of any school property, the feeling being that children make active use of the grounds, and that no license be granted within 400 feet of any church building. Page 5, Sec. 9, Subdivision 2: It was felt that consumption in public places is controlled by other Clty ordlnances and that this section should be deleted entirely; however, the Park Ordinance should be researched to determine whether consumption of liquor is allowed in the City's parks. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we direct the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider modifications to the zoning ordinance for implementation of the liquor ordinance. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. It was agreed the Council will hold a public hearing on the ordinance as soon as the P & Z has made their recommendations. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Fire Chief Bob Palmer informed the Council that the repair of the Ram Charger was more than he had anticipated, coming to slightly over $1,530. Discussion was on the concern that the amount exceeds the allowable limit, suggesting the contractor provide an estimate prior to beginning any work in the future. Chief Palmer felt that with this repair the vehicle should remain in good condition for another three to four years. He also suggested the money be taken from the Department's Capital Improvements - Equipment budget. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council ~pprove an expenditure in the amount of up to $1,535 for the repair of the mechanics of the Fire Chief's vehicle with the funds to come out of the Capital Outlay for Equipment portion of their 1981 budget. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 13 (AVFD Report, Continued) Chief Palmer stated their account with Genuine Parts has been canceled, claiming the City has not paid the bills. Ms. Lindquist stated all bills received have been paid. Chief Palmer presented a personal check for $8.90 to repay the City for business cards he had made as Fire Chief. Council stated the bill was approved, that the Chief was not requested to reimburse that expense, and agreed that the check be returned to Chief Palmer. There was some discussion on the problem of sharing tools between the Fire Department and Public Works. Mr. Sowada and Mr. Stone felt that the problem has been resolved, noting there are specific people assigned to maintenance. It was also generally agreed that both the Public Works and Fire Department sides of the building should be locked when no one is present. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Checks 3975 through 3988 in the amount of $5,036.32. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve Check 459 and 460 to Burke & Hawklns for $105.20 and Kenko for $46,359.61, for a total of $46,464.81. Motion carried unanimously. 1981-1 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROEJCT There was some discussion on the April 21, 1981, memo from the Acting Administrator on the final plans and specifications for White Oaks Country Estates in that Mr. Winner contracted with Cane-O'Ma11y to do the surveying. Mr. Winner stated he did contract with the firm, estimating it would cost $900 to $1,000 to complete the job. He assured the Council he would have the plans ready by the May 5 deadline and didn't feel he would need any other outisde help for preparing those final plans. There was some discussion as to whether Council approval was needed prior to Mr. Winner's contracting with the firm in this particular project, some feeling it was assumed all work would be done "in-house" and others feeling the action was within Mr. Winner's author ity. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the firm of Caine-O'Ma11y to do initial surveying work on the 81-1 Street Improvement Project. DISCUSSION: Mr. Winner stated he did not receive quotes from the other Engineering firms, feeling because Caine-O'Malley was the closest it would be the least expensive. It was suggested that when projects are undertaken in-house that the Council should know roughly what the costs are and approve them, possibly ahead of time. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \\~vM,' cc(;::L Mar ella A. Peach Recording Secretary