Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 7, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 7, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on April 7, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RES !DENT FORUM John Zi11hardt, 3753 145~h - lives on a short deadend spur of 145th in Auditor's Sub.- divislon 82. Original plans for the street call for a large turnaround there. There are two families living on that street, and he asked that consideration be given to leaving the area with grass and trees rather than paving a turnaround. Mr. Zi llhardt went on to state that the Building Inspector felt it would be just as easy to back the snowplow out of that section of street rather than using a turnaround at the end. Mr. Zi11hardt preferred that the street end at his driveway. Discussion noted that there is a garage at the end of this street, that it is an engineering decision, with Mr. Schumacher indicating they will stop operations in that area until a decision has been made. The matter is to be placed on the next Council Agenda. Mr. Zillhardt - stated that during the public hearings for sanitary sewer. the consulting engineer had given the impression that the homeowner could hook up to the sanitary sewer. He now finds that the permit must be pulled by a master plumber, and he asked if some consideration could be made to allow the homeowner to save money by doing the work himself when connecting to the sanitary sewer. He felt the costs of having a contractor doing the hookup is very expensive. After some discussion, the Attorney·was asked to research the Code as to the requirement of a master plumber pulling the permit. Mike Wallace - presented a form indicating his intent to apply for a pumping permit to irrigate some land. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, the adoption of the Agenda as printed with the additlon of 4 (a), Physical Development/Metropolitan Council Report, and 4m, Change Order 4 and 5, and 4q, PCA Request. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanlmous1y. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT/METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REPORT Councilman Orttel stated that the City's Comprehensive Development Plan went before the Physical Development Committee last Thursday. The Metropolitan Council Staff report had a prepared Resolution for action of the Physical Development Committee in forwarding the Plan to the full Metropolitan Council. According to their projections, Andover will be allowed to develop the equivalent of 346 acres of residential total development between now and 1990, in which the City is allowed a maximum of .93 million gallons a day sewage flow through the Coon Rapids Interceptor. The Plan shows a potential urban development area of 1250 acres by 1990, and Councilman Ortte1 explained to them that that represents a search area. Before they approve the City I s Plan, however, they are requiring the City to specify which acres will be developed by plat , "- ..... Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Physical Development/Metropolitan Council Report, Continued) and parcel, allowing a search area of approximately 700 acres, with a total development of 346 acres to occur within that search site. Councilman Orttel stated both he and Mr. Schumacher explained why the City felt it couldn't comply with that, but the City's Metro Council representative spoke out against the City. Councilman Ortte1 thought there may be a problem with the .93 million gallons a day sewage flow allowed to the City by 1990 if the Metro Council is considering present flow from all existing development in the urban service area, when in actuality there are many existing developments within that area that are not yet serviced with sanitary sewer. Servicing the existing development with sanitary sewer may already equate to the capacity they are allowing the City for the next 10 years. Mr. Schumacher stated that should the total 1200 acres available to the Coon Rapids Interceptor be developed, it could result in over 1.3 million gallons per day of sewage flow, which would exceed the allowable limit by 30 percent. Councilman Ortte1 went on to report the events of the meeting, stating the problems the City has with specifying the specific areas that will develop over the next 10 years, noting the possible result of more rural development if the urban area is not allowed to develop. The Metro Council agreed to talk about the issues on a staff level. There is also a question as to what happens next with the City's Plan accepted bµt not approved. Chairman Bose11 stated that the City will not be receiving any additional information from the Metro Council until the full Council meets and acts next Thursday. Council agreed to postpone action until after Metro Council acts next week, and then possibly meet to address this one issue. Councilman Peach also noted with dispair that the City's representative has been reappointed without consulting the City. OAKWOOD ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Bose11 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the preliminary plat. Mr. Winner indicated that all engineering corrections to the plat have been made. Chairman Bosel1 stated that the Commission dealt extensively with how to get accessibility to White Oaks Country Estates, finally feeling that Alternative No.2 would provide for the best utilization of the land, that being the extension of 171st Avenue from White Oaks westward along Mr. Loftus' property to the north of this plat to meet Eide1weiss. They are recommending that the connection to White Oaks be done at such time as the property to the north develops or that the City condemn about 415 feet on the northern most property and have it constructioned at the same time as the streets in Oakwood are constructed. The last Alternative, No.4, takes less of Mr. Loftus' property than the others, which is also a reasonable alternative. Councilman Peach was concerned that White Oaks Country Estates does not have adequate access as it is and felt it is not good planning not to connect this plat to White Oaks. And there may be a cost savings if it were done how while contractors are in Oakwood Estates or if the street improvement is ordered for White Oaks. John Cande11, Attorney representing Mr. Loftus, property owner to the north of the plat - 1hey are most in favor of the alternative that 171st would not be connected until Mr. Loftus is ready to subdivide his property. Presently Mr. Loftus is content to leave his property as is but realizing that at some point 171st is to be connected according to the Council's wishes. At this point to connect the street and to assess the cost against Mr. Loftus' property places what he considers to be an unfair burden on him at this time. The property is presently in its natural state used for family recreational purposes. Jack Pixley - owns the property in White Oaks adjacent to the property being developed. He asked the specific location of the road extension proposal. After viewing the pro- posal, he stated he had no problem with it. Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Oakwood Estates - Preliminary Plat, Continued) Discussion continued on the various proposals to connect 171st in White Oaks to Oakwood Estates. Lawrence Carlson, developer of Oakwood Estates - was also in favor of Alternative No. 2 because it was the existing layout when the plat was approved previously and the road areas were already cleared. It is heavily wooded. The road also bends around a natural drainage which they can use for ponding. Also, Alternative No.4 is much less desirable relative to the utilization of the land to the north of the plat for future subdivision. Mr. Candell - agreed that Alternative No.2 is a better alternative than that of No.4 ln terms of the use of the land. The concern is paying for the street without having it assessed entirely against Mr. Loftus' property. The effect against Mr. Loftus' annual taxes could be considerable unless he is forced to sell some land, which he hasn't given any consideration to at this point. He stated if that extension would serve the needs of a number of people, possibly that assessment could be spread in a more equitable manner over a larger parcel of property. Discussion was that Mr. Loftus' property is in Green Acres, and the assessment would then be deferred, although it still accrues interest. Also, if it were built under the normal assessment policy, Mr. Loftus would be billed for only his half of the street, the other side being assessed under the corner lot policy. It was also pointed out that in the future when Mr. Loftus does develop the property, the City will require the street to be put in (referring to 171st), and at that time it would be done totally at the developer's expense and bearing the full burden of the street. Chairman Bosel1 felt that some decision should be made on connecting White Oaks Country Estates, citing the Fire Chief's concern for an additional access to that development. The Commission is also recommending a street name change in Kadlec Addition. Also, at the time Mr. Kadlec property was developed, the park dedication money was ear- marked for Wobegon park, and the Commission felt that perhaps the park money from this development could be earmarked for White Oaks Country Estates park. After further discussion, Mr. Loftus agreed to attend the public hearing for the street improvement of White Oaks Country Estates on April 8. The Council generally agreed that another access to White Oaks should be provided, but that that connection lies outside the Oakwood Estates plat and should be dealt with separately. Council also felt that the Park Board should make its own designation as to where the park dedication fees should be used. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, approving the Preliminary Plat for Oakwood Estates for the reasons presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as presented in Resolution No. 19 with the following two changes: in the second paragraph where Commission recommends that money be accepted in lieu of land, that we insert the number $5,800 be accepted in lieu of land. And at the end of the paragraph should read the Engineer's report of March 6, the most reasonable street pattern; strike out everything following. (See Resolution R19-81) DISCUSSION: Council generally felt that after the public hearing for the street improvement in White Oaks, the issue of extending 171st westward can be better addressed. Council again generally expressed a desire that the connection be made between 171st and Eide1weiss in Oakwood Estates. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, an Ordinance changing the street names of Flora Street NW to Ivywood Street NW between l69th Lane and l70th Aveunue in the subdivision known as Kadlec Addition, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 PETERSON/MOBILE HOME Attorney Hawkins summarized the issue of a mobile home placed on property owned by Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealer prior to the adoption of the City's Zoning and Mobile Home Park ordinance. The mobile home would have been designated a nonconforming use and would have been allowed to stay there until removed or occupancy was not available through its deterioration. The owner of the property has now substituted a mobile home and placed a new one, claiming that the fact that the location was there prior to the ordinance and that entitles him to continuously substitute mobile homes on the property. It is Mr. Hawkins' opinion that there is judicial decisions that would uphold the City's position that one cannot substitute newer mobile homes for nonconforming ones. There has now been a proposal to enter into an agreement rather than litigate the matter to grant permission for the new mobile home to stay on the property for five years and then remove it. The City's options at this time are to either commence litigation or attempt to compromise the dispute. It was Attorney Hawkins' opinion that negotiating a compromise in this instance would not set a precedent for the continuance of all other nonconforming uses in the City, as the ordinance clearly deals with structures; but in regard to mobile homes, the Council would be setting a precedent if a compromise was negotiated. However, if litigated, there are some questions about the ordinance since it doesn't specifically deal with mobile homes in the nonconforming use section, although the intent is clear that the nonconforming mobile homes can't be replaced, intending to eventually get nonconforming uses out of the area. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the Attorney to negotiate or enter lnto a stipulation agreement with Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers on the non- conforming mobile home (4605 165th Avenue NW);my idea would be to enter into a stipulation agreement to have the mobile home removed within a period of one year. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Windschit1 Motion carried. Councilman Lachinski felt that if the one year is not acceptable, the idea would be that the City would have to litigate at that point. Attorney Hawkins stated he would bring it back to the Council if a compromise cannot be reached. Mayor Windschit1 - I think this should be litigated right now and not try to negotiate for a period of time with removing that nonconforming use. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Jacobson, we refer the nonconforming use section of the ordlnance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for revision to take into the account all types of structures that may be in the City in a nonconforming use. Motion carried unanimously. SANITARY SEWER PETITION/BRUCE HAY Timothy R. Thornton, Attorney with the 1awfirm of Rider, Bennett, Egan and Arundel, 900 Flrst National Bank Building, Minneapolis, representing Bruce Hay, 39 North Oaks Road, St. Paul, MN 55110. Mr. Thornton - stated he wrote the City Clerk on March 18 on behalf of Mr. Hay regarding property west of Round Lake, east of Seventh Avenue with access from Seventh Avenue, which is subject to a Special Use Permit issued in 1974 providing for the development of a mobile home park on that property issued as a result of litigation. That Special Use Pmerit precludes development until municipal sanitary sewer is available. With the construction of the Coon Rapids Interceptor to the east of that property, it is Mr. Hay's belief that now city sewer is reasonably available to serve that property, that there is an excess capacity available on that interceptor, and he is proposing that he be given authorization to connect to that sewer and go forward with the Special Use Permit for a mobile home park. 116 acres are involved in the parcel, but Mr. Hay is Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Sanitary Sewer Petition/Bruce Hay, Continued) considering developing 55 acres at this time in three stages. Mr. Thornton continued stating that the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan makes reference to the commitment to provide moderate and low-cost housing, and mobile homes are specifically identified as a use consistent with that type of development. Mr. Hay's property is the only property available within the City that they are aware of that has the necessary zoning for this type of development and who stands ready to go forward in this type of development. He also stated that there is a demand for this type of housing in the community, especially because of the prohibitive costs of traditional stick-built family dwellings. He also stated that there have been dramatic changes in the industry, and manufactured housing now puts up the type of mobile home park that essentially looks like single family dwellings when it's done. And the incidence of mobility does not occur any longer but tends to be more permanent. It is understood that ultimately this property is to be served by the CAB Interceptor. They are proposing tying into the Coon Rapids Interceptor on a temporary basis until the CAB Interceptor is completed. They understand that the temporary tie-in will not overload the capacity of the Coon Rapids Interceptor,which appears to have been verified to them by the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Windschit1 stated that the decision to divide the urban service area between the CAB and Coon Rapids Interceptors was determined on the basis of gravity flow; that the City has a very limited flow into the Coon Rapids Interceptor citing the City's dispute with Metro Council calculations as noted in the discussion previously this evening on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thornton then reviewed a letter from the Program Manager of the Metro Council which in essence said that in selecting the development acres for 1980-1990 development, this parcel of property could very well be included and that the inclusion of this property would assist the City in providing its share of the need for moderate-cost housing. Mayor Windschtil stated that the City has clearly complied with that in the Plan, that portion already approved by the Metro Council. Bruce Hay - stated that the specific development within the urban service area to be designated is an arbitrary decision by the Council, and the Council does have the power to alter those lines so that his property can be included in that area. He assumed that if his property is not included, knowing that they have been waiting for seven years for city sewer, knowing that there is a need, that the City automatically and arbitrarily is eliminating him from that area. Council argued that the Metro Council is already asking the City to reduce down the size to approximately one-third of what was drawn and that the line was logically drawn on a gravity-flow basis. Mr. Hay stated he is only asking that the sewer be brought to the edge of his property 11ne, which is approxiamte1y 650 feet away. If that is not feasible, they will take it from where it is to his property and do whatever is necessary, and will hook into. the CAB when it becomes available. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution stating that it is the Council's opinion that sewer access has not been provided to Mr. Hay's property because it is in the CAB-designated area, and that a request be made stating a demonstrable need for the CAB Interceptor in the City because of development requests for moderate-type housing in that area; and that Resolution be sent to the Metropolitan Council. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hay argued that sewer access is available and that the lines were arbitrarily drawn, and they are asking for use of the Coon Rapids Interceptor until the CAB is constructed. But he did feel it was desirable to have the City indicate the need for the CAB and to request that that sewer be made available to that area. There was some disagreement between the Council and Engineers as to whether studies have been done relative to the gravity flow in that area. Attorney Hawkins stated that the City controls when sewer becomes available, but it really is an engineering question as to whether or not it is feasible . . ~ Regular City Council Meeting . April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Sanitary Sewer Petition/Bruce Hay, Continued) engineering-wise to extend the line, maintain it, and build the facilities in order to service that property. If we don't feel it is reasonable to extend it out, put in lift stations, etc., then it isn't available. Chairman Bosel1 also stated that at the time the decisions were made for the rezoning and changing of the boundaries, the City received no input from the landowner. Councilman Jacobson also stated that it may be somewhat irresponsible to allow this type development into the Coon Rapids Interceptor if the additional flow would then deny existing developments within the urban service area to connect to the sanitary sewer. Attorney Hawkins felt that prior to the adoption of a Resolution, the City should have an engineering report since that is what the permit says as to whether or not engineering-wise sanitary sewer is available to the property. And also some documentation from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission would be desirable. Councilman Peach stated the reason he didn't feel access is available is both for engineering and planning reasons, as the Comprehensive Plan states sewer is not available. Councilman Lachinski suggested that a formal petition for sanitary sewer be applied for, which could then entitle the City to be paid for any studies done. Mr. Hawkins stated if the Council decides that sewer is available according to the engineer's overall study as to the service to the area and p1anning- wise, then it would come under the 429 procedure or under the City's development procedure if he would put the system in himself. Councilman Jacobson and Peach Withdrew the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that this be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we direct the Engineers to look at technlca1 and other data necessary to determine whether or not this project as proposed by the developers would be feasible; and if the data available is not available, to determine how much it would cost to develop that data. DISCUSSION: Mr. Thornton asked for authorization in this motion to contact the City Attorney to discuss procedures, etc., so they can comply with the necessary materials. Council generally felt that at this point it is an engineering decision, that there are requirements governing the procedure, and that there would be no need to meet with the City Attorney. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that in addition to considering the feaslbl11ty of the availability of sewer access to that property, that also be commented on is the compabi1ity with the Comprehensive Plan that has already been accomplished. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. STREET PETITION/SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS Mr. Winner stated the petition received consists of 73 percent of the benefitted lots in favor of the street improvement, 63 percent in favor of the unit assessment, 10 percent in favor of the front footage method of assessment, 2 percent opposed, and 25 percent had not signed the petition. Glen Frischmon - didn't believe that anyone on University Avenue Extension was contacted wlth the petition. Dave A1mqren - stated last fall there was talk of paving University Avenue, but it is not included in the petition and no engineering studies have been done on it. He stated the residents would like University Avenue paved at least up to 150thiLane. ~. Winner stated the concensus at the last meeting was that it would not be feasible, so it was left off. Mayor Windschit1 stated the issue of University Avenue should be addressed separately, and that a petition should be received fran those residents. . . - Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Street Petition/Smith's Rolling Oaks, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, introducing a Resolution accepting petition and directing the engineer to prepare a feasibility report for the improvement of bituminous streets for all of Butternut Street, EvergremStreet, 146th Lane, 150th Lane in the north half of Section 25-32-24 and the south half of Section 24-32-24 east of Prairie Road as presented by Staff. DISCUSSION: was on the engineer to do the study. Mr. Winner stated he would have the time to do the feasibility report and could have it done in one month. He felt the project could be done in-house but he may have to sub out some of the staking, surveying, etc. Councilman Jacobson ADDED TO MOTION: direct the City Engineer to prepare the feasibility report. Second still stands. (See Resolution R20-81) DISCUSSION: Ra( Sowada - asked if a petition is going to be taken on University Extension. He also as ed if the Engineer talked with Ham Lake. Mr. Winner stated he had not discussed this with anyone in Ham Lake. Mr. Almgren - asked about the extension of Evergreen Street north on 150th Lane to the west. Mr. Winner stated it is not included at this time. Council stated the policy has been to finish out an area and felt that should be addressed one way or the other in the feasibility report. Those areas should be included in the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we have the public hearing for this ìmprovement the first meeting in June. Motion carried unanimously. The question of a unit assessment will be discussed at the meeting the feasibility study is discussed. Glen Frishmon - stated he has talked to some Counci1members from Ham Lake and found they were favorable in doing something on University Avenue. Discussion was that if a petition was received from University Avenue, it could be included in this project. And if Ham Lake is agreeable to the improvement, there would be no problem in including it in this project. The Clerk was directed to send a letter to Ham Lake asking their consideration at the next Council meeting. It was also generally felt that if an improvement on University Avenue was done, it should go to at least the top of the hill immediately north of the intersection of University and 150th Lane, the exact location to be an engineering decision. Recess at 9:24; reconvene at 9:37. ROSELLA'S ADDITION/PARK PROPOSAL Rosella Sonsteby provided copies of a sketch plan of the 40 acres surrounding the proposed Rosella's Addition plat, showing the plan for road location and the park in Lot 9 in Rosella's Addition and the acreage immediately to the south of that lot. Park Board Chairman Bill LeFebvre reviewed the Park Commission's recommendation to leave the park land dedication as approved by the Council, noting they do not wish to accept the property south of Lot 9 as parkland because it is too low. Ms. Sonsteby again stated she could not accept the Council's proposal, that it is a financial hardship to pay for the assessments across that much park frontage, that the Council's choice is arbitrary and discriminatory, and that she should have the right to pay cash as other developers do. Discussion continued with all parties concerned relative to the park land dedication, each presenting their opinions and suggestions of possible alternatives. No Council action was taken on the park land issue. Ms. Sonsteby then requested sanitary sewer stubs for three lots on the northern end of her plat, stating she is selling seven acres to another party. That party may then plat that area himself. She also requested a sanitary sewer stub for Lot 8, Block 1, as she Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Rosella's Addition/Park Proposal, Continued) has a possible buyer for that parcel as well. Discussion noted that Ms. Sonsteby will be liable for the sanitary sewer trunk line through her property and any stubs installed in her property; that there would be no problem putting in the stubs she is requesting; but noting that if water is available to the area, the new property owner may not be able to build without connecting to municipal water. TIME EXTENSION/ROLLING CREEK TRAILS Mr. Ecklund, developer - stated the reason for the request for a six-month extension for the filing of the Final Plat of Rolling Creek Trails is the problem with getting financing money at a reasonable interest rate. With the time and money put into the development of the preliminary plat, they are very interested in completing the development of the property. However, it has not been economically feasible to do so. He stated if it is possible, they will start the development within the next six months. The Clerk asked Mr. Ecklund if he had entered into a two-year contract to cultivate the land. Mr. Ecklund stated he is not aware of such an agreement. Discussion was that the Council has never granted more than two extensions in the past and generally felt that should one be granted now, it would be the last extension to be granted for this plat; that there is a possibility that the economic conditions will remain the same over the next six months; that another six-month extension would end in October, questioning what happens after that; and with some questioning a second extension for purely economical reasons. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we give an extension of six months to October 21, 1981, for the filing of the Final Plat of Rolling Creek Trails Subdivision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Ecklund stated it is their intention that the project be completed within six months and that they will enter into the development contract immediately. Mayor Windschitl then suggested a shorter extension of time to see if construction does indeed begin, expressing concern that the facts be determined relative to the renting of that property. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to change the time period to three-month extenslon. (See Resolution R21-81) DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt the Council is setting a precedent by automatically granting two extensions for developers. Mr. Ecklund stated he didn't believe these economic conditions began before 1979, and the predictions of lower interest rates has not occurred. Ms. Sonsteby stated the Council has been working on her plat for nine months, and she has lost a construction season of 13 percent interest, it now being 19 percent. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Peach Amendment carried. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Peach Motion carried. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/J. JOHNSON Chairman Bosel1 reviewed the March 31, 1981, memo of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Special Use Permit. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution for approval of a Speclal Use Permit to operate a beauty shop at 13522 Gladio1a Street as presented with the one addition to it: make this Special Use Permit subject to review on a yearly basis. (See Resolution R22-8l) Motion carried unanimously. Di scuss i on with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson was on the annual review. The Johnsons expressed concern over the expense of converting to a beauty shop and having the insecurity of possible revocation annua 11y. Council stated that the provision has been added to Special Use Permits ._- Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Special Use Permit/J. Johnson, Continued) to provide the Council with the ability to review the permits in the event problems are created, providing the City with some control mechanism. No problems are foreseen at this time in this case and the permit would be revoked only for just cause. GLADIOLA STREET DRAINAGE REPORT Mr. Winner reviewed his November 21, 1980, memo on the suggestions to correct the problem of standing water on the southeast corner of G1adio1a and Bunker Lake Boulevard, recommending the second alternative to drain the water west along Bunker Lake Boulevard at a cost of approximately $1,100. Discussion was on the alternatives presented and also on the possibility of constructing a sidewalk on that corner for the school children to stand on while waiting to cross the street. Funds would come from the Improvement Project budget. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Engineer to provide for the correction of the water prob1~m on the corner of G1adiola and Bunker Lake Boulevard by using his Alternate No./ s contained in his letter of November 21, 1980, at a cost not to exceed $1,100; and also further direct him to investigate the feasibility of installing a sidewalk to keep the school children off that G1adio1a Street. Motion carried unanimously. ROSELLA'S AODITION/SEWER, WATERMAIN COSTS Mr. Winner stated that the contractor for the ',Southwest Area project will hold their costs for the installation of sanitary sewer and water to service the Sonsteby property if that plat is to move forward. However, from earlier discussions this evening, it appears that the plat will not move forward. Ms. Sonsteb~ stated she has been treated very unfairly on the whole. plat and has not been treated 11ke other people who have come in here with their plats. RESIDENT LETTERS - 1979-2, 1980-1, 1980-2 Mayor Windschit1 suggested that either the Clerk or Engineer condense the letters for the residents of these projects. He also questioned whether the main problem in the 1979-2 project is a result of the Council changing the assessment policy. He suggested listing the reasons in the letters in the order that caused the overrun. Council agreed to the Mayor's suggestion and agreed they should see the redraft before being sent to the residents. WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES/UNIT ASSESSMENT Discussion was on the two small lots in the project, 2455 east and west, in that it appears that both lots are owned by one party; that the structures are on just one lot; that it is two buildable lots but questioned whether each lot should bear the full unit assessment since each is less than one-half the size of the average lot size within the project; that becuase the lots are so small, their overall value is less than that of a 2~-acre parcel; and that the one parcel would normally have only a side-yard assessment. It was generally agreed that the most equitable assessment would be to assess those two lots as one lot, considering one of the lots is actually a side lot. Councilman Jacobson disagreed, feeling that if it is a buildable lot, it should receive the same benefit as any of the other lots and should be assessed the same. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the proposed street improvement for White Oaks Country Estates be assessed on a unit assessment with Lot 2455 west and east being assessed as one unit with the reason being that the total acreage of the two lots is still less than the average lot size. DISCUSSION: Councilman Jacobson felt that each lot is a buildable lot, each receives the same benefit and each should receive the same assessment as the other lots. Councilman Ortte1 stated that with that much of a Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 (White Oaks Country Estates/Unit Assessment, Continued) variation in size, he didn't feel that was correct because the sale price of a one- acre lot is less than that of a 2~-acre lot, therefore the benefit is reduced. Discussion was then on the strip of land along 172nd, with some in the audience stating that the o~ner would be willing to deed that portion to the City. Mr. Hawkins stated that if the corner lot of 172nd and Round Lake Boulevard accesses onto 172nd, he clearly receives a benefit from the improvement and would be assessed for it. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. BITUMINOUS CURB/QUICKSTROM'S ADDITION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Engineer to approve a Change Order to place the bituminous curb in an upward position rather than have it buried in the ground in Quickstrom's Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 1980-3/CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve a·Change Order No.4, a change order to the 1980-3 project contract to have the completion of the 1980-2 storm sewer construction for a change in the amount of $3,186. Motion carried unanimously. 1980-3/CHANGE ORDER NO.5 Mr. Winner explained that the contractors have agreed to add the two extra values at no additional cost. The Change Order is to add epoxy coating on the floor of the pumphouse to make it easier to clean. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Change Order No.5 to Pumphouse No. 1 for the addition of two 3/4-inch gate values and epoxy floor coating for a total increase in contract amount of $550. DISCUSSION: was on the epoxy floor coating, as the Council felt that that was a lot of money for it. There was also some question as to whether the $550 was for an epoxy floor coating or just a concrete preservative. It was agreed that this should be investigated further with the idea that possibly the City Staff could put on the epoxy coating for less money. Councilmen Peach and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. The Engineer is to investigate this matter further. PUBLIC WORKS MEZZANINE REMODELING MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve $1,200 for remodeling the mezzanine area by the public works staff, and that a portion of the cost for the remodeling will be charged to the water enterprise fund and that amount shall be determined by the Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL/STREET SWEEPING Discussion was on the April 1, 1981, memorandum from Mr. Winner relative to the sweeping of the City streets. Mayor Windschitl stated he was contacted as to whether it could be done without approval, since there is no specific budget item for this·; and he told the Clerk that Council approval should be given first. However, the streets have now been swept, and this request is being done after the fact. Discussion also noted that of the monies held out for the sealcoating project for Northwoods and Red Oaks areas last year, only the additional time spent sweeping the streets because of the pea-rock left by the contractor can be deducted from those monies. It has not yet been determined exactly what the excess time was for sweeping the pea-rock. -. Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 (Approval/Street Sweeping, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City of Anoka be approved to handle the annual sweeping of the City streets, and further to correct the problem of pea-rock left on the streets by the sea1coating contractor of 1980. Motion carried unanimously. COON CREEK WATERSHED STUDY/FINANCING The Clerk had prepared a memo dated April 2, 1981, for the Council. There was no discussion on the item. CONFIRM MEETING - APRIL 15 MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we confirm the meeting for April 15 to interview applications for the Park and Recreation Commission and the meeting with our fiscal consultants on the assessment policy. (Meeting to begin at 7 p.m.) Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER AUTO PARTS - JUNKYARD APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the renewal of the Junkyard Llcense of Andover Auto Parts at 13526 Jay Street through December 31, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION/MANUFACTURED HOUSING MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, adopting a Resolution of opposition for the proposed legislation to allow placement of manufactured homes and mobile homes on permanent foundations on any and all lots within the City of Andover. (See Resolution R18-81) Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMITTEE The Clerk read a note from the Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Committee, John Ward, stating that the Committee would like the Council to take some positive action on the Committee's recommendations made previously. They feel the City should take legal action agasint the County and/or State, as there is enough proof to at least begin litigation. There was quite a lengthy discussion as to what course of action the City should take relative to the removal of the hazardous waste in the pit at the landfill site. The Council has previously talked of obtaining a consultant to provide the necessary back- ground and facts to support the City's case; however, no such consultant has been found or contacted. The Council generally felt that there is enough documented evidence to show that the pit is a health hazard and that the Hazardous Waste Committee could gather that information. Because of the huge expense of litigation, Attorney Hawkins advised the City to consider other avenues to solving this problem before commencing litigating the matter, wondering if the best solution is legally or politically. He would litigate on behalf of the City, but cautioned that because of the technicality of the issue, expert testimony and solid proof would be needed. After further discussion it was generally agreed to ask the Hazardous Waste Committee to gather and organize the documentation relative to the potential hazards of the pit. After that has been gathered, Mayor Windschit1 stated he would attempt to set a meeting with the local State Legislators to present the City's concerns and ask that the contents of the pit be removed from the City. Regular City Council Meeting April 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 12 MEETING/GOOD VALUE HOMES AND PERSONNEL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we set a Special City Council Meeting on Aprll 23 to discuss the Good Value property development and discussion on the City Engineer's performance. Motion carried unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bill LeFebvre asked the Council's opinion on the use of the City-owned property abutting the proposed Creekside Preliminary Plat south of Northwoods. The Council suggested the possibility of getting parkland adjacent to that parcel to provide a nice-sized park area. The property was purchased by the City originally with the intent of constructing a bridge across the creek. It was felt that nothing should be decided about that parcel until Creekside plat comes in, and in the long run either use that parcel or sell it. Chairman LeFebvre stated that there is limited help available for park improvements. Council discussion was that Ron Keller is not working full time at this time and that there is money allocated in the budget for work in the parks. Either the Clerk o~ Engineer will control that, with parks getting the manpower they are allowed. Discussion was also that it would be helpful to know of equipment operators who would be interested in part-time work to be able to call upon them when needed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to direct the City Clerk to advertise for temporary part-time equipment operators for work in the Public Works Department. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman LeFebvre asked if the City still has joint use of the facilities at Crooked Lake Schoo 1 . Mayor Windschit1 felt that the facilities are their park and they have control over its use. Chairman LeFebvre stated there is still a problem with debris in the Northwoods park. Mr. Winner was directed to have the debris removed, telling the contractor to remove it by a specific date or the City will do it with monies to be taken from their deposit. Chairman LeFebvre asked the Council's opinion relative to the City Hall park site plan. Council generally felt that the latest site plan done merely needs some modification to meet the needs of the Public Works, etc., with the original plan calling for approxi- mately 10 acres for building sites and storage. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 17, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Meeting Minutes of March 17. Motion carried unanimously. ADEQUACY/STREET PETITION-SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution accepting the petition and declaring the same to be adequate as presented by Staff. This petition is for the area known as Smith's Rolling Oaks. (See Resolution R23-81) Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS It was agreed to postpone approval of Claims until the April 8 meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. , ~tf""Y ,"bmit"'" <L \ æ '" xJ£ -- ar l~ãch~eCOrding Secretary