Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 18, 1981 · ~ ANDOVER 01 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 18,1981 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing/1981-4 (Potowatomi Street Extension) 5. Discussion Items a. Award Contract/1981-2 (Smith's Addition) b. Approve Streets - Andover West c. Approve Streets - Birchwood Pond d. Rezoning - Rademacher e. Preliminary Plat - Creekside f. Cost Estimate - Plans/Specifications-Boat Landing g. Sketch Plan - R. Hand h. Cedar Crest Lots-Hearing Date i. Set Hearing Date/1981-1, 1981-2 j. Community Development Grant Project k. HUD Grant Resolution l. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Summer School Program-N.Hagman b. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Mixed Uses 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment -- -., -1'- ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 18, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit, on August 18, 1981" 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Staff Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Agenda as published with the following additions: 51, Condemnation Appea1-Vosika; 5m, Resolutions/Trunk Charges; 6c, Meeting Date/1980-3; and 5n, Solid Waste. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to suspend the rules. Motion carried -~ unanlmous 1y. PUBLIC HEARING - 1981-4/POTOWATOMI STREET EXTENSION Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the 1981-4 Street Project in the are a north of Stenquist Addition was called to order by Mayor Windschit1 at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Schumacher reviewed the August 5, 1981 , feasibility report of the location, initiation, the proposed street and drainage improvements, and the estimated cost of each of the alternatives. Testimony was then opened for public testimony. Gladys Ransom, 4640 165th - asked if soil samples were taken in the low area for the proposal to extend Potowatomi north from 163rd to Seventh Avenue. She complained that since Seventh Avenue was raised, the drainage comes to her property; and she even had to hire a lawyer to get the County to fix the road. (Mr. Schumacher stated they took soundings in the known low area between 162nd and 163rd in the easement area for Potowatomi Extension but not on her property where the alternative for Potowatomi extension is shown.) Ms. Ransom - stated that there is a great deal of black peat in the swamp on her property, which she felt was not adequately addressed for that alternative. If that alternative was chosen, she wanted to be sure that the actual costs would not greatly overrun the estimated costs. She felt those estimates should be based on soundings taken in that swamp as well because there is peat there. She stated she owns Lot 3 in Castner's Addition, and related the problems she has with fencing, etc., because of the low area in the middle of her lot. That area was a drainage for all the farmers in the area in which clay tiles were placed. Fred Hamacher, 4755 162nd Lane - stated his lot would be receiving the largest assessment on the south side of 163rd, which is his back lot, with the least amount of benefit. He stated that the area in his back lot is the low spot, and the area goes uphill from there into the Castner Addition. He took exception with the engineer's calculation of raising the pond one/tenth of a foot when the road is constructed, because the part of the pond that goes to the north is low, and the water raises to a depth of six or seven feet deep in the spring. In his opinion, the construction of 163rd through there would make his lot unbuildable. He also took issue with 290 assessable feet when he owns only 165 feet, as there is no easement on the other 165 feet. He agreed that it would cost the $18,000 estimated for tree removal through the area, although it may not be a very good use of money. He felt it made sense to run Potowatomi north from 163rd to Seventh Avenue, but didn't understand why 163rd should also be run east to Makah as well. (Mr. --, Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - 1981-4/Potowatomi Street Extension, Continued) Schumacher explained that unless 163rd was run out to Makah, it would create a long deadend street, which he could not recommend to the Counci 1; a-lthough that could be considered as another alternative.) Mr. Hamacher - stated the comment was made that there would be a lot of tree removal for 163rd and the extension of potowatomi between 162nd and 163rd; however, the alignment could be changed for Potow~omi extension north of 163rd because of trees. He asked why there would be a difference. (Mr. Schumacher explained that in the first case the City is working within an existing easement alignment; whereas in the second case no street alignment presently exists and there would be the flexibility of making the alignment fit with the terrain.) Mr. Hamacher - asked if 163rd is constructed, where would a house be constructed on 163rd, his concern being the use of the land in the Castner Addition area after these streets are constructed and possible future requests for additional roads through that area. (Oiscussion was that the lot could be split; but development of the lots within Castner's Addition is at the discretion of the property owners. One option would be for all owners within the Castner's Addition to jointly rep1at that area.) Mr. Hamacher - asked what would happen if his back lot becomes unbui1dab1e because of the water problem if 163rd is constructed. (Discussion noted that the City cannot do something to his property that would render it unbuildab1e. If it got to that point, the engineers would have to make a hydrological determination of what effect it would have on that lot.) Robert Fodness, 4613 162nd Lane - stated at a previous meeting he made a statement that he had an agreement with Mr. Shaffer, owner of an adjacent lot, to purchase the lot. He asked to go on record that at that time he thought that there was such an agreement, understanding that if they could agree on a price that he would purchase the lot and Mr. Shaffer would no longer be in favor of the project. Apparently there was a mis- understanding, and Mr. Shaffer attended a subsequent meeting and made him appear as a liar. He wanted it clarified that Mr. Shaffer had agreed to sell the lot but had then apparently changed his mind. Since that time, Mr. Shaffer had agreed to sell the lot again; however, Mr. Fodness stated he is not in agreement with the selling price. He stated he is opposed to the streets, noting that the lot his home is on is the back lot. He has given a 33-foot easement across the front lot; his home and garage face south; he was forced to build 50 feet back onto that lot; and he has not even been able to obtain a building permit to build a garage on the first lot. If 163rd is constructed, it would be totally unusable to him and of no benefit, and felt he could legally justify that position if he had to. If the City would be willing to permit the construction of a house behind his, he would be willing to consider paying an assessment for 163rd. He didn't feel he would have a water problem unless 163rd went through to Makah, which might create a problem in the low portion of his lot. Also, if his information is correct, it would be extremely difficult to purchase the right of way through Tract R to extend 163rd to Makah, which could conceivably mean condemnation and the costs involved. He stated he has no intention of paying the assessment. He felt it would have to be proved that there is a benefit to him, and he alleged there is none. Ralph Shaffer, 4644 163rd Lane - refuted that any a11egiations were made as to Mr. Fodness being a 11arer, explaining that Mr. Fodness did want to purchase the lot but no price was set. He stated that the one hole on Potow&ümi extension can be walked through, and that there are very few trees but mostly brush to be removed, feeling there would be no problem getting rid of the trees considering the fuel problem. He felt the best and least costly alternative would be the extension of 163rd east. (Mr. Schumacher stated tree removal was not shown for the section of Potowatomi between 162nd and 163rd, but mostly .. . -. -, -.. -,- f'- Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - 1981-4/Potowatomi Street Extension, Continued) brush. He took issue that one can walk through that area, as the soil soundings indicated a peat depth of up to 12 feet, which would have to be removed and replaced with fill material before a road could be constructed.) Ms. Ransom - asked how much she would be assessed. She is in favor of the project if lt lS not going to cost her a fortune. She stated she does not want to plat her land but rather to sell off the front portion and construct a house on the back portion. She again stated that the middle of her property is very swampy, questioning how that would affect the cost of the road, and questioning how much of her land would be needed for easement if Potowatomi was extended north from 163rd. She also related the events of her granting easements along the north and south portions of her property. (If the road came from Seventh Avenue down to 163rd, Ms. Ransom's assessment would consist of a front-foot assessment against any property that would be buildable, making a determination of how many lots could be derived from her parcel, estimating it would be approximately $20 a running foot. In further discussion with Ms. Ransom, Council noted that that particular alternative was considered at her suggestion, and if she is opposed to the assessment, the alternative probably would not be considered.) Jerry Ostapiuk, 8866 Central Boulevard - one of three owners of Lots 1 and 2 in Castner's Addltion - stated he did not know whether he would be in favor of such a large assessment for the extension of Potowatomi north of 163rd, as he would have to determine how the area could be divided. Ashley Brooks, 16221 Potowatomi - owns the two lots east of the proposed Potowatomi extenslon - is definitely opposed to the proposals, feeling it does not benefit him. Since the City is going to 2~-acre lots in the rural area, he'd like to keep his 2~ acres even though it is two lots combined. He doesn't want to sell off the back lot, but felt he would have to if he had a $10,000 assessment against it. He also felt it would detract from his present homesite. With all the people against it and with what will be gained by putting Potowatomi and 163rd through, he felt the people in Castner's Addition would be better off to privately put a road in about half way and put a cu1 de sal on Lots 1 and 2, then coming back out to Seventh Avenue, not ever coming close to 163rd. Only one lot would be gaining by extending Potowatomi from Seventh to 163rd and 163rd east Mike Shaffer, 11910 Xeon Street - was planning to purchase the lot (south of 163rd) from hlS fater, bUlldlng a house, and living there. He had received an independent contractor's cost for constructing the road, which came to considerably less than the City's estimates. To go out through the RLS property to the east would be a lot cheaper. He felt another exit out of Stenquist Addition is needed, and that Mr. Fodness would be able to build on the front lot. And the other owners of the lots adjacent to 163rd easement would also become buildable once that road is constructed, whereas they are not buildable lots now. (Discussion was that it could be cheaper if right of way through Tract R could be acquired at a reasonable cost, discussing the estimated costs with Mr. Shaffer, noting the reasons the City's costs are higher are because of the legal, engineering and administrative costs necessary when a City does a project.) Mr. R. Shaffer - asked why 163rd couldn't be placed further north to bypass all swamps, etc., and then go out to Makah. (Discussion was that that would be creating smaller lots south of the street, that the City does not have easement in that location, and that would still not provide access to his lot which is located south of the existing 163rd easement.) Council discussion with the residents present noted that the key to the entire question is what the.owners in Castner's Addition want to do with their land, that it may be more practical to them to have a road constructed through the center portion of their lots to enable the development of more buildable lots, that that would not address access to Mr. Shaffer's lot unless those in Castner's Addition would be willing to sell off an Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - 1981-4/Potowatomi Street Extension, Continued) end to gain access or to provide a cu1 de sac to that lot. That option may be possible with a rep1atting of Castner's Addition. When the Mayor asked those who own the front and back lots along 162nd and 163rd whether they intended those back lots to remain unbui1dab1e, to have them combined and treated as one lot, and to have the City then vacate the right of way on 163rd, a number of people said "yes" and no one opposed. Ms. Ransom - stated when she provided the easement for 163rd seven years ago, she was told the road would be built within a year so she could build on her back 6~ acres. She stated she is 61 years old now, asking if the Council thought she wants to go into debt to build on the back 6~ acres now. But she does want to help out the neighbors. Mr. R. Shaffer - asked what happens three, four, or five years from now. He felt the road has to go in, and it is less costly to do it now. (Discussion was that if it is not needed to service any lots, it would not be necessary. The owner of Lot 4 in Castner's Addition, nor any representative, was present.) Mary Joworsky - one of the three owners of Lots 1 and 2 in Castner's Addition - with the road through the back, they can simply split their lots without any additional costs. Right now they would have to go through the platting procedure which is a larger expense. (Discussion was that lot splits could be done with the construction of a cu1 de sac as well and that the lot split ordinance allows the splitting of one lot every three years without going through the platting procedure.) Ms. JOwOrSk{ - stated in the future they are planning to do something with the land, that it wi1 not remain ten acres. They had not given any consideration to the con- struction of Potow~omi between 163rd and Seventh Avenue and had not determined the amount of land it would take and how many lots would be available. Ms. Joworsky also asked how the assessment is determined on corner lots, asking who picks up the costs not charged back to the portion of the corner lot. (Discussion was that the total cost is divided by the assessable footage, which has the effect of increasing everyone's front foot assessment, which Ms. Joworsky felt was not proper and questioned the legality of doing it in that way. Council discussion with Ms. Joworsky was on the assessment policy and the reasons for doing it that way.)· Further discussion was on sorting out facts and opinions brought out this evening and what course of action to take. It appears that from the Stenquist area, Mr. Shaffer is the only one who wants the road constructed; that the best solution may be to have Mr. Shaffer and the property owners in Castner's Addition work out a solution and present it to the Council; and that rep1atting the Castner Addition property and constructing the roads themselves may be the most cost effective. Discussion with some members of the audience was on possible alternatives to the placement of the roads through that area for the most efficient use of the land. Council also noted that the 163rd easement could be vacated, but it won't be done as long as there is the potential of serving lots in there at a later time. Other discussion was that Mr. Shaffer is allowed access to his lot via the easements of Potowatomi extension and 163rd; some on the Council feeling $41 per front foot is too costly; and that the taxes on Mr. Shaffer's lot should be on an unbui1dable lot at this time. The Attorney advised that just because the City has a road easement, it doesn't mean it has an obligation to open up and improve the roadways unless building is allowed back there. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we continue the public hearing on the 1981-4 Potowatomi Street Extension Project to the next regularly scheduled Counci 1 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl stated at the next meeting the Council is looking for any new proposals for road alignment through the various properties in Castner's Addition; after which the Council will make a decision on the project. The Public Hearing was continued to the September 1, 1981, meeting. 8:55 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 AWARD CONTRACT/1981-2 (Smith's Addition Area) Mr. Winner reviewed his August 17, 1981, memo on the bids received and recommendation for the awarding of the contractor for the project. There is one correction on the memo, in that the low bid of Northern Asphalt on Project 2A should read $59,629.39. He recommended awarding the contract to the low bidders in each project, noting that Northern Asphalt indicated they would sub their part of the work to N.D.H., which would mean the City would then be working with only two general contractors on this project. The assessment rate for 146th from Evergreen to Prairie Road would be $2,352 per lot rather than the $1,932 given at the public hearing, the increase being the result of additional Class 5 needed on the roadbed; and a rate of $3,532 per lot for the re- mainder of the project rather than the $4,066 given at the public hearing, those calculations not including capitalized interest. A1 Smith, 254 150th - stated he was not able to see the drainage plans because the englneer was not at the public hearing. (Council noted he would be able to see the plans and specifications during the recess if he desired.) Art Korbel, 14801 Butternut Street - asked if the streets involved in the estimates are 146th, Evergreen, Butternut, and 150th, and nothing to do with University Avenue. (Correct. It was noted that these are the best estimtes at this time, though there may be some increases in costs if quantities chang~etc.) Rögêr Dahl, 15003 Butternut - asked if the actual assessment will not be made until next year because the work will not be completed. (Discussion was that the City has the ability to assess prior to the completion of the work; that it would be to the benefit of the homeowners to assess it this year to avoid the year's capitalized interest on the proj ect. It would be assessed based on the engineer's best estimate at the time of the hearing.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, entering a Resolution accepting bids and awardlng contract:, for the improvement of bituminous streets for 146th Lane, 150th Lane, Evergreen Street and Butternut Street east of Prairie Road in the south half of Section 24-32-24 and the north half of Section 25-32-24, as presented by the City Clerk; acknowledging that contract be awarded to Northern Asphalt Construction in the amount of $59,629.39 for 1981-2A; to N.D.H., Inc., in the amount of $66,949.40 for 1981-2B, and Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $10,087.25 for 1981-2C according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council. (See Resolution R62-81) Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:08; reconvene at 9:20 p.m. 1981-2/UNIVERSITY AVENUE IMPROVEMENT Mayor Windschit1 explained that the Council has received the petition to include University Avenue Extension with the 1981-2 project, but explained the process required of the City to include it, making it doubtful that it could be done with the project yet this year. Mr. Hawkins explained that the process could be moved along if a 100-percent petition were received waiving the public hearing process, and explained the procedure by which the Cities of Ham Lake and Andover would enter into a joint powers agreement to have Andover do the work with Ham Lake reimbursing the City of Andover. The problem is getting both petitions in, getting both city councils to act, drafting the joint powers agreement, etc. Also, the City is restricted by the amount of money it can borrow through private placement within any 90-day period. It was agreed that the item will be placed on the next Council Meeting Agedda (September 1, 1981) at which time the petition can be validated. r- -, - .. Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes P~e6 APPROVE STREETS - ANDOVER WEST MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the streets for maintenance purposes in Andover West Addition and refund the security deposit for construction guarantees. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE STREETS - BIRCHWOOD POND MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the streets in Birchwood Pond Addition for maintenance purposes and refund the security deposit for construction. Motion carried unanimously. REZONING - RADEMACHER Planning and Zoning Chairman d'Arcy Bosel1 reviewed the Commission's August 12, 1981, memo recommending the Council approve the Rademacher rezoning. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Andover City Council rezone the property known as Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 of the Andover Community Shopping Center from Neighborhood Business to Shopping Center pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 5.02, Ordinance 8G, 5.02, noting that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition stated; it is also noted that it has always been the intent and plan of the owner to develop this property to serve the community as a neighborhood business with no sewer being available; since that time the sewer has been placed to serve the property and the logical use of that property would be for Shopping Center. (See Resolution R63-81) Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT - CREEKSIDE Chairman Bose1l reviewed the Commission's August 12, 1981, memo recommending the Council approve the preliminary plat, noting the reasons for approval and recommended variances. She has since reviewed the plat and the contingencies of Items band c have been taken care of. She also noted there was considerable input from the neighbors concerning the sizes of the lots. They also considered street alignment; and though it isn't the most efficient traffic flow, the Commission recommended approval. Council discussion was that it is intended that Crocus would come back around to 138th. Jim Green - explained that Crocus Street goes down past the property line of Mr. Robinson; and when he sold the 100 feet to the City, the eastern boundary of that parcel was determined to be the center of Crocus Street, sold with the intent that it would be City street. Attorney Hawkins stated there would be no difficulty getting the City's half of that street incorporated into the system if the City has fee ownership of that property. Discussion was also on the procedure Mr. Green would follow pursuant to the ordinance for filing the final in stages, as Mr. Green stated it is his intent to present the final plan in two stages. Discussion was on the park dedication with Park Board Chairman, Bill LeFebvre, stating it is the Park Board's intent to accept cash in lieu of land, feeling that the three parks within the area would provide sufficient parkland for this subdivision as well, and not wanting to create another small park in the area. The intent would be to use the cash dedication to improve the other parks in the area. Mr. Green clarified that the park dedication is for the development excluding his homestead lot. He understood the plat is approximately 13 acres valued at $5,000 an acre with park fees based on 10 percent of that value, equalling a $6,500 park dedication fee. Mr. Hawkins stated the reason for excluding the homestead is that Mr. Green is not required to include that parcel in the plat but is doing so to simplify a rather lengthy metes and bounds legal description. . Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Preliminary Plat - Creekside, Continued) Bill Siron~ 2635 138th Avenue - is opposed to the preliminary plat feeling that the area has tra fie problems and nothing is being done about those problems. No outlet is even provided. Also, it is smaller lots, so not only is traffic added, but the problem is compounded by going with a denser development. He also wondered about approving plats with variances within them to begin with. On the corner lot, Lot 10, it was stated at the Planning meeting that Mr. Green has no intention of building a house on that lot. By approving this, he asked what is done when Mr. Green requests a rezoning on that lot. This is residenti,a1, and he felt it was obvious Mr. Green has other designs on that property. Mr. Green - Lot 10 was not originally shown on the preliminary plat, but was added after he was told to do so by the P & Z to include all contiguous property. A proposed building is now shown because when meeting with the Engineer, he didn't know where a building would be built; and the ordinance requires showing a building site only on those lots where a building is proposed. He stated he does not have other plans for that particular parcel at this time, but he really doesn't know how that lot is going to be used. He has no plans to rep1at that lot in the future; but he doesn't know the highest and best use of that lot at this time. Council discussion was then on the question of the frontage road and the necessity for a variance on Lot 1, Block 2, noting that it is a matter of interpretation whether the lot is fronting on a county road or facing the frontage road, with Mr. Winner interpreting the frontage road to be a part of the County Road 18 right of way. It was felt that the service road easement must be dedicated to the City at the time the final plat is filed. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Clerk to prepare a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat of Creekside and note the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasons for approval, and note that there will be variances required for Lot 11, Block 2, which is a double-frontage lot, and a variance for Lot 10, Block 2, which fronts on a County Road, and Variance for Lots 10 and 11, Block 2, which are more than twice the average lot size of 25,130 square feet; and note that a requirement of dedication of right of way for the service road on the west side of County Road 18 in front of lots 1 and 2 in Block 2. (See Resolution R64-81) Motion carried unanimously. COST ESTIMATE - PLANS/SPECIFICATIONS ~ BOAT LANDING MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Consulting Engineers of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik be appointed to do the engineering for the Boat Landing project at a cost not to exceed $1,350. Motion carried unanimously. SKETCH PLAN - R. HAND Dick Hand, 3775 217th Avenue NW, developer, and Toni Emmerich, 2579 South Coon Creek Drlve, archltect - were present asking several questlons as to the concept, trafflc flow, park dedication, sanitary sewer installation, and staged development of property west of Underc1ift and north of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Some discussion points were Mr. Hand has not yet talked with Good Value Homes, the property owners to the north, as to how this development would relate to their proposals, but he intends to do so. Council noted a contiguous street pattern must be developed. No parkland is shown, but he felt there would be no problem providing some. Discussion was on the contour levels, what would determine the 100-year flood plain in this area, noting that development would have to comply with the Flood Plain Ordinance regulations. Council guessed that the traffic generated by the proposed development would be of concern to the neighbors in the area, questioning if there is any way traffic from the proposed development could be brought out to Highway 116 to eliminate that problem. .. , Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Sketch Plan- R. Hand, Continued) Mr. Hand stated the sanitary sewer at Underc1ift is at 864.5 feet; and by extending that past the ponds, it would be coming out of the ground. Discussion was on several alternatives for servicing this property, including adding a lift station or by being serviced from the property to the north. Council indicated a lift station would not be desirable; questioned whether or not this area is included in the CAB Interceptor area; discussed the use of a larger line through the Good Value property; generally feeling the item is an engineering question to be resolved by them. If the area cannot be served, it wouldn't be assessed for sanitary sewer. Discussion also noted that water is west of Round Lake Boulevard, and that the availability of the existing facilities is on a first-come, first-serve basis. Also, it is possible to develop the property in stages pursuant to ordinance requirements. It was fe 1t that the engineers would need to make a determination as to whether or not the developer would be allowed to dig the peat out of the ponds and use it around the proposed structures. CEDAR CREST LOTS, 1981-1, 1981-2, and 1980-3 - HEARING DATES It was determined that $15,522 is needed over what was originally assessed in the project; that there are 7 lots from the Aztec area that were not assessed for their street but may be assessed some indirect benefit for the bituminous improvement in the Cedar Crest area; that of the 16 lots on 174th that have been referred to as "unbui1dable", 3 are owned by adjacent property owners, 2 adjoining lots were recently purchased by one person and could become buildable if a variance were granted, and 11 remaining with some of them owned by the State as a result of tax forfeiture. Discussion was on the most equitable assessment for those lots. Attorney Hawkins stated ,that the three lots owned by adjacent property owners are bui1dab1e to the pOint of them being used for garages, septic systems, etc., which could justify a full assessment against them. Council also felt that the two adjoining lots recently purchased could potentially become a buildable lot and should receive a full assessment as well. Attorney Hawkins advised that if the remaining "unbui1dable" lots are not assessed now but are subsequently sold, they cannot be assessed at a later time. If it is assessed now but it is not paid, there may be a basis for collecting the assessment at a later date. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we change the Public Hearing for the Southwest Project Improvement Hearing from September 10 to September 24 for the purposes of assessing the project; and also set the date of the 29th of September for an assessment hearing for the White Oaks Area Street Improvement project, the Smith's Rolling Oaks Street Improvement project, and the assessment hearing for the Cedar Crest Street Improvement project. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the Cedar Crest lots that have not been assessed be assessed as follows: that the 7 lots on Aztec Street be assessed at $500 each for a total of $3,500; and that the lots that are buildable or are in common ownership on 174th will be assessed their actual footage; and the remaining unbui1dab1e lots be assessed at a rate determined by dividing $3,522 divided by the remaining 11 unbui1dab1e lots (approximately $320 each). Motion carried unanimously. SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM - N. HAGEMAN Nancy Hageman, Community School Coordinator, presented the Council with copies of the participation in the Summer School Program, noting the enrollment was somewhat lower than the previous year, but attributed most of that to the fact that summer school enrollment was very high in the District this year. She also noted that adding softball to the program brought increased participation and felt it was a good addition. " ~ -. -. -... - Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Summer School Program - N. Hageman, Continued) Ms. Hageman also presented copies of the proposed 1981-82 Community School budget, noting she will be reviewing these figures with the Park Board as well. The total budget is approximately 12 percent more than this last year for a total proposed budget of $23,177, but the summer program is up only $55 over this summer. CONDEMNATION APPEAL - VOSIKA Mr. Hawkins reviewed his July 28, 1981, letter, noting the proposal to settle the matter for $860. He thought the jury trial was set for sometime in November. He stated he doesn't like to settle for more than what the Commissioners awarded, but realistically it would be more economical to settle rather than go through a jury trial. Council discussion was on the fear that agreeing to a settlement may be setting a precedent in simi1iar right-of-way negotiations in the future; but that the settlement would be paid for by State Aid, whereas the cost of the trial would come from General Funds. A suggestion was also made that the Council consider some assessment for a State Aid road which opens up landlocked property. MOTION by Lachi nsk i, Seconded by Ortte 1, that we authori ze payment of $860 to Mr. Vosi ka for Parcel Number 4 for property on the Hanson Boulevard Extension project for a total reimbursement to Mr. Vosika of $2,000 for his property. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschit1 Motion carried. SOLID WASTE HEARING Discussion noted that the MPCA's position is the Andover/Coon Rapids site would be suitable for a demolition site only, questioning the position the City should take on that proposal. It was also brought out that County officials have indicated to the City_ that if this site is not accepted, another site in Andover could be chosen for a landfill, with the Council questioning whether other sites could now be brought into the hearing process at this point since the required five sites have already been chosen by the County. Mr. Schumacher explained that the County is recommending the Andover/Coon Rapids site be certified for both a sanitary and demolition landfill, and he suggested the City support the PCA position for demolition site only as the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Apparently the County is also planning to submit new in- formation at the public hearing tomorrow offering reasons why a sanitary landfill could be located at that site, and at this point the City has no idea what that information is going to be. The Clerk also reported she has been told by County officials that the County is looking toward the future when the site could be used for recreational activities, ski hill, generating monies for the City and County when the landfill would be terminated. Discussion was on speculations as to why the County is pushing for the landfill at the Andover/Coon Rapids site, questioning the validity of the public hearing process if the status of the sites can be changed at this point in the selection process; objecting to the site because of the water table problem and because it is "main street" Andover with the City attempting to clean up the visually blighted area there; and questioning the environmental impact of a demolition landfill. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council direct the Engineering firm to present the position at the Public Hearing on Waste Disppsal Sites that we are in opposition to a sanitary landfill being conducted at the Bunker Prairie site due to the water table conditions, etc., as outlined in the PCA report. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 18, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 (Solid Waste Hearing, Continued) Discussion was then on the proposal of a demolition landfill on the site. Council was generally opposed to any type of landfill on that site because of the water table conditions, close proximity of residents, the regional park center facilities, and because of the existing landfill to the northeast of the area. But it was not known by the Council what the specific environmental impact a demolition landfill would have and on what other specific criteria it should be objected to. Because it is not known what evidence the County will be presenting at tomorrow's hearing, it was agreed that the City would not take a formal position on the demolition landfill proposal at this time and to have Mr. Schumacher research the effects of this kind of landfill. The public hearing will be held over for five days at which time the City will have an opportunity to submit written statements. The Council can discuss the item again on Monday, August 24. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the remainder of the Agenda Items be contlnued until next Monday, August 24, 7:30, and the question of the engineering for future projects be discussed. Motion carried unanimously. PARK COMMISSION/KELSEY PARK There was a brief discussion with Park Commission Chairman Bill LeFebvre over what direction the City should take on the final grant application for the proposed Kelsey Park, the City's standings on the preliminary grant application, the specific property considered for acquisition, questioning whether the City should proceed with the project, and if so, who should conduct the negotiations for acquisition and fill out the final grant application forms. Council directed Chairman LeFebvre to ask the engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik for a cost estimate for preparing the final grant application, the intent being the Council will discuss it at the August 24 meeting. It was also suggested the Attorney may be the one to negotiate the land acquisition. Meeting continued to August 24, 1981. 11 :29 p.m. "ispectfUllY submit~· ~~~C " r 'a A. Peac "- , Recordlng Secretary ...-,,~,---<- ..