Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 15, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING-DECEMBER 15, 1981 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Special Use Permit/Mistelske b. Amended Special Use Permit/Good Value HOmes c. Water Connection Charges d. TKDA Contract e. Final Payment/Kenko, Inc./1980-3 f. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Cigarette License Renewals b. Non-Intoxicating Liquor License Renewals c. Intoxicating Liquor License Renewals d. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment -- CITY of ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY TKDA, STA FROM: ACTING ADMINISTRATOR \ ' DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1981../ , REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION/DECEMBER 15, 1981 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 4e (Final Payment-Kenko, Inc. ) Item No. 4a - Special Use permit/Mistelske Mr. Misteskse's Special Use Permit request to operate a junkyard on the corner of Jay Street/Bunker Lake Boulevard was continued at the December 1 Meeting to allow time for the staff to secure additional information on the impact of another such yard in the area. To-date I have not yet received correspondence from the PCA, however, as my earlier memo explained, I did talk to Mike Kanner who did verbally state that he did not think it would cause a problem unless battery acid were left to leak on the ground. The resolution for approval was presented at the last meeting. Item No. 4b - Amended Special Use Permit/Good Value Homes Attached is a letter from Good Value Homes requesting Council consideration of allowing them to construct one (1) of the two-family homes proposed in the permit request. The original request was denied by the City Council. With regard to this request, the Council would have 3 options, i. e. , 1)Let the denial stand as is; this would include the denial for even one structure, 2)Reconsider the original denial and adopt a new resolution allowing for the construction of just one (1 ) building, or 3}Require Good Value to apply for another amended Special Use Permit and follow required procedure for same. The No. 3 option would be rather redundant inasmuch as p&Z did hold a public hearing on the original request for the construction of 14 of the twin-homes and recommended approval of the request, therefore, the recommendation would be the same on a lesser number. Item No. 4c - Water Connection Charqes Attached is information from Mr. Schrantz, covering amendments to Ordinance No. 55 (Water Ordinance) and the covering resolution on rates. The increase in the connection charge and the portion of useage rate based on the Engineering News Record would be optional. The newly adopted resolution covering the assessments and charges for sanitary sewer trunks provides for this increase. In checking - ~-'.-._. Agenda Information December 15, 1981 Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4c - Water Connection Charges (continued) past minutes I am unable to find any Council action in the determination if whether a portion of the useage rate for water should go to depreciation of the system and if so, what amount. This must be done before we start increasing this rate, so we know what amount of the total $.75/1,000 gallons to increase. The total amount of the customer receipts for useage have been placed in the operating fund at this time--and will probably continue to do this until such time as that fund is self- supporting--then it will be necessary to transfer the established portion of the collections since 1980 into the Depreciation Fund (Sinking Fund). All changes adopted at this meeting should be effective January 1, 1982. Item No. 4d - TKDA Contract John Davidson will be present to review their Contract, as it relates to the multiplier of 2.5 against overtime rate. You have received information from John outlining their reasoning for such charges. Attached is a copy of the Contract under which we are presently operating. Item No. 4e- Final Payment/Kenko/1980-3 A motion is needed to approve the Final Payment and acknowledge acceptance of the 1980-3 Project. There are still some items outstanding, however, they are shown as a contingency in the resolution enclosed. Liquidated damages have been deducted. This covers engineering after completion date, signs which were damanged, payment for the sewer back-up (staff & homeowner) and the overflow problem with Mr. Melde in Auditors Subdivision No. 82. Item No. 5a - Cigarette License Renewals and Speedy Market Applications have been received from J & J Liquors and Bill's Superette. A motion is needed to approve the licenses for a term of one-year beginning 1/1/82. Item No. 5b - Non-Intoxicating Liquor License Renewals Applications and fees have been received from Bill's Superette, Speedy Market for the Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses. A motion is needed for approval for a one-year license beginning January 1, 1982. Item No. 5c - Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal An application and fee has been received from William Rademacher for the renewal of the Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for WRC Liquors. A motion is needed to approve a license for one year beginning January 1, 1982. Item No. 6a - Reports None received . Item No. 7a - Approval of Minutes (to be continued to December 30th.) - -....-. . -~.,. ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 15, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meoting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on December 15, 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 Engineers, John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Staff Engineer, Jim Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, the adoption of the Agenda as printed with the addition of 4f, Driveway Situation, and 5c, Addition of J & J Bottle Boutique. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/MISTELSKE Irving Shaw, Attorney tor the applicant, Charles Mistelske and Richard Althaus were present. Mr. Shaw repeated arguments as to why the Speclal Use Permit should be approved including the P & Z recommendation for approval was unanimous; that the zoning is proper pursuant to City ordinance; that the property has been used for the same purpose for many years in the past and was discontinued only because the previous owner did not reapply for the Special Use Permit; that the applicant is a businessman in the community and has been in the auto salvage business for a long time; and it complies with the regulations and requirements of the City codes. If anything is required of them, they will comply. It is a suitable use for the property, it will not be detrimental to the existing uses in the neighborhood, and it is located in the center of the same type of use in that area. He also stated that any problems that arose in the past with rodents in the area is felt to have occurred only when the blasting took place at the landfill site. They don't believe this type of use creates that type of problem. He also stated that the existing house is not to be used for residential purposes. It could be used for either an office or for dry storage where sanitary sewer facilities would not be required. Attorney Hawkins stated it is his opinion that at least 39,000 square feet of property is needed for an on-site sewage system in the non-sewered area. That area would have to be available for the possible installation of a sewer system, but it could be used for open storage as long as it doesn't interfere with the potential of putting a septic system in. The City Clerk also stated that the location of the existing fence meets the setback requirements of the ordinances. It is located 25 feet from the Jay Street right-of-way line and 20.5 feet from the Bunker Lake Boulevard right-of-way line, which is in compliance with commercial area setbacks, Section 4.21. Mr. Shaw also stated they have a report from their surveyor indicating both the fence and trees are placed in accordance with ordinance provisions. Mayor Windschit1 asked that the City be provided a copy of that survey. Mr. Hawkins stated that because the land is not contiguous to Mr. Mistelske's current junkyard operation, a separate junkyard license must be obtained. Also, all of the requirements of the junkyard license must be complied with before the license is granted. ~ , -0 - -- Regular City Council Meeting December 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Special Use Permit/Miste1sek, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution approving the Special Use Permit to Charles Mistelske and Richard D. Althaus to operate an auto salvage yard on Parcel 60, Plat 69277 as presented by the City Clerk with the change that all references to Parcel 40 in the prepared Resolution be changed to Parcel 60. AMENDMENT By Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that such Special Use Permit be subject to a yearly review by the Council beginning December 31, 1982; and another provision would be that all provisions of the Junkyard Ordinance be complied with or the Special Use Permit wou1d-oé revokedd on that yearly basis; and if the existing residence is kept, that it not be used for any residential use or sales office space, just for cold or dry storage. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Orttel Amendment carried. DISCUSSION: Councilman Orttel questioned some of the reasons given for approval of the permit . Number 2 says the location is compatible with the proposed use. He wondered if that is the proper wording. He has a real problem with reason Number 4. There is another type of business directly across the street, plus other businesses in the area; and he didn't believe it is consistent. Also, the only reason this is being considered is because of a technical error made when amending the ordinance, which he felt should be so noted in the Resolution. He still felt if such uses were considered detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents when the ordinance was amended, the reasons still hold. AMENDMENT by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council does not necessarily agree with the reasons cited by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and that due to a technicality in the ordinance, the Council has been advised to approve the Special Use Permit. (See Resolution R100-81) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1 Amendment carried. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated the Council is looking to have the business look as attractive as possible and felt it can be done if the ordinance is complied with. Mr. Shaw also stated that fee title has been transferred to Charles Miste1ske. Since his acquisition of the property, agreement has been reached with Mr. Althaus to acquire an interest in the business. He will provide the City Attorney a copy of the certificate of title. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1 Motion carried. AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT/GOOD VALUE HOMES Discussion was on whether the proper course of action has been taken to consider this request. Attorney Hawkins advised that the Council may reconsider their previous denial of the amended Special Use Permit, and he didn't feel it would be necessary to require Good Value Homes to apply for another amended Permit at this time. Councilman Lachinski asked the prevailing side to consider that if a slab-on-grade single-family residential unit was asked for on the lot across the street, it would be allowed. He felt that logic should dictate that multiples without basements are reasonab le. John Peterson, Good Value Homes - it is his understanding that the item being brought up tonlght is done according to City procedures. They would have liked to have discussed this two weeks ago, but they were two days late in getting the request to the City Clerk. If it is felt that they are asking for special favors, Mr. Peterson stated he didn't realize it was a sensitive issue and they would not do so in the future. - .....-- Regular City Council Meeting December 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Amended Special Use Permit/Good Value Homes, Continued) Mr. Peterson stated they are requesting permission to construct one unit slab-on-grade so it can be seen how they will fit into the existing neighborhood. If such a unit is built, one half would be used as a model; and they have a buyer for the other half of the unit. It would be located next to their current model. Councilman Jacobson stated at this point he would not be in favor of reconsidering the request. His concern is not the outside appearance, but with storage and storm protection. He felt it may cost mür¿ to put in a basement now, but it ultimately pro~ vides room for additional storage, expansion for additional rooms, etc. Councilman Peach stated his concern is what the building looks like in the neighborhood. He felt that the building as proposed is below the standard of the original units by exterior view, and the people who have already moved into that neighborhood have a right to expect the quality that was promised them. He would like to know what would be done to the building to bring it up to the existing standards, and that would be a condition he would set in order to reconsider the permit. He would like to see a sketch of the exterior appearance of the unit. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to reconsider the denial of the amended Special Use Permit of Good Value Homes. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, NO-Jacobson, Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to table this matter pending the receipt of a bUlldlng plan for the exterior of the building by the first meeting of January. DISCUSSION: was that if the sketches can be provided prior to the January 5 meeting, the Council could consider it at one of the special meetings prior to that time. Mr. Peterson stated he would provide several sketches to choose from, and he would like to have the matter considered as quickly as possible. Although with the cold weather now, it may be too late to begin construction this winter. Mayor Windschit1 asked about the possibility of putting in a basement. Mr. Peterson stated he has talked to both the president and vice president, and they have said that it defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do if a basement is to be installed. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. WATER CONNECTION CHARGES/WATER ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (Reference December 10, 1981, memo from City Engineer, Jim Schrantz relative to Ordinance No. 55 Amendments.) Mr. Schrantz explained his recommendations that the water connection charge and area special assessments for water trunk be adjusted annually to reflect changes in con- struction costs and that the debt retirement/capital depreciation part of the water usage rate be adjusted annually as well to keep the charges equitable. Discussion with Mr. Schrantz and the TKDA Engineers was on the advisability of using the ENR Index. Mr. Schrantz stated the ENR index raised 6 percent last year. Mr. Davidson stated the index has increased an average of 5 percent per year for the past ten years. The Clerk also noted that this is the same procedure that is used with the installation of the sanitary sewer system. Mayor Windschit1 stated that the water system should start paying for itself under the depreciationmethod. But he was also concerned with the indexing factor, feeling the charge should be the cost of the con- struction already done plus the cost of interest to the City for carrying the amount. He was concerned about an inflated cost if the indexes move faster than actual costs. - - ..~. 0-- _ Regular City Council Meeting December 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Water Connection Charges/Water Ordinance Amendments, Continued) Mr. Schrantz noted that the depreciation factor must also be considered. Counci 1man Jacobson suggested that the indexing factor be looked at to determine if it is too high and adjust it back if need be. If the index is wrong, it can be corrected. But this provides something to go on. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, Ordinance No. 55A, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 55, known as the Municipal Water System Ordinance, adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on May 5, 1981, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: It was noted that it is the Council's intent that the index be looked at each year to see if there are any abnormalities in it that could be causing a distortion. Discussion was then on the changes recommended in Resolution R31A-82. Mr. Schrantz recommended a water meter charge rather than a deposit. He stated the water meter would remain a part of the water system; however, with a charge, no return with interest would be necessary. The City would still maintain ownership of the 'water meter, as'; it becomes part of the water system as does the fire hydrants, etc. The Clerk noted if the amount is changed from a deposit to a charge, that change must also be made in Ordinance No. 55 under Section 31A. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to reconsider the motion establishing Ordinance No. 55A. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Ordinance No. 55A, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 55, known as the Municipal Water System Ordinance, adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover, May 5, 1981, as proposed by the City Engineer this evening, and also include under Section 31, the change of the word "deposit" referring to water meters to "charge for water meters." Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to adopt a Resolution Number R31A-82 as presented wlth the correction under Section 3, Subdivision 1, for 3/4" Meter should read $65.00 instead of $35.00. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council approve the Policy and Procedure on adjusting the costs of the Municipal Water System Ordinance as presented by the City Engineer. (See Resolution R101-81) Motion carried unanimously. TKDA CONTRACT Discussion was that the Council's objection has been to the use of the 2.5 multiplier times overtime rates. Councilman Lachinski explained that the normal factor is 2.5, but using a factor of 1.67, TKDA would loose money on individuals with overtime, assuming the payment of more benefits because of that. But using the multiplier on overtime actually turns out to be a multiplier of 3.75 of the salary. He felt some number less than 2.5 but more than 1.67 to be applied toward overtime rates should be negotiated. He would like TKDA to propose a figure that would not allow TKDA to make money on some- one making overtime. He didn't feel the profit should be made on overtime. Mr. Davidson stated when the multiplier is established, it takes into account all of their overhead. In normal construction, they figure a 20-percent overtime factor, and it is considered part of their normal operating costs. Their profit is based on their actual income less actual costs over the year. If they adjust the multiplier on a specific salary, it will reduce their income for the year. They want to be fair about it and think professionally they should provide a service at a cost the City feels is reasonab le. He would be willing to take back any multiplier the Council chooses or to come back with some proposals of multipliers between 1.67 and 2.5 for the Council to consideragalnstthe overtime rates. Council agreed to have TKDA come back with a proposal for a multiplier factor to be applied toward overtime rates for Council consideration. --...... Regular City Council Meeting December 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 FINAL PAYMENT/KENKO, INC. (1980-3) Mr. Oavidson reviewed the negotiated settlement with the contractor of the Southwest Area project and the recommended final payment to Kenko. They have settled on final quantities. He explained the liquidated damages clause in the contract. That clause gives the Council the right to charge to the contractor or deduct from the final payment actual engineering costs involved for extending beyond the approved completion date of the project. It also provides that the contractor ask for an extension of the project~ if there is some justifable reason to do so, at least 30 days prior to the completion date of the project. TKDA has a meeting with the contractor on the site in May, and all the work was virtually complete except for a few clean-up items and landscaping. There was every evidence that the contract would be completed on the July 15 completion date, so they did not ask for an extension. But on July 15 there was still a checklist of 31 uncompleted items. He notified the Clerk TKDA would be keeping track of engineering costs separate from that time on as it relates to the contract for that project. But he felt he was amiss at this point by not providing written documentation to the contractor of their intent to collect liquidated damages from that point on and what the magnitude of the damages would be. And the contractor was unaware that they would be billed for the engineering costs from that date on. The contractor also pointed out that he didn't continually come back with changes, additional costs, etc., and that he moved equipment around at his own expense to comply with the timing involved for acquiring easements, etc., during the course of the project. As a concession to the contractor, TKDA agreed to reduce the liquidated damages in half. If the Council feels the full liquidated damages should be paid to the project, he felt that TKOA would be willing to make some reimbursement to the City for overtime charges. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Schumacher also noted that the total project construction costs were considerably less than the contract. The actual total contract price was approximately $400,000 under the original estimate. Mr. Davidson stated that the liquidated damage amounted to $8,473. They are recommending reducing that amount in half to the contractor, and TKDA would pick up whatever portion the Council feels is reasonable and prudent of the remaining half. If it would satisfy the Council, they would absorb $4,000 of the liquidated damages either by crediting that amount in the billing or reimbursing the City if it has already overpaid. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, authorizing Final Payment to Kenko, Inc., for the 1980-3 project in the amount of $46,080.81 payable upon receipt of a check from Kenko, Inc., in the amount of $1,689.47 for claims against the contractor. Councilmen Ortte1 and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, enter a Resolution accepting work and authorizing Final Payment for Improvement Project 1980-3, Southwest Area Improvements, as prepared by the City Clerk, in the amount of $46,080.81, making that final payment contingent upon receipt of a check from Kenko, Inc., in the amount of $1,689.47 for claims against the contractor. (See Resolution R102-81) DISCUSSION: It was agreed the final payment is being approved with the understanding that there will be either a credit or reimbursement from TKDA for $4,000 toward the liquidated damages. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:08; reconvene at 9:17 p.m. DRIVEWAY DISCUSSION Mayor Windschitl explained that Al Putz on l72nd lives in the area where the blacktop had been placed at City expense years ago but is now being assessed a small portion of the Northwest Area project. The Mayor explained Mr. Putz feels he is the only one who did not get an apron placed on his driveway. Mr. Schumacher estimated it would cost between $100 to $200 to place an apron on the driveway. Mr. Putz is saying he is getting assessed, but why hasn't he gotten an apron on his driveway. - -....-. Regular City Council Meeting December 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Driveway Discussion, Continued) Counci 1 discussion was that the aprons were placed only on the new project area, not in the old area, and that the minimal assessment to Mr. Putz is because of the benefit of the improved road access to his property. Mr. Schrantz was directed to inform Mr. Putz that the Council considered the item but took no action on it. CIGARETTE LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to approve Cigarette License renewals for the Speedy Market, J & J Liquors, and Bill's Superette until December 31, 1982. VOTE ON MOTI ON; YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by lachinski, that we approve the Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License renewals for Bill's Superette and Speedy Market for one year until December 31, 1982. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License renewals for WCR Liquors and J & J Bottle Boutique for the period January 1, 1982, to December 31, 1982. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. AG PRESERVE/DISCUSSION Mayor Windschit1 referenced an article in last week's St. Paul paper where there is a question as to whether the Legislature will continue to fund the Ag Preserve Act because of the State's financial problems. He asked the Council's opinion as to what should be done relative to action on the proposed Agricultural Preserve Ordinance for the City. Discussion noted that the item is placed on the January 19, 1982, Agenda; and if no final decision has been made by the Legislature by that time, action on the ordinance can be postponed then. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, the approval of Checks Numbered 4533 through 4579 with the exception of 4559 which is voided in the amount of $46,461.20. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claim 532 in the amount of $1,098; Claim 533 in the amount of $77,500; Claim 534 in the amount of $6,750; Claim 535 in the amount of $1,150.90; and Claim 537 in the amount of $46,080.81. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we reconsider Check 4575. Motion carried unanimous 1y. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Check 4575. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. -" \ting adjOUrn~~~¢:-:1-- ~~C"-- fL -- Marce a A~_e.~ch,. _Recording Secretary