Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC January 20, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 20, 1981 AGENDA l. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a) Municipal Well - Extension of Time Request b) 1980-1, 1980-2/Breakdown of Costs c) Birchwood Pond/Final Plat Approval d) C.Marek Lot Split e) W. Rademacher Variance f) Petitions/Streets l)White Oaks Country Estates 2)Smith's Rolling Oaks g) Selection of Consulting Engineering Firms/1981 h) Hazardous Waste Report/City Attorney i) Dog Ordinance j) Counc i1 By-Laws k) Refund of Sewer Costs/Moore 5. Non-Discussion Items a) Permit Fee Schedule b) 6. Reports of Commissions, Committee~ Boards 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ~ · ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 20, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-MonthlY Meetlng of tne Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 20, 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, Wi 11iam G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, John Davidson; City Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue NW - stated that unless the Council reconsiders her plat and approves it as recommended by the P1annlng and Zoning Commission and the Park Board, she wants to withdraw her petition for water in Rosella's Addition. Secondly, she also gave the City of Andover an easement for trunk sewer and utilities in good faith and without aSking or receiving any compensation for it. She now feels she should be compensated for that easement. Council agreed to add thlS item to the Agenda. Stan Deden, 13836 Round Lake Boulevard, a member of the Andover Lions Club - stated the Llons Club is having a fishing contest on Crooked Lake February 7 and asked iT the City would loan the snowplow to clear the area in the event that it snows around that time. Mr. Stone in Public Works has volunteered to drlve the vehlc1e. ATter discussion, Council generally had no problem with the request as long as the equipment is operated on public property. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Frank Stone be authorized to clear lee Tor the Andover Lions Club for their fishing contest on February 7 on Crooked Lake. Motion carried unanimously. Susan Hennessey, 869 125th Lane NW - stated they are still waiting for reinspection by the City Building Official on the apartment buildings. Since January 1 she has moved out of those premises, but she still has high electric bills; and she has been told that the heatlng went down 40 degrees in the hallway after she moved out, which proves that she has been paying for the heat in the halls. She explained the problems encountered relative to having the Building Official reinspect the builoings and in finding out all the owners in BOF Investments. They are at a stanopolnt; they want to proceed with court action against the owners but cannot do it without the Building Official reinspecting the building.. The Clerk reviewed her conversation with the Building Orficial in that he cannot reinspect the building without the presence or the owners, and he has not been able to get the owners' cooperation to meet for tnat lnspeetion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, tha. we authorlze the Attorney to work with the BUlldlng Inspector to solve the problem at 2542 138th Avenue NW, 2526 138th Avenue NW, and 2552 Bunker Lake Road relative to the residents' request for reinspection. f10t i on carried unanimously. Council requested that the Building Inspector report back at the next Council meeting on this matter. AGENDA APPKOVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we adopt the Agenda as published with the additions of Item 4b (I), Water Petition on Sonsteby Property, and Item 4k, Refund of Sewer Costs/Moore. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. ~lotion earned unanlmously. -- - Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Pège 2 MUNICIP,AL WELL. - EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we allow an extension of time to Jãñuary 31, 1981, for the completion of the water development of the City's well. Motion carried unanimously. 1980-1, 1980-2/BREAKDOWN OF COSTS Discussion noted that the Clerk is in the process of preparing an updated amendment of the breakdown of costs. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we take Agenda Item 1980-1 and 1980-2/ Breakdown of Costs and move it to the first regularly scheduled meeting in February. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was also on TKDA's reduction of engineering fees on project 1979-2. Mr. Hawkins stated that if the funds are treated as a refund on engineering fees to the project, no legal problems are involved. Mr. Davi dson reviewed TKDA's letter of January 20, 19S1, relative to the matter. He also noted that TKDA has closed out their accounts for these projects, and additional expenses that may be incurred for reassessment hearings, etc., will be billed through general engineering. However, he assured the Council that any such expenses would be identifab1e so that the City can, in turn, charge those expenses against the individual projects. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept a check for $4,781 as a refund of engineering fees for Project 1979 Street and Drainage Improvement No.2; and that the check be credited to that account. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschit1 thanked Mr. Davidson for his consideration on this item. WATER PETITION ON SONSTEBY PROPERTY Mr., Davidson stated that Ms. Sonsteby had called them asking that no further work be done on her property until her issue can be resolved. As a result of that request, they did not extend services out to the property line, and they have stopped work within that sewer easement at this time. The Council previously authorized the change order to allow public water for Ms. Sonsteby's property; however, they have not proceeded with any action on that item to date. Mr. Davidson stated that the City can withdraw that portion of the change order extending public water to the Sonsteby property without any adverse effects to the entire project. Relative to Ms. Sonsteby's request for compensation for the utilities easemènt through her property, Mr. Davidson stated that they have cooperated with Ms. Sonsteby in locating that sewer easement so that it would readily fit in the future platting of the property. That doesn't have any effect on the issue of the plat, which appears to be the location of the parkland in the plat. It is a legal question as to what reumeration can be made after the fact. Ms. Sonsteby has already signed an easement, turned it over to the City, and authorized extending the utilities through her property. Mr. Hawkins advised that the City does not have a legal obligation to compensate Ms. Sonsteby for the easement at this time. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the Engineering Firm to prepare a change order necessary to withdraw the public water from the Sonsteby property which lies west of Round Lake Boulevard, and bring the necessary documents back at the first meeting in February. DISCUSSION: noted that if there ï s no pub 1 i c water to that property, development is not allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was also on Rosella's Addition plat; that the preliminary plat has been approved and it is up to Ms. Sonsteby as to whether or not she chooses to file the final plat; that the plat would require the installation of city water; that Ms. Sonsteby would have the right to ask for water again at some point in the future, but noting that Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Water Petition on Sonsteby Property, Continued) the capacity of the water system being developed is limited and to provide water service to the property in the future may be more costly and time consuming if addi- tional wells are needed. Ms. Sonsteby again stated that she is withdrawing her petition for water at this time, that she feels the plat as approved by the City Council is discriminatory and will cost additional money to implement, and that she has the option to repetition for public water if she chooses to do so in the future. BIRCHWOOD POND/FINAL PLAT APPROVAL Discussion was on the unfinished items of payment for street signs, escrow deposit for street improvement, signing the development contract, payment of park dedication fees, and obtaining a title opinion from the Attorney. The matter of obtaining easement along the eastern portion of the plat, which borders the City of Ham Lake, for the eventual extension of University Avenue was questioned; however, such an easement was not requested in the preliminary plat. Dan Christenson, 17095 Crosstown Boulevard, developer - presented the Clerk with checks for the street signs, park dedlcatlon fees, and Letter of Credit for street improvement. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Final Plat of Birchwood Pond upon recommendation of the City Engineer with the understanding that the approval is contingent upon favorable title opinion by the City Attorney and the execution of the development contract between the City and the developer. (See Resolution Rl-81) Motion carried unanimously. C. MAREK LOT SPLIT Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that the Council approve the lot split request (See Memo dated January g, 1981). She also noted that since the public hearing was held, I. Scha11wig, who lives on Eidelweiss, expressed his concern with that lot being split, asking if the lot, now as two lots, is being assessed its share of the road improvement costs. Connie Marek, 13718 Eidelweiss Street - it was her understanding that the road was assessed on the long sectlon for both road and sewer and the discount was given because of the pie-shape, as the corner is useless. Council discussion with Ms. Marek and Mr. Winner was on how the road assessment was computed. Discussion was postponed to allow Mr. Winner time to research the matter. W. RADEMACHER VARIANCE Chairman Bose11 reviewed the P & Z's recommendation for approval of the Rademacher Variance to allow use of a zero-base lot line for the divivision of the land in the NB property, noting an error on the January 12, 1981, memo under reason No.3, which should refer to the "Andover Community Shopping Center". She also explained that the development has always been proposed as a staged development, and this will allow that staging to occur. By allowing this, the density factor, parking, etc., is still maintained. It is not intended to have separate ownership for these parcels. The underlying factor for the request at this time is that Mr. Rademacher needs to obtain mortgage money, and the particulars of the transactions were not known prior to this. Attorney Hawkins stated he had no difficulty with the variance reqeest and that there is no other alternative to accomplish what is being proposed. Councilman Jacobson was concerned that so many variances would be needed in this case. Since the developer started on the ground floor, he should have been able to conform to the ordinances, needing only a minimum number of variances. He stated the zero lot line was not originally proposed in this NB area. Also, the variance request is for Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (W. Rademacher Variance, Continued) financial reasons and not for any hardship on the land, etc. Chairman Bose11 stated that the drawings of the development all along have indicated zero lot lines. Councilman Jacobson also noted that the back of the existing Superette is not set back 40 feet from the rear lot line as required by Ordinance. The Clerk stated that this item will be on the February 3 Council agenda for the Council to initiate a variance request because the City errored in issuing a building permit for the location of the building as it exists. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, the approval of the William Rademacher request for a varlance from Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, minimum requirements of lot area, Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 as to the side yard setback, and Ordinance 10, Section 14 as proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (See Resolution R2-81) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. C. MAREK LOT SPLIT, CONTINUED Mr. Winner stated that the road improvement assessment was based on 325 feet, which is the same as what was assessed for sanitary sewer. There was a lengthy discussion and disagreement as to whether this amount is adequate once the large lot is divided into two lots. Councilman Ortte1 argued that for all other parcels, the assessment was based on the sanitary sewer assessment except in those cases where the minimum 100- foot requirement was not met. Only in those cases was the assessment different from the sanitary sewer assessment and were raised to a minimum of 100 feet. He felt in this case, even dividing the lots equally would result in 117 feet of assessments for each lot, which is over the minimum assessment and, he fe1t.wou1d equate the treatnent of all other lots in the project. As discussion continued, Chairman Bose11 stated that the lot created does have the minimum square footage for the zoning district and the proper road frontage, but it does not meet the average depth requirement because the northern side of the lot is infinity. Ms. Marek stated that at the time of the survey, Mr. Winner suggested cutting off the pie-shaped section in order to make the average depth of 135 feet. That pie-shaped area is a bonus to the purchaser as additional property. Attorney Hawkins was not aware of any provisions that would allow the Council to increase the assessments on the lots in question because of the lot split once the assessment rolls have been certified. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Connie Marek Lot Split on the piece of property described as (insert legal as per January 9, 1981, memo to Mayor and City Council from Planning and Zoning Commission, re: Recommendation - Connie Marek Lot Split) for the following reasons: the lot split will conform to the current zoning in the area; a public hearing was held; it does not adversely affect the health, safety, welfare and morals of the residents of the City; the lot split will conform to our basic Comprehensive Plan; the property is in a sewered area and is presently served by two sewer stubs; this lot split is contingent upon successful payment of applicable park fees. (See Resolution R3-81) DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski felt that at some point, the second lot should be assessed for some portion of the street project. Attorney Hawkins again stated he knew of no method for the City to increase the assessment for the lots. The assessment policy should be allowing for the eventual split of the lot at the time it is originally assessed. But he will study that Statute again. Discussion continued on the date of the split of the lot, that the survey is dated 9/29/80; that Ms. Marek has sold the lot to a third party and that the realtor had told her the lot was dividable when she purchased the lot. Ms. Marek actually contracted to have the lot divided. She was not aware that she was required to get City approval for the split. Ms. Marek also stated that with all she has paid for to get streets, sewer Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (C. Marek Lot Split, Continued) assessments, hookup to sewer, etc., she felt she has paid her share and shouldn't have to pay any more. Councilman Jacobson called the question. The Clerk then reported that the sale of the split-off lot occurred on October 2; the assessment hearing was held on October 7; and the split lot was recorded on October 8, 198C Mayor Windschit1 expressed concern that the Council should have been aware of the split prior to the assessment hearing; questioned the procedures that took place; and questioned whether the lot was treated equitably for the road improvement assessment. Counci 1man Lachinski also suggested that Mr. Winner make a determination as to whether the lots would have been assessed differently had they been calculated as two lots fur the assessment hearing. Councilman Jacobson again called the question. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we authorize the City Engineer to calculate the assessment on the two parcels under question as if they were two parcels rather than as one large parcel, and direct the Attorney to provide us with direction relative to the lots just split. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1, Peach Motion carried. PETITIONS/STREETS - WHITE OAKS COUNTRY ESTATES Mayor Windschit1 stated the petition before the Council shows 14 in favor, 1 opposed, 23 no signatures for a total of 38 lots. Councilman Peach suggested that it may simplify matters and provide greater clarity for residents if the original petitions from residents stated that they are simply requesting a feasibility report rather than stating their position as for or against the actual project. Jake Heller, 17080 Bittersweet Street - when the petition was brought around, he was told it lsn't a petitlon for or agalnst but whether it is to be brought up before the Council. He asked to have his vote changed to a "no." He has talked to at least three other people who were under the same impression. And the petition was not put before about one-third of the people. He felt if there were enough "no" votes on this petition, the Council may not even act on it. Harvey Kadlec, 16970 Crocus Street - presented the petition, which was accompanied with a cover letter from the Clerk, which states this is for a public hearing. And there was a space for "yes" or "no". He went to almost all the houses; a lot of people weren't home; and once he received the required 35 percent, he submitted the petition and did not approach those he had not talked with. De 10ri s (?) , 2935 172nd Avenue - when Mr. Kadlec came to her, she was asked if she wanted to sign a petitlon ln favor and did not indicate she could sign against the project. Her name isn't on the petition, and if it was, she'd want it under "no". Tom Gray, 3008 172nd Avenue - thought the Council should know that there are far more "no's" and that they had not been given the opportunity to sign the petition as "no". He questioned the democratic process when 14 out of 38 lots are in favor and in spending money for the feasibility study at this time. Mayor Windschit1 explained the State Statute 429 proceedings for improvement projects, with Mr. Hawkins stating the Council is not obligated to hold public hearings on petitions of 35 percent or more of the affected property. It was also noted that with the changed vote of Mr. Heller, only 34 percent are now in favor. Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Petitions/Streets - White Oaks Country Estates, Continued) I Chairman Bose11 stated that the plat of Oakwood Estates is in the development process, which abuts the affected area, and which would require blacktop streets. She asked it there lS any possibility that the road improvement could be done in conjunction with this new development. Council discussion ¡was that the City is required to go through the bidding process. Cora Clemetson, 2858 172nd Avenue NW - asked the location of Oakwood Estates relative to White Oaks. Chalrman Bosel1 explained ¡the location. Tom Sebu11a, 16981 Crocus - asked several questions relative to the status öf the petition the procedure, etc., feeling that there is merit at having it done now at the low price. Discussion noted that the petition is now below 35 percent in favor; that the price is lower than what other projects have been because the base is already there; suggesting that any future petition have close to 50 'percent in favor as the Council tries to have a majority in favor of a street project before ordering it; and with Mr. Winner estimating the cost of a feasibility study for this project at $1,000 to $2,000. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski'lthat we table the discussion of the White Oaks Country Estates roads until the first regularly scheduled meeting in February to allow time for both sides to obtain additi na1 signatures on petitions and present them to us at that time. DISCUSSION: Mr. He11tr stated that after a period of time from constant grading, the gravel will soak int the ground or be graded into the ditch. He asked the cost of regraveling the road. Discussion was that the cost is approximately $5 per running foot; but since it is an improvemen t project, that would also be assessed back to the property owners. The problems the City has had with maintenance and im- proving roads with gravel by the City were explained to those present. Motion carried unanimously. PETITIONS/STREETS - SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS Mr. Winner reviewed his January 16, 1981, memo for streets in Smith's Rolling Oaks area and his suggestions for reducing the road improvement costs. Discussion was on the existing road standards, with the Council generally feeling that the existing rural standard of 24-foot wide bituminous mat with 4-foot gravel shoulders with ditching only as needed be used in this area. Discussion was also on the advantages of 4-foot shoulders over 2-foot shoulders; some feeling that the existing roads in the area are of sufficient width to use the rural road standard without requiring removal of trees, tearing up yards, etc.; that gravel shoulders protect the bituminous mat better; and on various suggestions of how to keep the costs of the project down. Mayor Windschit1 stated that if it is possible to get a 100-percent petition from the area, with each person financing his own lot ahead of time, it would result in a substantial savings. Dave Jack, 14826 Butternut - stated there are some 50 parcels involved, and he doubted chey would ever get 100 percent in favor of the improvement. It is their hope to keep the project minimal; and by keeping the total cost down, the administrative costs will also be kept down. Their road has deteriorated over the years, and it doesn't appear that the City will restore it to its original state. He also felt it would be bid lower because contractors are now looking for work. Mr. Jack stated he is in favor of the project and didn't feel that the improvement would be voted down by the residents involved. He asked that a determination be made as to the road standard and the cost. Councilman Orttel felt that it would be possible and cost effective in this instance to have the City be its own general contractor by bidding out the rough, work and grading, bituminous and possibly restoration separately. Mr. Winner felt that he could shoot existing grade and stake the road in-house, but some of the other projects would probably have to be put on hold while this one is being done. He also felt that it is feasible to bid the project out in three components as suggested by Councilman Ortte1. Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Petitions/Streets - Smith's Rolling Oaks, Continued) Council then generally agreed to have this project engineered in-house to the existing rural street standard. It was also felt that the engineer should be looking at getting the project documents in a biddable stage for the early spring bidding. Mr. Davidson related some of the problems that have been encountered relative to bidding components separately, the problem of some contractors consistently providing an inferior grade of material, etc.; cautioning that the City should continue to be concerned about quality control. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize the City Engineer to write a letter WhlCh can be taken around to Smith's Rolling Oaks describing the possible costs for the roads within this subdivision based on the standard of 24 feet of bituminous mat and 4- foot gravel shoulders done under the direction of the City Engineer. DISCUSSION: Glen Frishmon, 15880 Evergreen Street - felt that since it is obvious that University Avenue will not be improved in the near future, it is important that 146th be blacktopped to Prairie Road. There is also a question of paying for the project as to whether the standard front-footage would be used or to go a unit cost. He explained that because of the location of his lot, he would have no front footage, and he felt that the most equitable way of assessing would be on the per-lot unit assessment. Councilman Jacobson ADDED TO MOTION: to include 146th between Prairie Road and University Avenue. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. It was requested that the question of unit assessment for the two street improvement projects discussed this evening be placed on the next Council agenda for further discussion. Recess at 9:45; reconvene at 10:02 p.m. SELECTION OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRMS/1981 Each Councilmember expressed his preference for consulting engineering firms, after which the following motion was made: MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we designate two engineering firms to work with the City of Andover for 1981, those being the firm of Bonestroo and TKDA. DISCUSSION: Councilman Orttel stated that following the interview of the engineering firms last spring, he had read about some projects that Bonestroo firm had done that he was not happy with relating to pricing and gross inaccuracies. For that reason, he said CED would be his choice as another engineering firm for the City based on the out- standing reports he had heard of the work they have done for Coon Rapids and Ramsey. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Ortte1 Motion carried. Councilman Ortte1 - The reason for my no vote is strictly on information that I had read in a newspaper on the Bonestroo firm. Mr. Davidson stated that TKDA is in full agreement with working with other consulting firms that the City selects. REFUND OF SEWER COSTS/MOORE Mr. Winner and Ms. Lindquist explained the problems Mr. Moore had encountered as a result of having sewer problems and discovering one of his units was not connected to the sanitary sewer. However, the former City Inspector had indicated approval of the connection and Mr. Moore had paid sewer user charges since 1976. Mr. Moore is asking for a reimbursement for sewer user charges paid since 1976, payment to Dinius Pumpers for work done, and for lost wages to straighten the matter out. After discussion, Council generally felt that Mr. Moore's contractor to hook up the units should be liable for the Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Refund of Sewer Costs/Moore, Continued) Dinius Pumpers' bill since they had not completed the work contracted for. Attorney Hawkins explained that the position is generally taken that the City is providing a service to the consumer for inspection service and that the City shouldn't be responsible as a result of some improper workmanship inspected by the City. He didn't think the City was obligated because of an error. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we refund to Mr.' Herbert Moore at 2453 138th Avenue NW a refund of $286.60 in monthly sewer fees from October, 1976, through January 1, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT/CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Hawkins reported he has talked with the County Attorney, who has advised that the PCA is going to ask for litigation authority at Tuesday's meeting to start an action against the four generators seeking removal of waste dumped on the Heidelberger property. It is the County's intent to join in that litigation. Also, the County has gone to 'Chicago in an effort to get some "Super Fund" monies, as the Heidelberger property is one of the top priorities in the region, and it is expected to be funded in March or April for cleanup. Mr. Hawkins went on to say that the County indicated they have no information at this point to say that a health hazard is eminent at the landfill and that they do hot have sufficient basis to close them down. The City's action could be to take action against the County for failing to fulfill their duties under the Solid Waste Management Act; but to do that, the City must have evidence that they are not fulfilling their duties. Councilman Lachinski felt that the landfill has never complied with all the regulations, as licenses are not issued on time, or the landfill operates without a license, or addendums are not: . complied with. Discussion was also that Ms. Lindquist and Mayor Windschit1 are meeting with the County officials next week on the matter; that it is expected that the Barr Engineering report will substantiate the City's concern about the potential hazard of the pit in the landfill; that because the pit in the landfill was put in under the direct supervision of the PCA, the City's concern is what is the liability of the PCA in the matter; and that it is the City's desire to get the hazardous material out of the area before it becomes an eminent hazard to the area. Mr. Hawkins again stated that before bringing any action against the PCA, expert testimony would be needed on the condition of the pit, the rate of deterioration, the hazard, etc., and assuming that the PCA is not taking reasonable precautions at this point in time. MOTION by Jacobson that as soon as the Barr Report is available to the City Council, that a copy of that is transmitted to the City Attorney; and that the City Attorney is authorized to send a letter, along with the Barr Report, to the Pollution Control Agency pointing out the problems that the Report brings out, requesting the PCA to respond in writing as to what they intend to do with the potential problem and report back to us. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Council took no further action, agreeing to wait for receipt of the Barr Report, and noting that the Hazardous Waste"Committee was authorized to hire a consulting firm on behalf of the City to look into the matter as well. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Councilman Lachinski asked that the Department work on their Five-Year Capital Improvement~ Program. He is intending to cover the sanitary sewer portion of the plan, and then look at details of other areas of the City such as the Fire Department. Fire Chief Bob Palmer requested Council approval for two hand-held portable radios for the Fire Department, and explained their need and how they will be used in the Department. Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Andover Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the purchase by the Fire Department of two MX Portables, 6-watt 4-channel hand-held radios for a total purchase price of $3,166 and note that these are being purchased under the State of Minnesota purchase. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Palmer also reported that the fire detection systems are in at Meadowcreek Baptist Church and at Grace Lutheran Church. He also reported that several of the volunteers will be teaching CPR classes through the Community School. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bosell stated she has heard that Andover's Comprehensive Plan has been submitted back into the Review process at the Metropolitan Council and explained the process that usually takes place with other Plans going through the process. She also reported that the last ¡' material to the DNR for the Scenic River Ordinance has been provided. Ms. Lindquist also reported on the information she had provided Metropolitan Council last week relative to the City's Plan. Discussion was on the issue of requiring all new development in the Urban Service Area to have sanitary sewer facilities, directing the Clerk to research the ordinances and submit the correct information to the Metro Council. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Discussion was on the Clerk's January 14, 1981, memo to Mr. Winner relative to his daily arrival times to work. After a lengthy discussion on the matter, Council gave a verbal reprimand to Mr. Winner, stressing the importance of arriving at work at 8 a.m. unless other arrangements have been made or the office is informed, noting the serious credibility problem that has arisen as a result of his actions, and generally feeling it is unfortunate that it is an issue and hoping Mr. Winner personally resolves the matter. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Windschit1, directing the City Clerk to continue to keep track of his arrival times for the next 30 days and to make sure that he is aware that you're keeping track of the time and present that the first meeting in March. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski felt it should only be brought to the Council's attention if it . continues to be serious., Councilman Ortte1 didn't feel such close scrutiny is necessary. Councilman Peach stated he too is not in favor of severe action at this time, but to date it is a matter of his disregarding a Council directive to be at work at 8 a.m. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1 Motion failed. It was felt that Mr. Winner is now aware of the Council's feeling; and if the problem continues, far more serious action will be considered. Mayor Windschitl also expressed concern that the Council was not informed of the pending lot split on Eide1weiss Street (See C. Marek Lot Split) at the assessment hearing to insure that the lots were being assessed fairly. He asked that on all such matters in the future, the Council be kept informed as soon as possible. DOG ORDINANCE Councilman Peach was dismayed that the ordinance does not contain the provisions for dealing with dog bites in the manner dealt with by Ham Lake as he had originally proposed. It was his opinion that by having the Council deal with the matter, neighbors can resolve the problems in a more friendly atmosphere without having to go through court procedures. Council suggested Councilman Peach submit his recommendations to the Council for further consideration. Regular City Council Meeting January 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution establishing permit fees and service charges to be collected by the City of Andover and amending the Resolution setting such fees adopted the 5th Day of September, 1978, as submitted by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R4-81) Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we pay Checks Numbers 3725 through 3770, excluding Check 3751 and Check 3766, for a total of $17,012.94. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of Check No. 428 for $756.10; Check No. 429 for $89.18; Check No. 430 for $74,677.36; and Check No. 431 for $4,183.33. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '\~~~h ~~.~~ Recording Secretary