Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 21, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JULY 21,1981 AGENDA - 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing/1979-2 Supplemental Assessment 5. Discussion Items a. Final Approval/1980-4 Improvement Project & 1980-3/Well House b. Oneida Street Ditch Reseeding c. Meadowcreek Driveway Complaint d. Cedar Crest Lots e. Potowatomi Street Extension f. Approve Final Plans/Specs - 1981-2/Smith's Addition g. h. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Approve Streets - Andover West b. Approve Streets - Birchwood Pond c. PERA Exemption Resolution d. Fee Schedule-Demolition of Bldgs. e. Salary Adjustment-R.Yaeger f. Hawk Ridge Park Lease 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Andover Fire Department-E.M.T. b. Andover Fire Department-Burning Permits c. Liquor Study Committee 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment . ^ 1· ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 21, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y 1~3eting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on July 21,1981,7:33 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Jan Sturgeon, 17307 Roanoke Street NW - asked if any decision has been made relative to a donatlon to the Anoka Area Ice Arena, and encouraged the City to provide some assistance. ' Discussion was that the Attorney has rendered a legal opinion on the matter and that the item has been referred to the Park and Recreation Commission. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to amend the published Agenda as follows: Delete Item 6c, PERA Exemption Resolution; and Add Item 6e, Salary Adjustment - R. Yaeger; Item 6f, Hawk Ridge Park Lease; Item 6g, Winner/Extended Probation; and Item 7d, Capital Improvement Committee. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING/1979-2 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr. Winner reviewed the reasons for the increased assessment levied, those primarily being the increased common excavation costs, additional placement of topsoil and sod to prevent damage of the road, additional legal costs, and the adjustments made by the Council during the original assessment hearing to equalize the assessments on odd- shaped lots. Approximately $17,000 more is needed over what was originally assessed to recover all the costs of that project. Martin Mykkanen, 15845 Xenia - asked how much over was the contractor and is it common practice for the contractor to get more money if he goes over on the contract, noting he has been in construction many years and contractors normally have to absorb any overage on projects. He also felt if there has been an engineering mistake, that the engineers should be liable for the increase, not the residents. (Mr. Winner stated he did not have the figures for the overage in the contract costs, but the -contractor is paid for actual quantities installed. Councilman Lachinski also explained that the road design was redone several times, resulting in a very high design cost in the project. The Council then negotiated with TKDA, after which TKDA lowered the engineering costs by approximately $4,500.) Mr. Mykkanen - still felt an additional $17,000 on a bid job was outrageous. He also noted that during heavy rainfalls, he gets quite a bit of runoff into his yard. He was concerned that -he could get flooded in the spring because of the flat grade from his yard to the street, feeling that the street probably should have been lowered but wasn't because of the gas line. Are they paying for the dirt removed and then put back around the pipeline? Mr. Mykkanen felt that the depth of the gas line should have been known prior to beginning work and told to the residents at the hearings. He stated the street is of no benefit to him if he gets flooded or it creates problems with his septic system. (Mr. Schumacher explained that the City does not use a fixed price contract, but rather a unit-price contract in which the contractor is paid for only the amount of work done. The gas company told TKDA the elevation of the gas line prior to , - - -,- -- -. - " Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing/lg79-2 Supplemental Assessment, Continued) actual construction; however, during construction the gas company then stated the road could not be put that low because of federal regulations requiring certain minimum depth over the gasline. The contractor was not paid for placing the dirt back in.) Mr. Mrkkanen - asked if the contractor placed the black dirt down. (Mr. Schumacher explalned that the contractor placed the black dirt, seeded, and sodded. It became apparent more sod was needed to prevent erosion, noting that was the first time that particular street section was used in the City and by TKDA.) Mr. Mykkanen - stated that the material placed was the poorest grade he has ever seen, in that there was a great deal of debris in it, including building material, tile, concrete, metal pipe, bricks, logs, etc. And now no grass is growing there. He expressed his frustration over the price and quality of the project. He felt for an additional $230 assessment, he should have black dirt and better grass planted. (Discussion was that the project is under a one-year warranty, and the contractor can be required to rake out the debris. Mr. Schumacher was also directed to meet with Mr. Mykkanen relative to the flooding potential.) Mr. M~kkanen asked if there is an appeal process. (Attorney Hawkins explained the proce ure for legal action through District Court, recommending a resident consult his own 1aywer to perfect the appeal in a proper fashion. He also noted that any resident considering an appeal is required to provide written notice to the City of their intent to appeal by this evening.) Mr. Mykkanen - asked if there will be any other assessments for the project. (Discussion was the costs are now finalized on the project, and any further maintenance of the road must be done out of general funds. Council also acknowledged that having to levy the supplemental assessment is an undesirable situation, that postponing the original assessment would have increased the project cost by the capitalized interest, and that the City may have been amiss in not knowing more accurate figures on the project prior to the original assessment, especially since the project itself was completed by mid- summer. ) Forest cernrJ 15934 Xenia - couldn't believe the project was done without a contract. (Ihe City dl have a contract on the project.) He then asked how the contractor could ask for more money, citing experiences of bidding projects and having to live by those bids. (Discussion was again on the explanation of the unit-price contract used by the City versus the fixed-price contract.) Mr. Cerny - felt it was obvious to everyone that the drainage area down Xenia was going to be a major problem, feeling the contractor and engineers should have known that there should have been either a spillway or the area sodded before it was done, not to repair it after the road washed out. (Mr. Schumacher exp1aimed there was some sod placed there initially. The rains were heavy and a considerably larger area had to then be sodded to control erosion.) Mr. Cerny - also complained about the quality of black dirt placed on the project area, again noting the large amounts of debris in the dirt. He also felt that seed may not have been placed, alleging nothing but weeds have grown in the area. Mr. Cerny also asked who owns the culverts and what happened to those culverts removed from driveways during the construction. (Mr. Schumacher explained that the driveway culverts were made the property of the City and were delivered to the City yard.) Elaine Green, 16186 VintaåT - stated her husband called Mr. Winner last week asking for a breakdown of the ad ltional costs between the different items. (Mr. Winner stated he has not had time to break those figures out for this meeting. The additional assessment was based on the grand total of the project cost, but those figures had not been broken down by each area.) , Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing/1979-2 Supplemental Assessment, Continued) Ms. Green - asked how much of the additional $17,000 is because of the reductions made to other lots at the original assessment hearing, expressing concern that that was done at the expense of the others in the project. (The Clerk was directed to research that figure, noting the reason the assessment policy was changed to be based on an average lot size was an attempt to levy an equitable assessment against all lots, including the odd-shaped lots.) Ms. Green - asked why the change in policy wasn't done prior to the original hearing, WhlCh would have caused a lot less problems. She also stated that in the 1/2 mile of their cul de sac, there are 22 cracks from roadside to roadside that will not be taken care of by sealer. She was concerned as to how long the road will last, question- ing why a better job wasn't done. She also related an incident of getting her car stuck in the road just prior to blacktop being put down, questioning whether four inches of Class 5 was placed over the area as was called for in the specifications. Was anyone representing the City to see the project was done properly, and who will pay for the repairs in the future? (Mr. Schumacher stated that any major problems must be corrected by the contractor under the one-year warranty period, but that any bituminous roadway seeks its own contraction and expansion joints, with transverse cracks developing across the pavement within the first year or two. He also explained the procedure for providing blue-top stakes by the City for the contractor to ensure that the required thickness of base is placed in the area.) Ms. Green - felt that it was an expensive project; and before the contractor is used agaln, a thorough investigation should be made, feeling it was not a job well done. She also reiterated what was said about the poor quality of black dirt used. Ar10w Hanson, 15907 Vintage - was assessed for 227 feet of blacktop but only received 166 feet of it. (Councll noted this item will be addressed later in the meeting.) Alan Marshik, 15727 Xenia - presented the engineers with a sample of the black dirt placed in the area, also noting the debris found in it. He also felt the quality of the work was poor, noting the washout and breaking away of the blacktop around the corner of 157th. Also, his neighbor brought in yards and yards of black dirt; but every time it rains, the dirt just washes away. There was no sod placed in the area. He stated it is starting to break up in the middle of the road, questioning the thickness of the Class 5 under the bituminous. Also, the water stands in the roadway whenever it rains. (Mr. Schumacher stated there is no question in his mind that the contractor was provided with blue-top stakes and that four inches of Class 5 was placed in the project. He will investigate Mr. Marshik's concerns. Mr. Schumacher also stated that the problem with raveling along the side of the road is because of the washouts and erosion.) Discussion was then on the causes for the increase in the construction cost. Mr. Schumacher noted that the compensating change order was a net increase to the contractor of $34,197 of which a major portion was included in the original assessment. The major changes were an increase in common excavation of 13,724 yards, an increase of approximately 14 percent; top soil borrow coming in at an additional 1,690 cubic yards at $7 per cubic yard; and additional sodding of 2,904 yards at a cost of $2.20 per yard. Several members of the audience felt the costs for the top soil borrow and sod were too expensive and questioned whether that much top soil was actually placed there, making several suggestions relative to City procedure for contracting the restoration portion of the project. Council and engineering discussion was that the prices include the laying of topsoil and sod, plus the maintenance and guarantee of it, plus reasons why those items are more expensive for the City to do than they would be for the individual resident. , Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing/1979-2 Supplemental Assessment, Continued) Mr. Cerny - couldn't believe that nearly $10,000 of black dirt was placed in the proJect, again noting the poor quality of the dirt. (Mr. Schumacher explained that the top soil borrow specification is considerably different than the spec for pulverized or select top soil. But they can analyze the top soil borrow placed on the project. Glen Rehbein was the restoration subcontractor, and there is a one~ year warranty by the general contractor on the restoration work as well.) Ms. Green - stated that they called the City Hall while the project was being done to complain about the quality of the black dirt, feeling it would have been less expensive had the problem been taken care of at that time. (Mr. Schumacher stated he ~as not aware of the complaints of the top soil during the time of the project.) Bruce Englund, 15741 Xenia - asked if there was a general agreement signed between TKOA and the general contractor for the overrun on common excavation. He also complained about the quality of top soil, stating that it was a poor quality job. (The City has the contract with the contractor and increases are covered by change orders.) Chuck Lucas, 4011 Genie Drive - explained how the supplemental assessment affects him, with money escrowed when he purchased the house to pay for the streets which has since been returned, and how he must now try to recover the funds from the original owner. He felt the reasons for the overage on the project could have been avoided with good engineering. (Council discussion was again on why the more accurate figures were not know at the time the assessments were calculated. It was then noted that the changes agreed to by the Council at the original assessment hearing amounted to a reduction in the total amount levied last fall by $5,512. In other words, of the additional $17,000 now being assessed to the residents, $5,512 was because of those changes made by the Council at the previous hearing. However, it was realized by the Council at that time that a supplemental assessment would have to be made on the project.) Mr. Lucas - felt it would be more fair when doing assessments to inform the residents that there is a possibility an additional assessment may be levied against the project, which would provide a mortgage company a basis to hold back the escrow funds until the project is finalized. There was also some discussion with Ms. Green as to what changes the Council approved amounting to the $5,512 difference at the last hearing, explaining the policy used for equalizing the assessments of the lots and determining assessable front footages, and noting that the front footage cost calculated for the last hearing could not be increased at that time to make up for the difference because of the time factor in certifying the assessment rolls. Discussion was then on the July 15, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner and letter of appeal from Kevin Mullins at 15910 Vintage that his assessment for 224 feet be reduced to 165 feet, the actual length of bituminous past his lot. Attorney Hawkins advised that the appeal can only apply to the supplemental assessment, not back to the original assessment. Mr. Schumacher explained that the City does have easement to the end of the lot, but a T-turnaround was constructed past the driveway. He did not know the potential of the property owner off the end of the right of way to extend the road and subdivide the land. Discussion was that had a cu1 de sac been constructed, the entire 227 feet of the lot would have surfacing past it, based on the City's policy. Council also noted that the policy of equalizing assessments often means that the assessable front footage is not necessarily the same as actual front footage Council took no action on the matter. Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing/1g79-2 Supplemental Assessment, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, entering a Resolution adopting the supplemental assessment for the improvement of bituminous streets for 1979-2, Xenia Street Area, Section 17/18 as amended; with the correction of October 7, 1980, at a cost of .974 cents per foot. (See Resolution R56-81) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was that the engineer is to review the area closely, meet with residents with known problems, and to obtain a sample of the top soil prior to the end of the warranty period. Discussion with members of the audience was also that the City holds a bond on the contractor to insure that the warranty work is completed satisfactor1y, that the residents can find out the results of the samples taken of the black dirt and sod in a week or two, with residents again noting the problems of the poor quality of top soil, the washout problems, their general dissatisfaction with the quality of work done on the project, and their dissatisfaction of the work of the engineers on the project. Oiscussion was also on the amount of sod placed in projects and differences in cost between what an individual can have the work done for and what the City gets the work done for, repeating much of the previous discussion on the subject. It was also noted that if there are some serious defects, the additional amount will not be assessed back to the residents. The residents cannot be reassessed now until the term of the bond for the project has expired, with the City absorbing all maintenance costs in the future. Public Hearing adjourned at 8:50 p.m. FINAL APPROVAL/1980-3 - WELL HOUSE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept the City Well House and approve rlna1 Payment to the contractor in the amount of $16,932.12 based on the recommendation from the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. ONEIDA STREET DITCH RESEEDING (Reference July 14, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner and July 20, 1981, letter from Mr. and Mrs. Struwve) MOTION by Ortte1 that we direct the City Staff to get a cost estimate for the repairing and seeding on Oneida Street in the 1979-1 project. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Ms. Struwve, 159th and Oneida - explained that it was not necessary to put in the dltch along Oneida, as no water ever comes down it anyway, and it is so steep that it is impossible to maintain. She felt that it should be filled into the shallow ditch depth which would handle the water and could be maintained by them. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Engineer, Larry Winner, be dlrected to investigate possibilities to correct the problem of the slope in the ditch on the corner of 159th and Oneida and recommend remedial action to the Council. Motion carried unanimously. MEADOWCREEK DRIVEWAY COMPLAINT (Reference May 29, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner and July 7, 1981, City Council Meeting Minutes) Discussion was that the area in question is very flat, questioning what good placing 1/4- or 1/2-inch of asphalt would do, and noting that the curb being higher than the blacktop is not uncommon for the area. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we take no remedial action on the Meadowcreek drlveway complaint. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated for the record that he doesn't believe the situation at 13600 Heather Street is really unusual. Motion carried unanimously. - - 1 . Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 POTOWATOMI STREET EXTENSION Ralph Shaffer, 4644 162nd Lane; Mike Shaffer, 11910 Xeon, and Gladys Ransom, 4640 165th - were present all stating they are stll1 ln favor of the proposal to extend Potowatoml and 163rd. Mr. R. Shaffer, fee owner of the lot south of the 163rd easement, stated he is not in the process of selling the lot. Discussion was also on an alternative proposal by Ms. Ransom to dedicate easement through her property from the 163rd easement north to Seventh Avenue. Mr. R. Shaffer - asked why 163rd was not connected when the property to the east was developed by Mr. Smith. (Mayor Windschit1 explained the problems Mr. Smith had with platting the property and with obtaining clear title to it, with Mr. Smith finally subdividing the property under a Registered Land Survey over which the City had no contro 1 . ) Discussion was also on an alternative of condemning property to the east and extending 163rd easterly through the Smith property. Mr. Schumacher explained that the $850 proposal to do the feasibility study also includes doing the soil borings, but he felt that the feasibility could be done for approximately $1,000 if the two alternatives are also included in the study. Ash1e Brooks, 16221 Potowatomi - asked how the majority are determined in the project. e assessa e ront ootage was used to determine the majority in favor as presented by the original petition.) Ms. Ransom - stated if the proposal is used to extend Potowatomi north through her property, her intent would be to divide the property in half, selling the duplex and five acres, so she could build in the back on the remaining 6 acres. Mr. R. Shaffer - felt it would be suitable to extend Potowatomi and do 163rd along the existing easements, stating that Mr. Stenquist had removed the peat out of the swamp in that area. Jack Erickson, 4725 162nd - felt that the people opposing the project would have more footage on the project, noting he has 500 feet on Potowatomi alone. (Council noted that his footage along Potowatomi is the side lot and is not assessable; although more accurate figures for assessable footage will be presented at the public hearing. There is also a question on the assessable footage for the low land behind Mr. Erickson's. The figures for assessable footage and estimated front foot costs would be available at the public hearing.) Mr. Erickson - asked how that portion of Potowatomi is paid for, noting that in the end he still ends up paying for it. (Discussion was everyone ends up paying a percentage of it. It was also felt by the Council that the per assessable front footage costs of the project as proposed would be extremely high.) Mr. Erickson - also felt that the assessment would be extremely high, noting he already has an $8,000 assessment for blacktopping the road past the front of his house. Mr. R. Shaffer - stated he is now paying taxes for a lot he cannot get to. (Discussion noted that Mr. Shaffer would be allowed access to his property via the City road easement; however, he would not be allowed to remove trees, etc., from City right of way.) Counci 1 discuss i on with those affected was on the defi niti on of the front of a lot, explaining how assessable footage is calculated. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize TKDA to do a cost feasibility study not to exceed $1,000 for the northerly extension of Potowatomi Street from 162nd north to the right of way for 163rd, and 163rd west approximately 800 feet and east about roughly 700 feet with alternate to extend Potowatomi north from 163rd to the County Road. (See Resolution R57-81) DISCUSSION: Ms. Ransom stated she has only , ,-> . ~ -- ~.~.. Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Potowatomi Street Extension, Continued) four buildable acres in the back, with the middle of her land being low. Discussion was again with those property owners present, with the Council noting the properties to be assessed would be those that are buildable; but for every piece of property pulled out as unassessab1e only means that the remaining property is assessed at a higher rate. Everybody will be assessed on an equal front footage cost, but the assessable frontage still needs to be determined, again expressing the concern that this could be a very expensive project resulting in some very high assessments. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we set a public hearing for the improvement of 163rd and extension of Potowatomi Street for August 18 at 7:30 p.m. (See Resolution R58-81) DISCUSSION: Mr. Schumacher will contact the Anoka Soil & Water Conservation District relative to any activity on the Potowatomi extension site. For the public hearing, the assessable front footages will be calculated, plus estimate costs for the three alternatives. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:35; reconvene at 9:47 p.m. FINAL PLANS/SPECS - 1981-2/SMITH'S ADDITION Mr. Winner stated that the plans and specifications are 99.9 percent complete, stating tomorrow he will ink in the culverts, ink in the quantities, provide the benchmarks, and the engineer's estimate of the project, which he estimated would take two to three hours. The typing of the specifications also needs to be completed, which he estimated would take one afternoon, and he will be giving the three or four or five quantity sheets to the typist tomorrow. The advertisements will be published on Friday. Council then reviewed the plans as presented by Mr. Winner, as well as several residents present viewing the plans as it related to the proposed grades, etc. Mr. Winner stated he hadn't yet calculated the difference in quantities from that estimated in the feasibility study to what is being proposed in the plans, but he thought'"the plans were over in the areas of common excavation and sod. Council and Mr. Winner then reviewed the comparisons of quantities in various areas between the feasibility estimates and the plans. Mr. Winner stated that he changed the plans to show 146th under common excavation rather than fine grading as in the feasibility study, because he found additional restoration of the road will be needed prior to paving. With that change, the common excavation increases by approximately 33 percent. Also, the amount of sod proposed was double in the plans over the feasibility estimate because of the steeper banks where the road is offset. Most of the other items compared were very similiar. No driveway culverts are proposed within the entire project area. Councilman Peach reminded the Council of the policy not to act on material unless it is received prior to the meeting, and that this is the first time they have seen the materi a 1. Also, some very serious mistakes have been made in the past, and he felt the Council is "shooting from the hip" by acting on material received five minutes ago, not to mention the plans and specs not being complete. Mayor Windschit1 stated he would be willing to come back Thursday night to approve the completed plans and specs. Roger Dahl, 15003 Butternut - asked if the quantities on the plans changed from the feaslbl1ity estimate, and are the quantities now firm. And when will the contract be awarded? He hoped that this project would be handled better than the previous one, referencing the problems brought out during the supplemental assessment hearing this evening. (Discussion was that the Council just reviewed the estimated quantities, and the costs of the project will be known when the bids come in. There are some '" Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Final Plans/Specs - 1981-2/Smith's Addition, Continued) differences in quantities. Generally, if the bids come in greater than 10 percent of what the people were told at the public hearing, the residents will be notified and again asked their opinion before it is awarded. Council will consider awarding the contract at the August 18 meeting.) Dave Almgren - noted that the quantities of Class 5 are now about $5,500 over the May 28 estlmate. He felt more accurate figures should have been estimated previously because of the known figures of the street length and width and the depth required. (Mayor Windschit1 stated he would prefer to see the engineer's esimtate, the specs, and the plans completely done and do the comparisons prior to approving them. Council debated as to whether or not the plans and specs should be approved as is or to wait until Thursday to act on the completed plans and specs. Councilman Lachinski noted that the Resolution requires the engineer's estimate; however, he would be willing to allow the Clerk to insert that figure prior to Friday once it is determined.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, enter the Resolution as prepared by the City Clerk with the bids to be opened on August 17. DISCUSSION: Mr. Winner stated that the quantities prepared for publication are slightly different than what is shown on the plans; however, that should be of no significance to the bidders. Mr. Almgren asked if the bids are tied. Mr. Winner said no. Mr. Almgren also asked whether set amounts could be used for Class 5 and bituminous, since those figures to determine the amounts are known, rather than using a unit price for them. Councilman Ortte1 noted that the common excavation is more because it was found that additional Class 5 will be needed for 146th. That also means that the assessment proposed for 146th may change because more construction will be needed on that street than what was originally thought. Discussion also noted that unit prices are generally used by cities in such construction projects. Mr. Almgren disagreed, citing that several cities used fixed prices. Cóunci1man Peach asked how the Council can approve something they don't have, that they are not yet complete. Councilman Lachinski and Ortte1 argued that the plans are before them and the quantities will be going into the specifications for typing, those quantities taken from the plans. There is no additional cost to get the bids, which can then be used to compare with the proposed costs given at the public hearing. They didn't see any reason to delay action. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1 Motion failed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that we schedule a meeting for Thursday evening to consider plans and specifications for Smith's Rolling Oaks. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Motion carried. FINAL APPROVAL/1980-4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we make final payment to Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $28,116.30 for a final total of the 1980-4 project of $293,871.29, and to accept the streets, and approve the compensating change order. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - E.M.T. Judy Bush, EMS Chairperson, reviewed the July 10, 1981, memo relative to inservice training for the EMS personnel, recommending Option #2 be adopted. She explained that EMT's must recertify every two years and CIM's must recertify every three years. Bill Meyer, Training Director from Health Central, stated that the funding for the two-year training program can be set up any way the City chooses. After some discussion, 1 Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (AVFD - EMT, Continued) it was agreed by all parties that the first payment is to be made in January, 1982, and the additional funding for the program to be included in the 1982 and 1983 budgets. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council approve Option #2 as presented by the Fire Department on the EMS inservice education program at a cost of $1,440 over a 24-month period, payment starting January 1, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - CALLS Fire Chief Bob Palmer felt there will be a problem with the bell system on the lighting system for the tennis courts behind City Hall, as the bells ring for approximately 20 minutes warning that the lights will turn off. And neighbors call it in as a fire call thinking the City Hall fire alarms are ringing. The Clerk was directed to have Public Works look into the warning system to reduce the time of the bell. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - FUN DAY Phil Rzeszutek informed the Council the Andover Fun Day is planned for August 23 from noon to 6 p.m. This year they are planning to have a fun-type horse show sanctioned by the 4-H group. The event would not be a fund raiser but would be a draw for more people, with the insurance being provided for by the 4-H. They would like to have the show in the ice rink behind City Hall, feeling that the event would not harm the rink in any way. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Fire Department be authorized to allow the 4-H to sanction a horse shown at the Andover Fun Day on August 23 and use the City hockey rink behind the City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - BURN PERMITS Fire Marshall Rich Lindeen explained the proposal for a yearly burn permit that would run the calendar year. The $25 charge would cover all inspections, inspections being done for every burn. The holder of such a permit would inform the City prior to each burn and an inspection would be done for each burn. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Fire Department's request to issue annual burning permits for multiple fire permit applicants for a fee of $25 per year. DISCUSSION: Mr. Lindeen stated that the guidelines would be the same as for the three-day permits. Applicants must give 24-hour notice prior to burning. Motion carried unanimously. LIQUOR STUDY COMMITTEE - ORDINANCES Council discussed with Chairman Jim Elling and P & Z Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 the proposed liquor ordinance and the proposed changes to Ordinance 8 as recommended by the P & Z. Mayor Windschit1 also thanked Mr. Elling for his time and efforts on the Liquor Committee. Council then did a page by page review of the proposed ordinance and made the following suggestions and changes: Page 1, Section 2, Subdivision 2, change to read: "...which ha~ facilities for serving at least 100 guests at one time." Page 1, Section 2, Subdivision 4: Discussion was that licenses be issued only to drug stores and exclusive liquor stores. Attorney Hawkins stated the statement comes from the State Statute which allows drug stores to sell intoxicating liquor. This section authorizes drug stores to make application to sell intoxicating liquor. No change was recommended. ,. Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 (Liquor Study Committee - Ordinances, Continued) Page 1, Section 2, Subdivision 5: Discussion was on the issuance of licenses only to incorporated clubs which have been in existence for 15 years. Attorney Hawkins understood that each separate club must be in existence for the 15 years to qualify for making application. However, the club does not have to be in existence . within the City for that length of time. No change was recommended. Page 2, Section 3, Subdivision 1: change seventh line, "...such other information as requested by the City Council, the application..." Page 4, Subdivision 3, last sentence, change to: " ...without prior Council approval shall be cause for revocation..." Page 4, Subdivision 2: Discussion was on the procedure for the issuance of licenses, the public hearings to be held for rezoning and license application, and the question of whether or not the license should be allowed in a zoning district by special use permit. Delete: "Opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license." And in its place add: "A public hearing shall be held prior to the granting of the license." When discussing the special use permit, Chairman Bosel1 stated the Planning Commission felt they would like to review each liquor application as it pertains to that particular parcel of land and dealing with the surrounding area. They conceive that the public hearings would run hand in hand. However, they would have nothing to do with the investigation of the applicant. It was agreed to the change suggested, that the public hearing would be held by the Councilor its designee. Page 4, Section 7, Subdivision 2, change to read: "No 1 icense shall be granted for operation or renewal on any premises... " Page 4, Section 6, change to read: "No 1 i cense shall be granted to any person made ineligible for such a license by state law. No more than one intoxicating liquor license shall be directly or indirectly issued within the city to anyone person, firm, or corporation." Page 5, top paragraph, change sentence to: "No license shall be granted within 1000 feet of any school property or within 400 feet of any church sanctuary." Discussion was then on the Planning Commission's motion of July 14, 1981, to allow the location of liquor within the City of Andover in the GR, LB, SC, GB, LI, and GI districts by special use permit. Liquor would not be allowed in all residential districts nor in the Neighborhood Business District. The Council reviewed each district separately, rendering opinion as to whether or not liquor should be allowed in each. Discussion was again on procedure, the time delay involved because of the investigation and hearings, recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission hold the required public hearings in conjunction with the special use permit application. Mr. Elling reminded the Council of the Committee's original recommendation to appoint someone to guide the applicant through the procedures and to act as a liason between the applicant and the Council. Discussion was also that requiring a special use permit provides the City with more specific control over the proposal. After discussing the procedure again, it was agreed that between Mr. Elling and the Clerk, a step by step procedure could be written up. Willard Maki, 175th Avenue NW - asked why we want liquor in Andover. He stated Andover has contlnued to grow without liquor, feeling bringing it into the City only creates many more problems. Why do we want to allow it in the City now when other areas are trying to close up such places? (Council noted the major reason for allowing liquor is to attract a nice restaurant to the City, so the City can maintain control over what takes place in its borders, that the matter has been under consideration for the past several years, that providing such facilities within the City is providing a convenience to those residents who want to patronize such establishments, and that no provisions are being made for the "beer joint" type facilities.) 1· Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 (Liquor Study Committee - Ordinances, Continued) Jan Sturåeon, 17307 Roanoke NW - her main complaint was the lack of notification to the reSl ents that this item is being considered in the City. She felt if residents had been notified other than by publication in the Anoka County Union, that many more people would have attended the public hearing and other meetings to express their. opinions on the matter, suggesting it should have been mentioned in a newsletter to the residents. She asked if a public hearing is going to be held prior to adopting the ordinance. (Council noted that it has been an on-going issue for the past two or three years and that a formal public hearing has been held by the Liquor Study Committee. It was mentioned in a newsletter when the matter was first started. Discussion was also on the problems of notifying all residents individually for issues raised in the City.) Ms. Sturgeon - stated many of the people do not get the Anoka Union and are not aware of the issue. She also stated that she has been in contact with the Attorney General's office discussing the possibility of initiating a referendum for or against liquor licensure. She stated there probably will be a petition to get that on the ballot, although she understood that it must be held during a general election. Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo - understood the intent of requiring a special use permit lS to have some control over a particularly zoned area. He felt that control is important so that there may be some choice to exclude liquor. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, approving an Ordinance amending Ordinance No.8, Adopting October 21, 1971, known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Andover. The City Council of the City of Andover Hereby Ordains: Ordinance No.8 is hereby amended as follows: Section 7.03 Special Uses. GR General Recreation Oistrict, Liquor License; LB Limited Business, Liquor License; SC Shopping Center, Liquor License; GB General Business District, Liquor License; LI and GI Industrial Districts, Liquor License. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 21st Day of July, 1981. VÔTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, approving Ordinance No. 56, an Ordinance llcensing and regulating the licensing, sale, and consumption of intoxicating liquor within the City of Andover and providing a penalty for violation thereof, as presented by the Liquor Study Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission and as amended by the City Council tonight. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Councilman Jacobson - I haven't been for it since the first time we started talking about it two years ago, and I still feel that the best way to control liquor any place is to not allow it, period. And I still haven't changed my mind about that, and that is the reason I voted no tonight. I feel we are opening the door; and if we really wanted to control it, we wouldn't have it at all. Both Councilmen Lachinski and Ortte1 stated they would welcome a referendum, being very interested in seeing the results. ANDOVER COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER - RESTAURANT/LIQUOR Chairman Bose11 stated that at the time the rezoning took place for the entire area of the Andover Community Shopping Center, the P & Z recommended to the developer that the northern 10 acres be zoned NB to allow him to construct and operate Bill's Superette prior to the availability of sanitary sewer and water facilities. With the adoption of the ordinance this evening, the development of the ~enter is impacted because the 1 Regular City Council Meeting July 21, 1981 - Minutes Page 12 (Andover Community Shopping Centernõr~€~urant/Liquor, Continued) concept plan has always shown that· 10 acres as the area for a proposed restaurant and/or liquor store. It is the Planning Commission's recommendation that the property be rezoned from NB to SC to accommodate restaurant/liquor facilities, and she asked whether that rezoning should be initiated by the Planning Commission, by the developer, or whether to simply vary from that particular item in this case, since it was in the concept stage prior to the ordinance. Council discussion with Chairman Bose11 and Wayne Anderson, representing the developer, was that the area is divided into parcels, that that area is contiguous to the shopping center zone, and that the entire concept plan is basically a continuation of the shopping center. Council agreed that it would not be advisable to vary from the ordinance, suggesting the developer initiate a rezoning to Shopping Center for that area. Discussion was that there have been several applicants for liquor licenses in the past, questioning what procedure should be used in determining which applicants would be considered first. MOTION by Lachinski that we direct the City Clerk to send written information to the applicants for liquor licenses informing them that a liquor ordinance has now been established. Motion dies for lack of a Second. DISCUSSION was that the ordinance is not yet in effect; therefore, there can be no formal application for liquor licenses at this point. Those expressing an interest in obtaining a license in the past would be "inquirers." Council generally felt that it would not be necessary to individually inform those inquirers of the establishment of a liquor ordinance. It was suggested that a procedure for the order in which applicants will be considered be approved via Resolution; however Attorney Hawkins advised that that decision not be made now, but to look at the applications as they come in and make the decision based upon the individual proposals presented. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bosel1 read her letter of resignation as Chairman and Commissioner of the Planning Commission. On behalf of the entire Council, Mayor Windschit1 expressed regret that she is resigning, and thanked her for the effort and commitment she has provided the last several years. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we continue the Council meeting to Thursday evening, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting continued to July 23, 1981. 12: 12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ',\ ~~~~ ~~e11a A. Peach Recòrding Secretary I T