Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 7, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 7, 1981 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval I6e Arena-Discuss1on ' 4. Discussion Items a. Feasibility Study-potowatomi Street/Cost Estimate b. Northern Natural Gas Special Use Permit c. Cedar Crest Lots d. Meadowcreek Driveway Complaint e. Ward Lake Drive Oil Estimate f. Northwoods Tennis Court Repair g. Sale of Topsoil to Contractor h. 1981-1 - Change Order No. 2 i. Hawk Ridge East/Extension of Final Plat Filing j. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. LR. Bond Resolution/Rademacher b. Kennel License/Bayers c. Mixed Uses - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment d. Gladiola Street Repair-Authorization e. 171st Avenue Extension-Easement Acceptance f. Sealcoating-Award Contract g. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Park & Recreation Commission b. Volunteer Fire Department 7. Approval of Minutes- 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment -. - ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEE1ING - JULY 7, 1981 MINUTES The Reguìar Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Ken Orttel on July 7, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach Councilman absent: Mayor Windschit1 Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Staff Engineer, Larry Winner; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Geor~e ? ,179l0 Palm Street - asked for a permit to park a refrigerated trailer in t e yard and to run the Thermo-King during the daytime hours. He explained the problem he has had with a neighbor, in which he has gotten the neighbor to stop shooting a shotgun in the back yard. In turn, the neighbor filed a complaint against him alleging that the Thermo-King was being run all night long, complaining about the noise, which he stated has never been done. He stated the Thermo-King is run from approximately 8 a.m. to 8:30 or 9:30 p.m., and only in the summer. Discussion was that he should attempt to park the vehicle as far away from the neighbor's house as possible; that the noise from the vehicle would have to be measured at the property line to determine whether or not it exceeds the limits set forth in the City's ordinance; and that to date the complaint has not been pursued any further by that neighbor. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the approval of the Agenda as published with the Addition of 3a, Ice Arena-Discussion and the Addition on 4h, Change Orders Numbers 2 and 3. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. ICE ARENA - DISCUSSION Jim Sturgeon, 16555 Yakima NW - represented the Anoka Area Ice Arena Association. Mr. Sturgeon showed a slide presentation on the proposed arena, noting that as of yesterday, the County of Anoka passed a resolution that granted the City of Anoka $200,000 to be used in this project. Last night the Anoka City Council approved the land conveyance lend-lease land basis to the Association, approved the permit and rezoning, and gave the Association early entry into the land. The slide presentation showed the proposal for the Anoka Area Ice Arena and Civic Center, which would serve western Andover, Anoka, Champlin, southern Dayton, and Ramsey; the location being north of the Anoka Senior High School but south of the proposed Rum River Bridge Crossing thoroughfare; the construction costs estimated to be $700,000 if completely contracted out or $450,000 with donated help from Association members; and that financing is no longer a major problem with the Anoka County grant and the over $200,000 already raised in pledges. Mr. Sturgeon also explained the problem of getting ice time for the hockey teams and the various reasons such a venture was undertaken, and noted the various uses for the building. Following the presentation, Mr. Sturgeon asked that the City of Andover consider providing some financing assistance to the project or purchasing of equipment for the Arena and let the Association know. He also answered questions of the Council noting --- Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Ice Arena - Discussion, Continued) that there are presently over 60 participants in the Hockey Association from western Andover, that it is anticipated the costs for the ice time will be between $40 to $50 an hour, that the Association is a non-profit organization which will be liable for the Arena, and explaining the election of the Board of Directors. He explained the ice hours that would be available for open skating, not-ing time may be increased or decreased based upon demand. The High School will be using the Arena beginning next year, as the School District had to make a commitment to their present contractor for this year; and it is hoped that the building will be completed no later than December 1. Council discussion was that if funds could be made available, they probably would come from the Park and Recreation Commission's budget, questioning the legality of the City making such a donation. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we ask the City Attorney to look into the matter if it is legal to do something like that with City funds with this type of organization, and to give us an answer. Motion carried unanimously. FEASIBILITY STUDY - POTOWATOMI STREET/COST ESTIMATE Mr. Schumacher estimated the cost to prepare the Feasibility/Preliminary Report through the public hearing to be $850, which could be completed by the next regular Council meeting. He explained that they would make several soundings to determine the depth of the peat, borrowing the equipment from Anoka County. He realized that the drop off for the extension of Potowatomi is quite steep, but he felt there would be no problem constructing the road to a reasonable street grade. Council then noted the two petitions received this evening, both opposing the improvement. One petition included those property owners along 162nd Lane, most of whom own the 10tsbehind them which would be assessed for the construction of 163rd, and the other petition including those along 162nd Lane plus several others in the Stenquist Addition area. Fred Hamacher, 4755 162nd Lane - presented copies of a memo from the Anoka Soil & Water Conservation District recommending no development take place in the area until a complete technical review of the site can be done by them. Mr. Hamacher stated he has some problems with the proposal because the land drops off to a very low, swampy area and woods. He felt that if tons of fill were brought in for the construction of the road, it would have the effect of increasing the water level in his back yard. He felt that it would be easier to bring the road in from Seventh Avenue. Robert Fodness, 4613 162nd - is opposed to the proposal. He felt if the fill is put ln that is proposed, that he would have a water problem on his property. He didn't feel the cost of the feasibility study should be considered when it only benefits an individual developer. It serves no purpose to the people who live there on 162nd Lane, of which all but one property owner owns the lot behind that would then abut 163rd. Also, he was one of the first people to purchase lots in the Stenquist Addition. At that time, Mr. Stenquist was not required to put Potowatomi or 163rd through, which was to his benefit only. Had the road been put in properly at that time, the problem would not exist today. And finally, he felt the City was at fault for not requiring the property to the east when it was developed by Mr. Smith to provide for an access to 163rd. But the plat was approved without that access, and that was, he felt, to the benefit of that developer as well. He felt that the property was totally accessible from Seventh Avenue to those in Castner's Addition who want to develop their property. The intention of the property owners to the back have been made known to those on 162nd that the reason for the proposed road construction is to develop that land. They have also been told that the intention is to eventually construct a road out to Seventh Ave. , - , Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Feasibility Study - Potowatomi Street/Cost Estimate, Continued) Mr. Fodness stated he would not have a buildable lot if 163rd were put through because his home now sits on the back lot, and he has already paid for the road across the front lot. He also felt it was poor planning to have Potowatomi be the only access for that entire area. Council discussion was that there are 10 lots that would be served by the proposal, four large lots north of 163rd and 6 lots south of the proposed 163rd. Jack Erickson - stated he owns two lots. Council discussion was then that along the south side of 163rd there would be 5 lots opposed and one lot in favor. Mr. Fodness - stated the person of that one lot originally petitioned to have the road constructed, but he is no longer in favor of that proposal. Mr. Fodness stated he is negotiating with the property owner to purchase that lot. Since the reason the petition was brought in in the first place was to construct a house on that single lot south of 163rd, and the property owner has now changed his mind, Mr. Fodness stated that there is no reason to continue the matter further and to spend the money for the feasibility study. Council also noted that the development of the Smith property was done by metes and bounds conveyance over which the City had no jurisdiction. Also if what Mr. Fodness stated is true, there would then be a majority opposed to the project. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to table this until the next regularly scheduled meetlng and have the City Clerk telephone the people who brought in the original petition to see if it is still what they want or conditions have changed, in writing, and report back to us. 1 , 4725 162nd Lane - asked why it was stated that the people in Castner's Additlon would not have access to Seventh Avenue and if there has been any ruling to such. Council discussion was that the development of the land to the east precludes the possibility of extending 163rd to the east; but there has been no ruling relative to developing a road to the north to Seventh, although those lots presently front on Seventh. Motion carried unanimously. NORTHERN NATURAL GAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT Chairman Bose11 explained that the DNR is requiring that the City approve the alignment and then send the Resolution to the DNR for their certification. Discussion noted that the Resolution covers the crossing of the Rum River and the Scenic River District and needs to be sent to the DNR. Northern Natural Gas should also be made aware of their need to apply for an amended Special Use Permit to continue the pipeline through the City because it is an enlargement of an existing special use. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, enter a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit for Northern Natural Gas to construct a pipeline across the Rum River within the Rum River Scenic River District... (as prepared) and add NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Andover, to hereby grant the approval for a Special Use Permit for Northern Natural Gas Company to construct a 6 5/8-inch pipeline across the Rum River within the Rum River Scenic River District... (See Resolution R53-81) Motion carried unanimously. CEDAR CREST LOTS Discussion was that if the 172nd and Aztec area were assessed for the improvement made previously at a cost of approximately $7,800, it would come very close to meeting the bonding obligations of the project. It was noted that two of the unbui1dab1e lots sold at the public auction last month could probably be combined into one buildable lot, Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Cedar Crest Lots, Continued) although a variance would still be needed. Attorney Hawkins stated that if the Council thinks the lots could be built on for garages, etc., there is probably some increasing value as a result of the improvement. He agreed that the full assessment does not necessarily have to be placed on those lots, but some limited value could be placed on them if there are some restrictions and there may not be as much benefit to them. It is also his understanding that deferment on these types of assessments can only take place on undeveloped property, and these are platted lots. Council agreed to table discussion until the next regular meeting to allow time for the Clerk to research the purchasers of the lots in question. Discussion was also whether the monies from 172nd and Aztec should go toward the project costs or into the General Fund, since General Funds paid for the original project. And if the project is short, the balance would have to come from General Funds. Attorney Hawkins will review the legality of assessing 172nd and Aztec for a project done by the City several years ago. MEADOWCREEK DRIVEWAY COMPLAINT (Reference May 29, 1981, memo from Larry Winner) Mr. Winner stated he couldn't determine whether this had occurred within the one-year warranty period of the construction project; however, the property owner contacted TKDA shortly after the warranty period expired. I Council discussion was on the probable cause of the problem, on the extent of the problem, questioning the grade of the driveway, and that the complaint is not the depth of the water but the sheet of ice in the winter. Several Councilmen indicated a desire to view the situation prior to making a decision. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table the Meadowcreek Estates Driveway complaint for two weeks to allow the Council to look into the matter. Motion carried unanimously. WARD LAKE DRIVE OIL ESTIMATE (Reference June 12, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner of a cost estimate of $2,155 from Burton Kraab1e to blade, compact, water and spray with oil a 1/4 mile section of Ward Lake Drive) Discussion was that the problem is with the sod trucks on the road and the alleged high speeds they are traveling at creating the dust problem. Some questioned the desirability or effectiveness of oiling the road, noting there are not that many homes affected along that road. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we reject the estimate to oil and place Class 5 on one-quarter mile section of Ward Lake Drive. DISCUSSION: Counci 1man Peach requested that at a time when there will be a lot of sod trucks in the area, that it be patrolled and radar set up to determine if the trucks are indeed causing a problem. Councilman Lachinski requested that Ms. Llndquist contact the authorities to determine if there is a possibility of obtaining funding under the Clean Air Act for dust control to solve this problem. Motion carried unanimously. NORTHWOODS TENNIS COURT REPAIR (Reference June 2, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner) Councilman Peach expressed dismay over the large amount of money spent on the tennis court and on engineering fees for it, but there continues to be problems with it. A member of the audience also asked why money was spent by having City employees work .- " Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Northwoods Tennis Court Repair, Continued) four or five hours overtime dumping dirt in there and grading it out; wondering why it had to be done after the normal working hours. Council discussion was that this is the first time they had heard about it; that the loader was being rented for a short period of time; and that it was cheaper to have Public Works do the work on overtime with a rented machine that it would have been to contract the work out. The Clerk stated that the Park Board authorized the overtime work with funds to be coming out of their budget. Uiscussion continued on the extent of the crack in the tennis court and on possible solutions. Mr. Winner recommended that the crack be patched with hot-mix asphalt, but he did not know what the cost would be at this time. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that Public Works be directed to repair the cracks in the Northwoods Tennis Court at a cost not to exceed $100. Motion carried unanimously. SALE OF TOPSOIL TO CONTRACTOR (Reference the July 2, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner) Attorney Hawkins saw no problem with the proposal. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the sale of approximately 1,000 CUblC yards of topsoil from the LakeRidge park area to Central Landscaping at 75 cents per cubic yard. with the funds going back to the Park Commission to help defray costs to dredge topsoil from the park. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Burton Kraabe1 Construction be authorized up to $1,500 to dredge peat from the LakeRidge Park. Motion carried unanimously. 1981-1 CHANGE ORDERS NOS. 2 AND 3 MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve Change Order No. 2 of the 1981 Street Improvement Project No.1, the change order would be deleting the trash guards from the 15-inch CMP aprons for an amount of $2,070, with a revised contract price of $112,524.30; and approve Change Order No.3 of the 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 to delete the 15-inch CMP driveway culvert pipes for an amount of $10,850 and the total remaining project cost would then be $101,674.30. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach noted that the amount borrowed for the project is $12,000 more than what is needed and asked the procedure of paying back the bond. The point he wanted to make was that the culvert item was always in excess of what he felt would be needed, feeling the whole procedure is a bit absurd. Council noted there is a call provision on the bond contract; and in the meantime, the money is earning interest. Also, the culverts were always kept as a separate item and that the policy has been to keep the culverts to a minimum. There was also some question as to whether all culverts should be eliminated at this time, as there may be some property owner wanting to finance it. It was agreed that if that is the case, a change order would then be made to add the item to the project cost. Motion carried unanimously. HAWK RIDGE EAST/EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT FILING ¡Reterence June 16, 1981, letter from Lawrence B. Carlson requesting a one-year extension for the filing of the Final Plat of Hawk Ridge East) Council discussion was that the ordinance allows for the length of such extensions to be up to six months, that there are no other plats outstanding in the City except for the proposed Rolling Creek Trails plat, that many of the improvemen~have already been started in the plat, and that Mr. Carlson has proven to be a reputable contractor in the City. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Mr. Lawrence B. Carlson be granted a six- month extension on the filing of the Final Plat of Hawk Ridge East. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 Recess at 9:12; reconvene at 9:22 p.m. 1,.R. BOND RESOLUTION/RADEMACHER Attorney Hawkins saw no problem with the request. Wayne Anderson - stated that the reason for the extension is because of the inability to sell the bonds for the original bonding period; however, it is their intent to continue with the development, and they expect to sell the bonds with the extension of the expiration date. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution extending the explration date of the preliminary Resolution for the Andover Community Shopping Center project to July 29, 1982, as presented (See Resolution R54-81) DISCUSSION: It was questioned whether or not this would require approval by the State Commissioner. Mr. Hawkins felt if additional approval is needed, Mr. Anderson's attorney will submit it on behalf of them, as it is their responsibility. Motion carried unanimously. KENNEL LICENSE/BAYERS MOT10N by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve a kennel license for O. Bayers at approximately the 1600 block of Constance for a period of one year. Motion carried unanimously. MIXED USES - ORDINANCE NO. 8 AMENOMENT Chairman Bose11 explained that the Commission felt that the present method of dealing with the issue by Special Use Permit is desirable and should be continued. Council discussion was on the reasons for requesting the P & Z to review the matter originally. Councilmen expressed varying ideas on the matter including whether multiples should be permitted in an R-4 zoning at all, to examine the criteria for determining the compatibility of mixed uses in single family residential areas, to examine the criteria for determining how many multiples should be allowed in a specific area, to examine criteria for determining the impact on the value of single family residents in the area if multiples are allowed, to examine criteria for determining when enough multiples have been allowed in a single family residential area, and to consider the mechanics for allowing separate ownership of twin-homes on a single lot. The general concern was on the density of doubles as opposed to singles, with the suggestion that the Planning Commission consider examining the land area to be required for duplexes and twin homes in an R-4 zoning, as possibly the 7,000 square feet per unit is insufficient and should be increased. Chairman Bose11 agreed to bring the matter before the Commission again. Chairman Bose11 also asked if anyone finds information relative to the conversion ot multiples to separate ownership that they provide that information to the P & Z, as they are having a difficult time finding information for such an ordinance. . GLADIOLA STREET REPA1R/AUTHORIZATION Mr. Winner explained that after the bituminous pavement was removed and the concrete valley gutter installed, another low spot was found on the east side of G1adio1a Street requiring an additional 10x25-foot section of pavement to be removed and replaced. The cost for this is $790, that amount including the $350 additional authorized by the Clerk on June 24. Mr. Winner explained that the total cost has been determined by the contractor based on actual labor and material costs of the entire proejct, not on a unit basis. Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Gladio1a Street Repair/Authorization, Continued) I Council discussion was on sorting through the various figures to determine the actual cost, generally feeling that the cost for the additional removal and replacement of pavement is expensive. Mr. Winner explained that the additional work was done after the original work was completed and the contractor had left the area. The contractor had to bring his equipment back' in to work on the additional 10x25-foot section of pavement. He explained the reason for the error was that he had done only a limited feasibility study in the beginning to save costs and that it was difficult to determine the amount of cut needed until the concrete gutter was installed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded bY Jacobson, that we authorize a revised total of $3,140 for the G1adio1a Street repair project and concrete sidewalk. I VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Peach, as he felt the contractor's price was out of line. Motion carried. 171ST AVENUE EXTENSIONfEASEMENT1ACCEPTANCE M01ION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we accept easement from Mr. and Mrs. Loftus for the extension of 171st Avenue from the White Oaks Addition to Eide1weiss Street for street purposes at no cost to the City. Motion carried unanimously. SEALCOATING/AWARD CONTRACT (Reference July 2, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner relative to the contract award for 1981 Bituminous Sea1coating Project, 'recommending the addition of Dosta1er-Hane Addition in the project because of the low bid received.) Council discussion was that it was agreed to have the streets and potholes repaired prior to sea1coating, with funds to come from the sea1coating budget'. Mr. Winner also explained that the contract provides that no payment will be made until the pearock has been swept up to the satisfaction of the City. i MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded byiJaCObSOn, enter a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for sea1coating certain City streets pursuant to specifications. (awarding the bid to Allied Blacktop Company for $20,652.50); and further authorize the engineer to patch any cracks and fill potholes in the streets prior to sea1coating; and also to include the Dosta1er-Hane Addition if the total sea1coating project and paving of the streets and the addition of the Dosta1er-Hane Addition do not exceed the budgeted amount. (See Resolution R55-81) (Councilman Peach responded to a fire call while the motion was being made. 9:52 p.m.) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bill LeFebvre informed the Council they are working on the Capital Improvements Program, determining the costs of the proposed improvements in the parks and prioritizing the development of the parks. They are presently working on three parks: the Boat Landing, Pine Hills, and Cedar Crest. Chairman LeFebvre asked the procedure for getting work done in the parks and whether they have to go through Mr. Winner to get contractual help. Council felt that the Park Commission could obtain the quotes from contractors themselves and that they should inform the City Clerk as to what the Park Commission is proposing so it can be placed on a Council Agenda for consideration. 1 ' -0 ' Regular City Council Meeting July 7, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Park & Recreation Commission Report, Continued) Chairman LeFebvre noted that chances of obtaining grant money for the Kelsey Park area are negligible. He also stated that there is an interest in the Kadlec Addition, Wobegon Woods, White Oaks Country Estates, and Oakwood Estates area for parkland, noting there is approximately ten acres of usable ground north of Bittersweet between White Oaks and Wobegon Woods. Attorney Hawkins stated that the City can condemn property for park purposes. Council asked Mr. LeFebvre to obtain the figures for the property, with some noting a preference to develop existing parks rather than purchasing additional parkland. Discussion was also on the Community School's proposal for increased salaries over the next five years. Council informed Mr. LeFebvre that it is a Park Board matter which they should evaluate and make a recommendation to the Council. Acting Mayor Ortte1 also explained he has been in touch with the Anoka County Fair Board about the possibility of having the Red School House moved to their site by them and restored. However, it could be a few years before that could be done, as the Board raises its own funds. Because there appears to be no plans to restore the building and the possibility of receiving funds to do so are small, Acting Mayor Orttel asked the Council to consider this possibility. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Council had a brief discussion on the problem of some companies no longer willing to extend credit because of bills being paid late and on the Fire Marshall's proposal to have a yearly special burn permit. Because of the fire call, no representatives from the Department were present, so it was agreed to continue the discussion to the next regular Council meeting. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we pay claims Check Numbers 4095 through 4159 with the exception of 4115 which is void, 4125 which is void, 4132 which is void, and 4136 to Metro Fone, in the amount of $20,770.32. Motion carried on a 3 yes, 1 absent vote. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that Checks 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, and 48Z be paid for a total amount of $524,875.90. Motion carried on a 3 yes, 1 absent vote. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 3 yes, 1 absent vote. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. " Respectfully submitted, \\ ~~~~ Mar 11a A. Peach Recor . Secretary I