HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC June 16, 1981
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JUNE 16, 1981
AGENDA
1 . Call to Order
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Supplemental Assessment Hearing-1980-1, 1980-2
5. Continued Public Hearing - 1981-3/Navaho Street Drainage
6. Discussion/Ice Arena
7. Discussion Items
a. Septic System Installation/Ness
b. Oakwood Estates/Final Plat
c. G. Gulden/Variance
d. F. Padula/Rezoning
e. Potowatomi-162nd Avenue Extension
f. Street Improvement Petition/164th Lane
g. Meadowcreek Driveway Complaint
h. Final Plans/Specs - Sealcoating
i.
j .
8. Non-Discussion Items
a. Bond Sale/1981-1
b. Amendment-Cable RFP
c. Ward Lake Drive Oil Cost Estimate
d. Water Connection Charges
e.
9. Reports of Committees, Commissions, and Staff
10. Approval of Minutes
11 . Approval of Claims
12. Adjournment
, .
,
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 16, 1981
MINUTES
The Rëgu1ar Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on June 16, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685
Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark
Schumacher; City Staff Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk,
P. K. Lindquist; and others
RES WENT FORUM
Councilman Lachinski spoke on behalf of Mr. Petreich, who lives on the corner of
Jonquil and Bunker Lake Boulevard, who had previously complained about the dust
problem coming from the Meadowcreek Baptist Church. The Church had then agreed to
oil the road, which is a temporary solution. Mr. Petreich is also alleging that the
property really belongs to Ado1fson rather than the Church and that there was a high
volume of truck traffic using the road to obtain fill material and causing the dust
problem. Councilman Lachinski felt that because it is a long driveway, the possibi 1ity
of requiring tarring should be considered. Council agreed that the Road Improvement
Committee will consider the item.
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Agenda as printed with the
addltion of 7i, CAB Resolution and 7j, Pumphouse Alarm System. ~lotion carried
unanimously.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT HEARING - 1980-1, 1980-2
Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Supplemental Assessment Hearing for the 1980-1
and 1980-2 Street Improvement Projects was called to order by Mayor Windschit1 at
7:38 p.m.
Mr. Winner reviewed the reasons for the additional costs being assessed, noting
additional quantity and costs were received subsequent to the prepared assessment
roll last year, and the actual construction costs for 133rd Avenue done by Coon
Rapids were higher than the estimated amounts used in determining the previous
assessment roll.
Mary Peterson, 13450 Gladio1a - the information sent to her last year stated if the
assessments were pald in full by a certain date, that fulfilled their obligation.
There was no mention of the possibility of requiring an additional amount at some
point in the future. She felt some mention should have been made of the possibility
of an increased assessment. They paid their assessment in full with all records
noting such, and she felt it was very unfair to now have another $289 added on.
(Attorney Hawkins stated that under Statute 429, the City does have the authority to
conduct supplemental assessments to correct any errors that may have taken place
originally.)
Ms. Peterson - asked why everyone is paying for the error made on 133rd and why the
prices changed after the bid was made. (Mr. Winner explained that all streets are
assessed as one project with the costs assessed evenly over all property owners.
Also, there were more factors to cause the increased project cost than just the problem
on 133rd. He also explained that the bid is based on unit prices, done that way because
the City feels that it is the most cost effective method of doing projects.)
- - --,-
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Supplemental Assessment Hearing - 1980-1, 1980-2, Continued)
Ms. Peterson - then stated that coming to this meeting then really doesn't do any
good and asked why this meeting is being held. (Discussion was that the purpose of
the meeting is more to explain what happened.) She related several incidents where
she felt extra unnecessary work was done on the project that may have contributed to
the increased cost, stating a day was spent hauling out dirt from an area only to have
it replaced again the next day. She stated there were a lot of complaints in their
neighborhood as the project progressed and felt it is unfair that they now have to pay
the bill. (Mr. Schumacher stated there was only a few hundred yards of extra excava-
tion and there was some subcutting of the streets beyond the proposed grade. The Mayor
also clarified that the concrete curb placed on 133rd was paid for by the individual
property owners and not spread throughout the project.)
Bob Eide, 2868 134th Avenue - was charged for 400 feet but only owns about 250 feet,
and hlS dollar amount lS about the same as Ms. Peterson's who is being charged for
104 feet. (After reviewing the assessment roll, Mr. Winner noted that he is being
assessed for 102 feet and that Mr. Eide's statement contains a typographical error.)
Mrs. John Hegstrom, 135th Avenue NW - stated they were first quoted $1,500 per home
on thlS project, but it was lncreased to $1,600. She asked if the contractor can change
the amount once it is bid. (Mr. Schumacher explained the unit-price method of
bidding projects, how that affects the actual price bid, and how it differs from a
fixed-cost bid.)
Karen Keene, 135th NW - felt that the costs paid to the contractor should be only
that bid, as the cost should be known prior to the work being done. (Mr. Schumacher
explained the disadvantages of the fixed-fee bid, in that it is generally felt that
such a bid by the contractor would include all possible contingencies thereby re-
sulting in a higher bid. There was also some discussion on the issue of sod versus
seed in the boulevards, with Mr. Schumacher explaining that the seed itself is a
relatively inexpensive item. In this particular project, sod was placed in several
areas because it was necessary to control erosion.)
Ms. Peterson - asked what the per-foot cost of the project has come to. (Mr. Winner
stated it is $18.04 per front foot for the project.) She stated that their sod went
down to the street and it could have been left alone. But they ripped up the sod and
were going to replace it with seed, to which she objected. So she is now being charged
for something that she felt was unnecessary to begin with. She also felt that there
were other areas done in a simi1iar manner. She felt if the person in charge of the
project is making the mistake, he should be paying for that mistake, not the residents.
(Mr. Schumacher stated that if an area erodes, the contractor is paid to continually
come back to maintain the problem. The sod was placed in the locations they felt
there were washout problems with erosion. Discussion continued with Ms. Peterson about
the sodding situation. Councilman Ortte1 also explained the reason the assessment
roll was certified last fall even though final costs were not known was to save the
increased project costs due to capitalized interest.)
Mrs. Jess E11ars, 13319 Eide1weiss - was told by the realtor when purchasing the house
that they were to pay a percentage of the new road, and explained their escrow fund
would pay for additional bills. If it wasn't needed, it would be returned to them.
They received their money back. They don't feel they should now have to pay this
because somebody else made a mistake. Also, they had removed a portion of the
asphalt driveway and replaced it during construction, but the new portion is not
holding up. There are big cracks in their asphalt. She didn't feel it was necessary
for them to take that much of the driveway out to begin with and expressed her
frustration over the entire matter. (Mr. Schumacher stated that the contractor has
a one-year guarantee from last fall for any defects of the material or workmanship
that they find in the warranty inspection.)
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Supplemental Assessment Hearing - 1980-1, 1980-2, Continued)
Mr. Eide - asked if the City sent out a list of specs that the contractor was to comply
wlth. (Yes. Discussion again noted the problems that occurred in this project which
resulted in having to hold the additional assessment hearing, noting that if this had
not been assessed last year, the project costs would have been the amount assessed
last fall, plus this additional cost, plus one year's capitalized interest which was
estimated could have been about 10 percent.)
Mr. Eide - is also in construction and suggested it would be better for the residents
to know the price ahead of time, even if it is a higher cost, and have the bids on a
fi xed basis rather than being "surpri sed" with addit i ona 1 assessments one year 1 ater.
Roger No¥es, 13329 Eide1weiss - was speaking on behalf of his neighbor. The drainage
was put ln to draln to Ron Schara's property; however, all that water is now running
into Dick Larson's back yard, not to Schara's. (Mr. Schumacher stated there is an
easement and his people met with Mr. Larson in the field, so he thought the problem
had been resolved. He will meet with Mr. Larson, go over it with him, and determine
what the problem is.)
Kay Funk, G1adio1a - asked how the drainage ditches were assessed. (Mr. Schumacher
explained they were built into the project and assessed to everyone eventually distributed.)
Mr. Eide - asked if this has been paid to the contractor and if it is a negotiated
figure. (Mr. Schumacher stated the contractor has been paid, the amount based on
verified quanitites actually installed in the project, relating the procedure used for
verifying those quantities.)
Ms. Peterson - again expressed frustration at receiving such a large additional
assessment one year later, feeling it would be better to know up front what the costs
are going to be, even if that means the costs will be higher. She also suggested that
next time the statement "if you pay in full..." not be made, which implies that no
further costs will be incurred. (Discussion was also that this is the first time the
City has had to hold a supplemental assessment, admitting that mistakes were made
relative to the assessment of this project, that there were unknowns at the original
assessment hearing, and that the whole situation is unpleasant for everyone.)
Jerrf Johnson - stated last fall two mistakes were made on his footage charge which
resu ted in an additional $300 at that time. And now this mistake, pointing out that
with all the mistakes made, his assessment has increased approximately $500.
(Discussion was on the events relative to Mr. Johnson's assessment.)
Ms. El1ars - asked what the additional legal and administrative costs incurred were
for. (Discussion was the costs were to the attorney, mainly for easement acquisition,
to the Clerk and to the City Staff Engineer for extra work on the project. It was
noted that all documents are public records and can be viewed at the City Hall.)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we close the public portion of the public
hearlng on the 1980-1, 1980-2. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to introduce a Resolution adopting Supplemental
Assessment for the improvement of bituminous streets for 1980-1 as presented by the
City Clerk. (See Resolution R44-81)
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1, as he is
directly affected by the project. Motion carried.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution adopting a Supplemental
Assessment for the improvement of bituminous streets for 1980-2 as presented by the
City Clerk. (See Resolution R45-81)
VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1, as he is
directly affected by the project. Motion carried.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Supplemental Assessment Hearing - 1980-1, 1980-2, Continued)
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that we close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously. 8:11 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1981-3/NAVAJO STREET DRAINAGE
Council felt that for $250, the estimated cost to bring in fill to the washout area,
it should be done. It is then assumed the property owner will sod the area at his own
expense to rectify the problem. Mr. Winner stated that he couldn't guarantee that
bringing the area up to grade and putting down sod would correct the problem 100
percent, as water coming at such high velocity tends to wash under the sod placed by
the City last year. Mayor Windschit1 then suggested hand placing some rip rap on the
right of way, which Mr. Winner felt would help the problem. Mr. Winner stated he also
found the original plans that showed a storm sewer with rip rap placed in the boulevard
at that area, but which was apparently never done.
Don Lennox, 17145 Nava,o - stated he lives directly across the street. It was his
opinion that this prob em area was never maintained properly since the final grade was
done around the house. His whole yard is sodded; but when the water leaves the sod
and goes back farther, it does wash it out. But he is aware of the problem, feels it
is his problem, and bought the lot knowing that the drainage easement was there. Mr.
Lennox also thought that simply hauling fill in the area is not sufficient, and the
problem is what is going to happen after the fill is brought in. Is there any way
that the City and neighborhood can be guaranteed that the property owner will sod it.
(Mayor Windschit1 noted that it would be done with the understanding that the property
owner will sod it, and it would have to be a written agreement so that the City is
guaranteed the work will be done.)
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to approve the expenditure to place approximately
50 cubic yards of material at the 17130 Navajo Street NW drainage area and to place
minimal rip rap on the City right of way at a total cost not to exceed $450, this
being subject to a written agreement being reached with the property owner where the
property owner would agree to place black dirt material and sod over the fill
material, funds coming from the Roads Special Project of the City budget. DISCUSSION:
It is intended that the rip rap not be cemented if possible. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the public hearing on the 1981-3
Navaho Street Drainage Improvement. Motion carried unanimously. 8:18 p.m.
DISCUSSION/ICE ARENA
Jim Sturgeon stated that because of the lengthy Council agenda this evening, he would
be willing to give his presentation at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Council
agreed to place the item on the July 7 Council meeting.
SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION/NESS
(Reference the June 12, 1981, memo from Dave Almgren, Building Official)
Wayne Ness - didn't understand what criteria makes the failure of a septic system, as
he didn't feel his system had failed as stated in Mr. Almgren's memo. Also, the memo
stated that the sanitary sewer facility "could" be up to 10 years before it is available,
but he was told told it "would" be up to 10 years, which is something quite different.
He also has a letter from the installer of the sewer system explaining there was no
sewage on top of the ground from his old system. He felt there are a lot of in-
consistencies from what is now being said and what he was told in his yard.
, '
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Septic System Installation/Ness, Continued)
In further discussion with Mr. Ness in an attempt to understand exactly what took
place, Mr. Ness stated that every four/five/six months they had a small amount of
water backed up on the bottom level of their split-foyer home. They were going to
finish off the basement completely and wanted to eliminate this water problem first.
If they would have known the sanitary sewer would be coming in the area this soon,
they would have waited. He didn't feel their sewer system had failed to the point
of having it replaced and didn't know when the Building Official made the determination
that the system had failed. He asked the Building Official to look at the system and
asked his opinion as to what alternatives there would be to eliminate the water
problem. The Building Official inspected the site, and his comment was it would be
ten years or more before sewer system would be in their area, advising that they put
in a new septic system. A very short time after that came the information that
sanitary sewer would be available. He is now hooked up to the sanitary sewer.
Attorney Hawkins stated it appears to be a factual dispute. Assuming what the
Building Inspector said is correct, he didn't believe it creates any liability on the
part of the City. It is a question of believing the statement of Mr. Ness or the
Building Official.
Mr. Almgren - stated at the time he was out there, Mr. Ness said there was some failure
because water was coming back into the basement periodically. Mr. Ness asked what
could be done, and he recommended installing a new system. Mr. Almgren stated at
that time he had no knowledge of the sanitary sewer system coming past that area up to
Auditor's Sub. 82, and the records indicate that the petitions for that area did not
come in until April, 1980. So a statement made that it could be 10 years was a very
practical statement.
Discussion was that Mr. Ness did have approximately a year and a half use of the new
system without any problems; that if the new septic system had not been put in, Mr.
Ness would have had to pump the system periodically which would have also amounted to
an expense; that the petitions for sanitary sewer in Auditor's Sub. 82 were not in
so the Building Official couldn't have known when those facilities would be available
to the area; and that there is no reason to believe anyone dealt in bad faith.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we deny the request by Mr. Wayne Ness for
reimbursement for his septic system work at 14268 Round Lake Boulevard for the reasons
that at the time of the failure and/or repair of the system it was not known that
sanitary sewer would be available in the area, and the only option the landowner would
have at the time is the repair of the system or have it pumped, and to the best knowledge
of the City Council and the Building Official in our estimation was that it was not
known that sewer would be in the area at that time. Motion carried unanimously.
OAKWOOD ESTATES/FINAL PLAT
Larry Carlson presented the maintenance bond, park fees, and street sign payment,
WhlCh were the only outstanding items. Attorney Hawkins stated everything is
favorable from a legal standpoint.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Final Plat of Oakwood
Estates and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign the same. (See Resolution R46-81)
Motion carried unanimously.
~ GULDEN/VARIANCE
Councilman Peach asked why the building couldn't be placed so it doesn't extend past
the southern front of the building, which would meet the intent of the ordinance.
Gary Gulden, 17916 Bluebird - stated that is where his septic system is located.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
(G. Gulden/Variance, Continued)
MOTION by Jacoson, Seconded by Peach, approval of a variance as requested by Mr.
Gary Gulden to build a pole building closer to his front property line than the
principal structure at 17916 Bluebird Street NW for the reasons given in the Planning
and Zoning Commission memo. (See Resolution R47-81) Motion carried unanimously.
F. PADULA/REZONING
Attorney Hawkins stated that the matter before the Council is the request of Mr.
Padula to rezone approximately 8 acres that he owns in the northwestern portion of
the City from R-2 to Neighborhood Business. Under the zoning ordinance, any individual
has the right to make application to rezone property. The questions that the City
Council must look at in considering the request are: 1) whether or not the proposed
rezoning and use of the property would be incompatible with the surrounding area; 2)
the effect on traffic patterns in the area through the proposed use; and 3) whether
or not the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He understood
there has been some questions as to whether or not this would consistute spot rezoning.
In his opinion a spot rezoning would be the rezoning of a small single parcel that
would be entirely surrounded by incompatible uses to a higher density-type use than
currently zoned. In reviewing this matter and in view of the Planning Commission's
findings, he did not believe that if the Council chose to rezone it that this would
be construed as a spot rezoning.
Frank Padula, 4550 173rd Avenue NW - stated he is proposing to build a Polish-style
restaurant on the corner of 173rd and Seventh Avenue, showing an aerial view of the
proposed site, stating he wants to keep the restaurant in a rural setting, trying to
present it the same way it would be in Poland. He also explained the locations for
placing the mounds of dirt to offset anyone from seeing the restaurant from several
angles. Mr. Padula also showed a map of surrounding residents, terrain, the other
property he owns, his home, plus an enlarged view of the site and proposed use. He
then reviewed the proposed structure, a one-story building approximately 28-feet
high, beamed ceiling, attempting to make it look like a Polish home, 2x6 construction
with stucco outside, 12/12 pitched roof, 36x48 feet, dining room with seating capacity
of 100, a kitchen, and an asthetic porch. There is no bar; it being proposed to be
European style to eat or to be served. He has been to Poland many times, took pictures
of a simi1irr building under construction, with an architect then drawing the design
beingpresen ed~efore the Council. He stressed that the building is original and unique
for thlS area, thinking it would be great to have Andover have the first Polish-style
ethnic restaurant. Mr. Padula also stated he would be interested in having 3.2 beer
and wine served. If the restaurant doesn't go, it could be converted into a home.
In response to the Mayor's question on the discussion of potentially placing ba11fie1ds
in the area, Mr. Padula stated that has been discussed, but with putting up roughly
$300,000, he isn't going to make it into a 3.2 beer joint. He felt people could
purchase beer cheaper at the Tom Thumb store than what he will be selling it for and
didn't feel that the clientele of an establishment such as he is proposing, a fami1y-
type restaurant, genea11y consume enough to become intoxicated. The parking lot,
which would be located below the hill, is allowing for 40 cars, although the ordinance
only requires 33, and the parking lot could be made larger or smaller. Mr. Padula
stated the sewer system was discussed, with the Planning Commission recommending
approximately eight acres to be rezoned to accommodate the sewer system. He has
checked with other restaurants utilizing septic systems and with plumbing facilities,
and no one foresees any problem with a sewer system, as it is not a real high-usage
of water.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Frank Padula/Rezoning, Continued)
Councilman Ortte1 expressed concern over the engineering of the septic system and also
that the size of the proposal appears to serve more than the needs of the surrounding
neighborhood, which is the intent of the NB zone. He has no problem with the proposal,
but is questioning the rezoning to NB for a use that is apparently more of a shopping
center-type use. Mr. Padula felt that no business actually serves only the immediate
neighborhood. He would like to have people come in from allover to come to Andover
to spend their money and was in favor of businesses in the City to increase the tax
base. He felt that in reading the City's ordinances, this would best fit into an NB
zone. If it does not stay a restaurant, there are four other possible uses for this
structure other than a home.
When questioned by Councilman Peach on a traffic study, Mr. Padula stated Seventh
Avenue is a main artery which has been upgraded the past few years and with traffic
increasing approximately 400 cars per year. County Commissioner Fields had indicated
that the road is forecasted to handle traffic for 20 years. He felt that traffic will
naturally increase with development to the north and west of there. He has not done
any studies, but with a restaurant seating 100 people, assuming two people per car, it
would generate 50 cars for one seating, 100 cars for two seatings an evening or Sunday
afternoon. And those cars would not be coming or leaving all at one time.
Ed Babcock, Attorney representing the Northwest Andover Homeowner's Association -
stated this is a newly formed homeowner's association of about 28 homeowners all
living within approximately one-half mile of the subject's site. Bruce Perry is the
Chairman; Richard Wandersee is the Vice Chairman; Levonna Newstrom is the Secretary/
Treasurer; and the address is 17365 Navajo Street NW. Mr. Babcock explained they
have prepared a presentation designed to show the Council why they should vote against
the rezoning. The site is 5.3 acres, presently zoned R-2 which is defined as 10w-
density; and an NB zoning should be used for retail sales and service in such a scale
as to serve the surrounding neighborhood needs. Nearly all the residents in the
neighborhood are opposed to this use, and they think they don't need it. He continued
that they firmly feel that the proposal is not in conformity with the City's Land
Use Plan. Mr. Babcock stated he has reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan, and went
on to cite various paragraphs within the Plan to support his position, citing such
items as documenting the need for commercial development, that a market analysis be
done prior to approval, that spot or commercial development be strongly discouraged in
favor of a united development pattern, that the proposal be justified by a feasibility
study, and that all development shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan, all of which
the Association feels have not been done or is not in comp1aince with.
Mr. Babcock then stated they hired a professional planner to review the Plan and to
render an opinion as to the compliance of this proposal to the City's Land Use Plan.
He introduced the planner and listed his credentials. Council discussion at this
point was that the Plan stated market and feasibility studies be done as required by
ordinance, and the City's ordinance does not require a feasibility report to be done
for Neighborhood Business rezonings, only for Shopping Center zonings; and that is why
one has not been required of Mr. Padula.
Robert Che1seth, Planning Consultant at Planning and Development Service, Inc.,
Mlnneapo1ls - reviewed the proposal in terms of its effects on the City's Comprehensive
Plan. He stated he did a field survey of the area and found it a rural area with
primary uses of agricultural, open spaces, and rural residential. The Plan calls for
a scenic river corridor through the area with low residential development, and it
neither shows nor di scusses other forms of deve lopment in the area. In his opinion
the fairest test for a proposal such as this is to review it in terms of the Comprehensive
Plan in the policies, the goals, and the objectives the Plan puts forth. Andover's
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 8
(Padula/Rezoning, Continued)
Plan has been recently updated, and is the key source of direction in making this
decision. Mr. Che1seth then pointed out what he felt were the issues, objectives, and
principles that were most pertinent to this case, citing his opinion in each instance
as to why this particular proposal is not compatible and conflicts with a number of
the basic planning policies and principles adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. He
was of the opinion that the proposed use is more of an urban-type use, with the thought
being to keep those kinds of uses concentrated in an urban area to keep down the costs
of providing necessary services and to make delivery distances as short as possible;
that this would be introducing a use that might conflict with the existing neighborhood;
that nearby residents will not be the main source of clientele for the establishment
or benefitting from it; that similiar uses should be concentrated to share services
and benefits; that this proposal qualifies for spot commercial development as it is an
isolated island of use in the middle of a rural area; and that if the tie between
planning and zoning is broken, the Plan becomes a diluted document and becomes less
and less valuable with zoning becoming dangereous1y he1ter ske1ter. He also asked if
soils tests and preliminary design work has been done for on-site sewage treatment
and if detailed studies of traffic impacts have been done. Approval of this rezoning
which is not allowed for in the Comprehensive Plan could also open the door to other
landowners to request simi1iar rezonings. He feels that the City's plan of proposing
clustering business uses within the urban service area is a better way of planning
than strip zoning, lining them along the major highways, and encouraged the Council to
follow the original decisions expressed in the Plan. Mr. Che1seth also stated that
even with a smaller restaurant he felt the basis of the decision would still hold
true in that the use io itself conflicts with the policies and objectives of the
Plan. He also admitted that these arguments could be used against allowing a Tom
Thumb-type store in this area as well.
Mr. Padula - stated that the area has a cluster of homes, farmland, much of it already
bought by developers which will eventually be developed. He also stated that County
Road 7 is the City's central avenue, and it does meet the criterias of the planning
and zoning for NB, noting that this Council is the one who worked on the Plan and
who will now be making the decision. Mr. Padula also felt that any neighborhood
business is going to call beyond the neighborhood. He reputed Mr. Che1seth's suggestion
as to the smells generated from commercial establishments, noting that smells already
exist in the neighborhood because of the turkey farms, hogs, dirt and dust smells,
etc., and stating that Mr. Che1seth is getting paid to represent that coalition.
Council discussion also noted that the area does fall outside the Scenic River
corridor.
Recess at 9:26; reconvene at 9:48 p.m.
Mr. Babcock - observed that the proposal is for a regional-type business to draw
clientele from a much larger area than what is defined by the NB zone definition,
feeling that such a business would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
He also expressed disagreement with Attorney Hawkins relative to the issue of spot
zoning, feeling that this is singling out a piece of property that is undistinguishab1e
from another all for the economic benefit of the owner.
Mr. Padula - stated that the original proposal was to rezone 5.3 acres, but the Planning
Commission then recommended the acreage be increased. He owns 25 acres in the area.
Discussion noted that there is a discrepancy in the legal description which will need
to be addressed.
Mr. Babcock then introduced several members of the Association, who in turn addressed
the Council relative to their concerns of the rezoning request.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 9
(Padula/Rezoning, Continued)
Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo Street NW - stated he is opposed to the rezoning because
he felt the rezonlng would: 1) dlmish the attractiveness of the area thereby reducing
property values; 2) safety would be affected by increased and changed traffic flow;
3) it raises the likelihood of future applications for such rezonings; and 4) it will
create nuisance characteristics. He also felt it is inconsistent with the land use,
does nothi~~t~qnpreserve the rural character of the area, and is an individual's
effort to private profit at the expense of the neighborhood. The residents in
the area value the family and the rural life style. He asked that the Council vote
no to the proposal.
Mr. Padula - stated he is also concerned about safety in the area, noting his participa-
tion ln the upgrading of County Road 7, that he is holding back 25 acres to maintain
the rural character of the area where he could subdivide the property for residential
development rather than for one building, that he intends to keep the area as rural as
possible, and that he too has children and is concerned about safety.
Mar1e Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street NW - addressed the State Planning Commission's
pub ished guidellnes to be used in deciding rezoning issues, with the primary concern
being as to whether or not the proposal fits the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
She felt the proposal is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, is not compatible
with the permitted uses in the rural residential area, will not promote the orderly
development of the surrounding vacant land but will bring pressure for additional
commercial development, and will not benefit the community but the individual. She
also related her conversation with an FHA evaluator in that such an establishment
would have an effect of reducing the property values in the area. Ms. Perry also
presented the Council with a copy of the State Planning Commission's guidelines of
how not to go about rezoning property, asking that the Council's decision be based on
sound zoning principles that are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mike Knight, 4622 175th Avenue NW - addressed the possibility of liquor being allowed
in such an establishment and possible results if that were the case, feeling that few
rural restaurant establishments are successful without liquor and/or entertainment.
And with liquor, he noted the problems he felt would be incurred, such as driving on
Seventh Avenue which is heavily used by joggers and cyclists, the heavy traffic using
the bridge area, and the limited visibility of the approach up over the hill at 173rd.
They are concerned about fire and police protection, as there is no direct access
route from the fire station to the area. And he questioned what's to prevent a future
owner from turning this into some kind of nightclub establishment or into something
simi1iar to the SRO on County Road 9.
Mr. Padula - stated it is up to the County to determine which driveways and where
driveways can come out onto the County road. He stated Mr. Knight's property touches
his but the house is approximately 3/4 mile away.
Jan Sturgeon, 17307 Roanoke - lives right across the street and addressed the aspect
of rural 1ivlng, the qUlet, beauty, ability to raise animals, etc. She expressed
several concerns that could result from the proposed establishment, such as the
additional traffic that would be created on the road over and above the present
problems they encounter but put up with because they enjoy the area. Across the bridge
off Seventh Avenuye,'is a County park, with the area being very busy with people coming
to canoe, etc. And she was concerned about giving these people accessibility to liquor
and wine. She asked the Council to consider why they moved to a rural area and how
the Council would feel if this were being proposed next to their house.
Mr. Padula stated that the restaurant will not be a package store nor will liquor be
sold over the counter. It is a sit-down restaurant, and he hoped that people who come
to the park will come to the restaurant to eat and enjoy it.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 10
(Padula/Rezoning, Continued)
Bruce Perry, 17337 Roanoke - noted he delivered a petition to the Council last evening
of those people opposed to the proposed rezoning, and he presented an additional
signature of a property owner to the Council at this time. The petition is signed
by 246 people living primarily on the western edge of the City. Of the 40 property
owners within the immediate area of the site in question, 34 of the people were
opposed to this, and he reviewed the reasons the four others are in favor of the
project. He questioned if this were allowed, what will stop other such requests
from going through down the line. The neighborhood, plus many others, are definitely
opposed to this and asked the Council to listen to them and their concerns as constituents.
Mr. Perry also questioned whether this is truly a neighborhood business, whether it
is truly a restaurant but rather a supper club, whether it would then be considered
a nightclub if liquor were allowed, feeling that the use does not meet the definition
as noted in Ordinance 8, that being retail sale and services in such a scale as to
serve the surrounding neighborhood needs. And it does not meet the needs of the
surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Babcock - reviewed the Planning Commission's reasons for recommending approval of
the request, generally feeling that those reasons were not very strong nor sufficient
or were unsubstantiated to approve the rezoning. He also estimated that in reality
the establishment would contribute approximately $1,680 in annual tax revenue to
the City based on 1980's mill rate, suggesting that may not even covféve~etOsts of
the increased services that would be required. He didn't think the'- "', 'c, arrants
the negative factors brought out this evening, then summarizing the Association's
objections to the proposal.
Mr. Padula - felt the Planning and Zoning Commission are very professional people,
and took issue with Mr. Babcock's statements on the reasons presented in their
recommendation for approval sent to the Council.
Steve Munstenteiger, Attorney representing Mr. Padula - if there is a technical defect
ln the notlce or application, he requested the application be amended to include the
tract indicated on the maps this evening. Attorney Hawkins stated the key as to
whether or not the entire parcel can be considered this evening is what description
was included in the public notice in the newspaper and mailed to residents. At this
point he did not know the legal description used for public notice. If that doesn't
include the eight or ten acres being requested, then the City would have to go back
through the procedure again to include the additional acreage.
Mr. Munstentei~er - asked that the City Attorney review the 1978 Minnesota Supreme
Court case entltled the Neighborhood Association of Rochester versus the City of
Rochester where the issue of spot zoning was addressed, feeling very confident that
the standards set in that Supreme Court decision would indicate this is not a spot
rezoning. Nor is the issue about the conformance to the Plan critical. He stated the
Plan is a matter of interpretation, but that isn't what governs. The rezoning would
hold true whether the Plan is consistent or not, believing that case sets forth that
principle. He expressed confidence that if the rezoning was granted that that action
would be upheld. Mr. Munstenteiger continued on that he has known Mr. Padula a long
time, that he does a job the way he says he's going to do it, and suggested not
loosing sight of the project being presented. The site is very well buffered, is
very amenable to appropriate buffering, wouldn't adversely affect the neighborhood.
From previous experiences of similar discussions, those in the audience will not be
convinced one way or the other, as neighbors have no incentive to be supportive of
this type of change, and that is why they are here. And the people that don't care
or may support it don't care enough to come out to say so. He asked that the Council
weigh their objections accordingly. Mr. Munstenteiger stated they did not hire
their own planner, but the Council knows the City as a city in transition, that these
I
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 11
(Padula/Rezoning Continued)
plans have to be flexible, that the Council has to be the one to interpret what
happens in the City, that the Council has to look at this in terms of the overall City,
arguing that the Plan can be shown to support either side's position. The issue of
decreasing property value is presented in virtually every rezoning case, but there is
no evidence that that is so. It is felt that the size of the tract will accommodate
the essential services that the project will require. Traffic is an importnat
consideration, and the site sits on one of the best highways in the City. And to say
that one restaurant is going to have a serious impact on that road is, in his
opinion, facetious and just not true. Relative to the maintenance of the rural
character, Mr. Munstenteiger stated that this is to be an ethnic restaurant, built on
a large site, proposing to have ducks on the pond, animals, etc., feeling that this
proposal will do more to maintain the rural character of the area than if Mr. Padula
would plat the property for residential development. And it will not contribute to the
density of use in that area. Mr. Munstenteiger also noted that they did not
orchestrate support for the proposal as the opposition has and stated that petitions
have only as much weight as experienced people in elected office are willing to give,
generally knowing what motivates people to sign them. But that is not the issue, as
neighborhood consent is not needed for the rezoning. The issue is whether this
project is compatible in this area and can the site support the project without a
material adverse impact on anyone else, and he submitted that it can. In fact, it
does more to maintain the character of that neighborhood than the use it is now zoned
for.
Ms. Perry - asked Mr. Padula if he had calculated the gallons of sewer that the
establishment would generate, noting that the Minnesota State Health Department
estimates 20 gallons per day per seating capacity, meanigg this would be approximately
20,000 gallons of waste per day.
Mr. Padula - stated he had not calculated the exact gallonage but had talked with
those at other restaurants with cesspools, who indicated they have no problems.
Majestic Oaks is on a three-month pumping schedule. Mayor Windschit1 explained
that if it got to that point, that would be an engineering decision and it would
have to comply with the State codes.
Discussion returned to the legal description used in the public notices, with the
Clerk testifying that only the five-acre legal description was used for public
not ice. Council noted that there is then a technical deficiency. Mr. Hawkins
stated if the description in the public notice is for five acres and they are now
asking for ten, his opinion is the City would have to republish and hold another
hearing on the additional five acres.
Mr. Perry - owns a five-acre parcel directly across 173rd. The original plat was
wlthln 350 feet of his property and they did not receive notification. He also
related instances where he believed the letter of the law was not followed by Mr.
Padula relative to the rezoning procedure.
Mr. Padula - stated he personally informed Mr. Perry of the proposal.
Lloyd Reimann, 2813 142nd Avenue - asked if the other rezonings which took place the
last few years are shown on the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Windschit1 noted the Plan
is the second total Plan, with all the current zonings now shown in the Plan.
Mr. Reimann - noted that things do change and was in favor of getting more commercial
in the northern portion of the City. He stated that the 240 people signing the
petition opposing the proposal represents only a small portion of the entire City's
population, and he thought the City as a whole should be considered.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 12
(Padula/Rezoning Continued)
Liz Larson, 17170 Navajo Street - stated their house is at the top of the hill one
parcel away from Mr. Padula's property. She stated that from where their home sits,
they would be able to see the restaurant and felt others would be able to see it as
well. She is also concerned with the noise factor, as sounds echo throughout the
neighborhood and that this would ruin the natural rural setting she enjoys. She also
felt any kind of establishment would ruin the enjoyment of watching deer in her back
yard, etc.
Judy Busch, 4613 161st Lane NW - stated she worked on the original Comprehensive Plan
ln which many hours were spent on it. She would be disappointed if this proposal was
passed, feeling this proposal is contrary to the Plan.
Peter Rauen, 4110 147th Lane NW - asked Mr. Padula if there is anything in particular
about this location that creates such a strong interest in putting it there in light of
such strong neighborhood opposition. Since Andover is interested in attracting a nice
restraurant to the Shopping Center area, would Mr. Padula be willing to place it there?
Mr. Padula - stated he bought the property to keep it rural. He felt the property
would flt in beautifully with a Polish restaurant. He chose this type of restaurant
for this area, as he intends to keep a little farm in the back for the clientele to
enjoy, and he purchased a Polish taxi cab from Poland to set up to provide rides for
the patrons. He didn't feel he would be able to do those kinds of things in a
shopping center.
Planning Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 addressed the Council relative to the
Commission's opinions and recommendations of the proposal. Chairman Bose11 stated
the Planning Commission did have the two different legal descriptions for the property,
as Mr. Padula was advised he needed 8.6 acres of land. So at all times they dealt with
no smaller a parcel than 8.6 acres of land. Chairman Bose11 stated that at the time
the Plan went to Metro Council, and throughout the City's history, what goes into the
rural area has only been precipitated by a request. At no time has the City picked out
areas for neighborhood business or commercial use in the rural area. Any change in
use was considered on an individual basis; therefore, the Comprehensive Plan would not
provide any direction as to what would go into the rural area because the City doesn't
know. Therefore, the Commission felt this request could be compatible with the Plan.
They did wrestle with the spot zoning issue. Mr. Padula does meet the letter of the
law relative to the request, with the Commission following the requirements set forth
in the ordinance as is done in the review process of all requests. The Commission
felt it would be consistent with the Plan and compatible with the neighborhood because
Mr. Padula has adequate area, it is served by a major thoroughfare, and the use
would be compatible with the area. They dealt with the site plan and were concerned
that there be no visual violations for the neighbors, requiring birms and effective
screening immediately.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we close the Public input portion of
the Frank Padula rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
There was then a lengthy Council discussion addressing various objections and concerns
raised this evening, the desirable aspects of the proposal, opinions of each of the
Councilmen, and the course of action to be taken.
Mayor Windschitl questioned if the Council has enough information to make a decision,
as a traffic study has not yet been done and the question of the consistency with the
Plan has not been answered. He suggested the City ask the planner who developed the
City's Comprehensive Plan to make an interpretation as to whether this proposal is or
is not consistent with the Plan to resolve that issue.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 13
(Padula/Rezoning Continued)
Councilman Lachinski stated that the Comprehensive Plan is the policy guideline
document, and the Ordinances should be supporting that. The Council now stands in
between attorneys, those in favor and those opposed. It was his opinion that the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He saw only three problems with
the rezoning but that possibly those problems would be corrected at some point in
the future. His concerns were that the rise in the County road at the hill is
dangereous and would have to be corrected; that at least one, and possibly more, property
owner would be adversely affected by the building of the restaurant; and that at this
time there is not adequate emergency protection to that area. And for those reasons
he would deny the rezoning at this time.
Councilman Ortte1 believed the proposed use probably exceeds the NB zoning in that
area. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan has no enforcement provisions, is simply
a guideline, and not been formally adopted, it still being in limbo at the Metropolitan
Council 1eve 1. He also noted that businesses are needed and have to be put somewhere,
although there is virtually always neighborhood opposition to placing it in their
area. The Comprehensive Plan has to be amended as time goes on. It is not a permanent
document; ideally updated annually, plus the ordinances require the Plan to be
updated whenever there is a rezoning. He also felt that arguments for either side of
this issue can be found in the Plan, and he didn't think it is worth the expense to
hire a planner to give an opinion on what the City's Plan says.
Councilman Peach still hadn't made up his mind on the proposal and would like
additional documentation such as a market analysis on the impact it would have to
the area, plus professional opinions from the police and fire departments to
provide services to the area. He felt adequate, restrictions could be placed by the
City on the structure, liquor, and landscaping to create a rural restaurant, that the
nuisance factor can be minimized, that the pressure for development is constant,
and he didn't believe the proposal would affect property values to any great degree.
Councilman Peach also felt the approach on Seventh Avenue is a serious argument
because of the limited visibility. But he felt the arguments of increased traffic,
the adverse impact to the neighborhood, spot zoning, and liquor were not that valid,
explaining his opinion as to why he felt that way in each case. He also stated
several arguments for the proposal, those being the nature of the proposal having to
be in the rural area, the tax benefit, and the property rights of the owner, and the
location on a main road.
Councilman Jacobson disagreed with a lot of the arguments he heard, such as fire
protection, traffic, and visibility of the structure. But he did have other problems
with the proposal. With the development of the Comprehensive Plan, the Council
generally agreed to maintain the rural area as it is and encourage development in the
sewered area. He wouldthink better of the proposal if it were located closer to the
existing NB zone on Seventh Avenue, feeling that the same reasons would apply to denying
this rezoning as they did in a simi1iar situation a year or two ago. He didn't feel
the proposal would be very incompatible with the neighborhood; but taking everything
into account, he would be opposed to the request at this time.
MOTION by Lachinski that we recognize the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commlssion in favor of the Padula rezoning and deny the rezoning for the following
reasons: First, the possible adverse effect on surrounding property value; and
Second, the inability for the City to provide adequate emergency service at this
time. Motion dies for lack of a Second.
Chairman Bosell stated they did not deal with the traffic situation because they felt
at such time as this would proceed, Mr. Padula's plan would need to be reviewed by the
County for approval of his approach. Discussion was then on the reasons set forth in
the previous motion, some questioning their accuracy. The Fire Chief was then asked
his opinion if adequate fire protection can be provided.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 14
(Padula/Rezoning Continued)
Fire Chief Bob Palmer - stated he thought that the area is covered as well as or
better than preVlOUS service. Whether it is a house or restaurant, if additional
service is needed, the residents should be pushing for more equipment, possibly a
fire station, in that area. He felt the Department can adequately service that area.
MOTION by Jacobson that the City Council, City of Andover, recommend denial of
Frank Padula rezoning for the following rea~ons: 1) that thp. Cc~prehensive Plan
worked on for many months by the City Council and submitted to the Metropolitan Council,
not yet approved, the intent of that Plan is to basically keep rural areas rural and
to establish a zone or an area in the southern part of the City in which it was the
intention of the City to encourage commercial/industrial/small business development,
and the Council on many occasions has made statements to that effect; 2) it is the
opinion of the Council that Mr. Padula's rezoning request is over and above what
could· be reasonably considered a Neighborhood Business, citing many statements made
by Mr. Padula himself that business would be drawn from quite a far flung area and
taking into consideration the opposition from the area residents indicating there is
not a local need as required under the Neighborhood Business classification; and 3)
the Council tends to feel that such use based upon the information supplied to it
could be incompatible with the surrounding area and it is the intent of the Council,
under the guidelines that itthas sent to the State Metropolitan Council, to attempt
to guide businesses into the southern urban service area rather than establishing
additional areas of business in the northern part of the City. Motion dies for lack
of a Second.
MOTION by Peach to table this proposal to the first meeting in July so that we can
research a market analysis and get statements from the police and fire of the impact
of this rezoning on the City. (feasibility study from the property owner, statements
from the County Sheriff and City Fire Department as to the feasibi1y and what impact
it would have on them). Motion dies for lack of a Second.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council, City of Andover, deny
the request of Frank Padula to rezone those properties as shown in the public notice
to Neighborhood Business use due to the following reasons: 1) the proposed use, a
regional-type restaurant, has been shown to be incompatible with the current rural
residential use; 2) the use proposed by the applicant exceeds the limits of the
Neighborhood Business zoning requested in that Neighborhood Business zoning is
designed for business which would serve the retail and service need of the immediate
neighborhood, and the applicant has stated his use would be designed for a much more
intense use; and 3) that the proposed rezoning appears to be contrary to the City's
proposed Comprehensive Plan in that it is premature commercial development in a rural
residential area as no demand for such a use has been shown. (See Resolution R48-81)
DISCUSSION: In answer to the Mayor's question, Mr. Hawkins stated the City should
hire a planner to validate reason three only if someone doesn't understand the City's
Plan. He felt the Council has worked on the Plan and certainly" is capable of
determining whether or not the proposed development is consistent, and he didn't feel
a planner was needed to tell the Council that.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski to include that the City currently isn't able to
proVlde adequate emergency services to that area. Amendment dies for lack of a Second.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Padula did not believe the argument of inadequate fire protection, as
his fire insurance rating was lowered because of the establishment of the Andover Fire
Department just as everyone else's in the City was.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschitl; NO-Peach
Motion carried.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 15
POTOWATOMI - 163RD AVENUE EXTENSION
? , 10330 U lander - presented a petition to the Council requesting
lmprovement. few mlnutes later, the Clerk verified the adequacy of the
petition in that it did contain at least 35 percent of the land area.)
Mike Schafer, 11910 Xeon Street - explained that the petition is to extend Potowatomi
to 163rd and 163rd to the east and west to the end. They are wanting the City to
construct the road and assess it to the benefitted property owners.
Council discussion was on the exact location of the road, the number of parcels
involved, noting that because of the soil conditions, it may be very costly to
construct. They residents present told the Council they had been given an estimate
of $35,000 to construct that road; however, the Council noted that generally speaking
it is more expensive if done by the City under the 429 procedure, although it has the
advantage of allowing financing for the benefitted parcels.
Don Riesberg, 16200 Potowatomi - asked if it is considering extending Potowatomi
Street or comlng in from Makah. (The City has the road easement for the extension of
Potowatomi; property would have to be condemned to come in from Makah. The Mayor
also explained the events relative to the development of the Registered Land Survey
No. 72 property and how it is subdivided, which in all probability precludes any road
from being built through there in the future.)
Ashley Brooks, 16221 Potowatomi - has two lots back to back bordering on Potowatomi
as it goes through the pond. He understood that 10 or 12 years ago Mr. Stenquist dug
out the pond, took out the peat, and which now varies as much as six to eight feet
deep. It is his understanding that if the road goes through, the pond would have to
be dammed and drained on Mr. Erickson's side, all the peat removed, and filled in
with rocks and clay, which all would be very expensive. He would hate to see that
area ruined. Mr. Stenquist didn't put the road in because he saw that it would be
very expensive, and he failed to sell that back lot for many years but which has now
been purchased by Mr. Schafer. He is also concerned that it is a wildlife area, and
he has asked the DNR to view the area as to whether it is a large enough area to be
viewed as a wildlife area.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the validated petition for con-
struction of streets for the 162rd Avenue NW and Potowatomi Street Extension between
Castner Addition and Stenquist Addition. (See Resolution R49-81) Motion carried
unanimously. Mr. Schumacher estimated two or three soil borings should be taken
prior to doing a feasibility study, and he will determine a cost proposal for doing the
feasibility for the next meeting.
G1ad~s Ransom, Lot 3, Castner Addition - stated she provided easement and has been
waltlng to be able to build on the back lots for over six years. She also felt it
would be better to come in from Makah. Also, she has a hill on her property which
would provide a lot of fill that could be used for the roads.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we ask TKDA to come back to us at the
first meeting in July with a cost estimate to do a feasibility study on the afore-
mentioned project. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion with Mr. Brooks was that any lot affected by an assessment will receive
written notice of the public hearing, and that since his front lot was assessed in a
previous improvement project, it probably would not receive an assessment for this
project; however, that will be determined for the public hearing. Council also agreed
to lobk',into the possibility of coming in from Makah.
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 16
STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION/164TH LANE
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, enter a Resolution receiving and declaring an
inadequate petition for a bituminous street improvement for 164th Lane from County
State Aid 9 east one-fourth mile; City Council hereby resolves petition for bituminous
street improvement has been received and is hereby declared inadequate as having
less than 35 percent of the affected property owners requesting the improvement.
Motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLANS/SPECS - SEALCOATING
Mr. Winner asked if the Council wishes to have the potholes filled prior to the sea1-
coating. Council generally felt that that should be done, with funds to come from
the maintenance item in the budget.
Councilman Peach had several concerns over the choice of streets to be sea1coated,
noting that they are scattered allover the City and asking if they had been visually
inspected to determine the rating. He stated that the roads in Barnes Rolling Oaks
appear to need the sea1coating and is adjacent to Prairie Road which is to be sea1-
coated this year, feeling it would be cost effective if the contractor wouldn't have
to move the equipment so far. Council discussion noted that the sea1coating plan done
by TKDA two years ago has not been updated, that the roads were not visually inspected
this year, that the Road Improvement Committee made these recommendations which were
approved by the Council previously, that it is known that Barnes Rolling Oaks needs
to be seal coated but the funds are not avai1b1e for that at this time, and that the
road choice was based on the length of time since it was last sea1coated and on the
use of the road.
Discussion was also on the specifications themselves, with the engineers explaining
they provide for the standard general conditions provided in all contracts, which often
contains additional items, but the items that are modified in the special provisions
would be applicable to the contract.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Plans and Specifications
and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bidders for the sea1coating for 1981.
Motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT - CABLE RFP
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, a Resolution amending request for proposals for
a Cable System for the City of Andover as presented with the inclusion of Pages 3 and 4
of the Attorney's letter to the Cable Commission dated June 5, 1981. (See Resolution
R50-81) Motion carried unanimously.
PUMPHOUSE ALARM SYSTEM
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, authorizing the Public Works Department to
spend up to $50 for setup and costs for a paging system for the pumphouse alarm and
up to $20 a month for rental of the pager, such fees to come from the water fund.
Motion carried unanimously.
ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Chief Palmer reviewed the incident of two firemen leaving work to respond to a call
for an emergency at the pumphouse because no one had been responding to the call.
Because of the problem of the pumphouse alarm being tied into the Fire Department
pagers (that issue resolved by the previous motion), Chief Palmer felt that those
fire fighters should be reimbursed for time missed at work for that response, plus
all others responding should be paid from the water fund. Council discussion noted
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 17
(AVFD Report, Continued)
that the call was initiated by the contractor while checking out the system, but he
had made no previous arrangements to sound the pagers. It was generally felt that
this is clearly the contractor's liability and should be paid for by him. The
Chief agreed to submit a bill for the costs incurred by the firemen relative to
t his call. The policy of reimbursement to fire fighters who leave work to respond
to fire calls is to be addressed by the Personnel Committee.
Council discussion was also that public equipment cannot be used on private property,
such as the fire trucks being used for filling swimming pools.
Chief Palmer also noted that the pearock on his street still has not been swept.
Mr. Winner was directed to check into this further, as it should have been done this
spring.
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMITTEE/RESIGNATION
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept the resignation of John Ward
as Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Committee and aPPoint Mike Scho1meyer instead, and
that the City forward a letter of appreciation to John Ward for his duties as Chairman
of the Hazardous Waste Committee. Motion carried unanimously.
BOND SALE/1981-1
Attorney Hawkins stated the bond is for $150,000 and the bank indicated they would
purchase the bond for the SSmith's Rolling Oaks project in the fall as well. The
Clerk reported that with capitalized interest and the estimated project cost, the bond
amount would be approximately $3,500 short. Council was concerned that the most
accurate figures possible be used, but realized that it would not be proper to request
additional funds at this time, noting that the estimate for the installation of
culverts is higher than what it is expected to finally be. Mr. Winner stated that the
per-unit cost to the residents is still estimated to be that figure which was based
on the contract award, with the installation of culverts to be an additional cost.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to enter a Resolution awarding the sale of
$150,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1981, fixing the form and specifica-
tions therefor, directing the execution, delivery and providing for payment as
presented by the City Attorney, and awarding the sale of $150,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds for 1981 to First National Bank of Anoka, Minnesota, at an interest
at an average rate of 9.875 percent per year. (See Resolution R51-81) Motion
carried unanimously.
CAB RESOLUTION
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council approve the Resolution
as prepared for the CAB Cities in the Northwest area with an additional note that the
City of Andover is in the process of forwarding a note to the Metropolitan Council and
the Metropolitan Waste Water Commission noting that the City would like to be considered
in future planning for the CAB sewer on the east side of the Rum River in the City of
Andover. DISCUSSION: After discussion Council generally felt it did not understand
the resolution well enough at this time to act on it, that the meeting on the
matter is being held tomorrow, June 17, at the City of Anoka, and that TKDA has been
directed to represent the City at that meeting and to make a report to the Council
on the matter.
Councilmen Lachinski and Ortte1 WITHDREW the Second and the Motion.
I
Regular City Council Meeting
June 16, 1981 - Minutes
Page 18
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Claims 4070 through 4094
in the amount of $26,603.84 and Claims 479 and 480 from the construction account in
the amount of $80,956.44. Motion carried unanimously.
PART-TIME HELP/OFFICE
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize Pat (Lindquist) to interview
and hlre someone to fill the position as long as the position is advertised as part
time and temporary for no longer than a six-month period, have Pat hire at a rate
not to exceed $4.50 an hour or less if it is agreeable to the employer. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 12:52 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~"lli,~RL
Mar 11a A. Peach
Recor ing Secretary