Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC June 2, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JUNE 2, 1981 AGENDA 1, Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4 . Public Hearing - Smith's Rolling Oaks/1981-2 5. Public Hearing - Navaho Street Drainage/1981-3 6. Discussion Items a. Oakwood Addition/Final Plat b. Variances/Harvey Fisk c. Variances/Wm. Rademacher d. Variance/Bowen e. CAB Requests f. Award Contract/1981-1 g. Final Plans/Specs-Sealcoating h. Approval/Gravel Improvement Projects i. MSA cost Estimates/Ward Lake Drive j. k. 7. NOn-Discussion Items a. Policy/Fire Chief's Vehicle b. c. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Planning & Zoning Commission b. Park Commission c. Personnel Committee 9. Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of Claims 11, Adjournment - -- ,-- - ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 2, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on June 2, 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; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Peter Rauen, 4110 147th Lane - stated they are having a considerable noise problem ln their neighborhood and around the Round Lake area, primarily caused by the illegal operation of motor vehicles, dirt bikes, etc. He requested that the City Council ask the Anoka County Sheriff's office to enforce the existing Minnesota State regulation NPC-4 that would alleviate this problem. These regulations are not now being enforced. There has to be accurate measurements of the noise level emitted from the vehicle, which requires special testing equipment that the Anoka County Sheriff's office does not have at this time. However, that equipment is available for loan from the League of Minnesota Cities. Discussion noted that there are other areas of the City where this problem has occurred as well and that it would be helpful for the Sheriff's office to borrow the testing equipment and monitor the s ituat ions. The Attorney stated that the riders are not supposed to be on public right of ways if they are not licensed drivers and should not be trespassing on private property. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we request the Anoka County Sheriff's Department to monitor the noise level of off-road vehicles and to request them to obtain the necessary equipment from the League of Minnesota Cities. Motion carried unanimous 1y. Wayne Ness, 14268 Round Lake Boulevard - stated in November of 1979 his septic tank was pumped. The man doing the pumping informed him that the problem was some water occasionally backed up from the basement. Before remodeling the basement, he talked to the City's Building Inspector about preventing this problem from happening again. The Building Inspector suggested putting in a new sewer system because it would be 10 years before sanitary sewer faci lities would be avai 1able to them. So he installed a new septic system the middle of Növember, 1979; and very shortly after that the project to provide sanitary sewer facilities to the area was begun. Because of the misinformation of Andover's Building Inspector, he requested reimbursement for that sewer system. Discussion was on the question of when the City began the discussion of the sanitary sewer extension into that area. It was agreed to research when that discussion began and to hear testimony frorn the Building Inspector as well. The item is to be placed on the June 16, 1981, Agenda. Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard - stated there is a mess in his area with the street and sewer proJect. The blacktop has been laid, but they haven't come back to do the driveways. And heavy equipment is now coming through tearing up the sides of the new road. He was also under the impression the blacktop would be four inches thick and the area would be sodded; but the blacktop is only l~ inches and the area is now to be seeded. He was also frustrated that they don't even know their costs or what the interest rate on the bond is. Discussion noted that the standards call for 4 inches of sub-base and l~ inches of blacktop, which has been used for all other projects in the City. The contractor also has a year's guarantee on the project and - - .. - - Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) has an obligation to replace and/or repair any breakup of the blacktop. It was fe 1t that the driveways should be completed as soon as possible, although it was noted that the work hasn't been completed because of the strike. The Clerk is to ask TKDA to at least get the driveways in better condition. The assessment hearing will be held following the completion of the project, explaining how the actual project costs are determined. The bond has been sold and the interest rate is known and can be found out by asking at the City Hall. The bids for the project were generally under the estimate. Mr. Cann - asked if the costs of the project would be combined or separated. Discusslon was that the streets and storm sewer would probably be on one assessment, and the sanitary sewer on a separate assessment. The streets are assessed on a front- foot basis. Storm sewers are also normally done on a front footage basis, although it has also been assessed on a square footage basis in some cases. Mr. Cann - stated that the County increased the size of the storm sewer pipe across Round Lake Boulevard at the cost of $2 a foot more than what they had originally planned. And the County has now told him that the residents will be assessed a large amount for something the County only paid ~2 for. Discussion was that it is the understanding that the City would be assessed for only the oversizing cost of that pipe. That will be investigated further. Mr. Cann - also stated that on the corner of the service road and 138th Lane, no culverts were put in, and he asked what happens to the drainage in that area. Discussion was that Mr. Schumacher of TKDA will look at the situation and will also be asked to talk with Mr. Cann about the various problems. Lola Fortner, 13808 Round Lake Boulevard - expressed several complaints and concerns about the project. She realized that it is now after-the-fact, but she felt their area was side tracked when the decisions of curbing were made in the other areas of the project, that they were not informed of all of their choices, and that they may now have a "cheap-looking" project and may have chosen differently had they known all the facts. She asked if there is less cost to the inverted birm as opposed to the bituminous birm and how the decision was made to go with an inverted birm. Council discussion was that the cost between the bituminous birm and inverted birm is essentially the same; that the inverted birm is used to prevent the breakup of the edging; that it was to be an engineering decision as to where there would be a bituminous birm needed to carry the water; that bituminous curb is $5 per foot more and concrete curb was $6 per foot higher than the birm; and that the street standard in their area is quite attractive once it is completed. Ms. Fortner - was upset that their yard was tore up to make the slope, but she was assured that the sod would be replaced, only to find out later that it is going to be seeded instead. She also asked if a resident chooses to sod rather than seed, will the cost of the seed then be deducted from their assessments. Discussion was that if sod was taken out of private property, it must be replaced. If it is on the right- of-way, it is less expensive to seed. It was also agreed to add the question of sod versus seed in a project to the Agenda this evening. Ms. Fortner - explained that since the roads have been blacktopped, their area is being used as a cut-through for traffic to avoid the intersection of Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards, also coming at excessive speeds. She also related the problem of the yield sign off Round Lake Boulevard to 138th at the service road, feeling it is facing the wrong direction. Council noted that traffic control, stop signs, etc., will be reviewed after the project is completed. I ' Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Agenda as published with the following changes: Deletion of Item 6a; Addition of Item 6j, Assessments on the Unbui1dab1e Lots/Northwest Area; 6k, Part-time Help; 61, Question of Sod Versus Seed in the Cost Reduction to the Residents; 6m, CAB Meeting at the City of Anoka on June 16; and also the Deletion of Item 6g. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS/1981-2 Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the proposed improvement of storm drainage and bituminous streets in the Smith's Rolling Oaks and portion of Barne's Rolling Oaks was called to order by Mayor Windschit1 at 8:04 p.m. Mayor Windschit1 noted that the City Engineer was not able to be present this evening because of a death in the family. Council interpreted the revised cost estimates as prepared by the City Engineer as best they could, noting that it appears the least expensive road standard would be the modified urban for the Smith's Rolling Oaks area and a rural section on 14bth Lane from Prairie Road to Evergreen Street. The cost breakdown for the section of 146th Lane was estimated at $1,932 per unit for a rural road section, and $4,282 per unit within Smith's Rolling Oaks for modified urban section which includes the stub streets in the northwestern portion of the project area plus a unit assessment to the two parcels to the west and north of this project area. Dave Almgren - was confused as to the number of lots that are involved in the project, noting the different numbers used in the various reports prepared by the Engineer. Also, the May 28 report shows an assessment of 284 feet to the property owners abutting the stub streets, and it was his understanding that Attorney Hawkins had indicated the assessment could not be more than the width of the right of way. (Discussion noted that the numbers vary because of the 10 lots along 146th Lane that would be assessed separately, and becauseof the addition of the two properties abutting the stub streets. Also, it has previously been agreed to do the project on a unit basis rather than a front-foot basis. Council also generally agreed not to assess each street within Smith's Rolling Oaks separately, but to treat them as one project.) Wa~ne Margotto, 134 146th Lane - asked if the project includes all of 146th Lane from Unlversity Extension to Pralrie Road. (Correct.) He was also concerned with the engineering of the drainage in the area, but understood his question could not be answered without the Engineer present. Also, he is concerned about future maintenance of the road. (Discussion was that the City as a whole has an obligation to maintain the roads past the one-year warranty on the road, and the resident cannot be reassessed for the road during the period of the bond.) Jan Margotto, 134 146th Lane NW - asked if a tentative interest rate for financing has been established, as she had heard 18 percent. (Discussion was that the legal limit is 12 percent and the City assesses 1 percent above the bonding amount for administrative costs. The interest rate is set at the time the bonds are sold.) Council discussion was then on whether or not to include the stub streets to the west and to the north, which has a bearing on the cost to the residents, whether there should be some assessment to the abutting parcels, and the potential problems in the future if the street is not built now but then needs to be when the adjoining property is developed. Attorney Hawkins stated that the abutting parcels may be assessed, and it could be done on a front-foot basis for the width of the right of way. Generally when someone develops a piece of land, they are responsible to provide adequate access. It would appear in this instance where there is a road available within a short distance and the City has a short stretch of right of way, that the individual does Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - Smith's Rolling Oaks/1981-2, Continued) have the right of access to his property and can insist that the road be put in. The question is then the benefit as to whether it is to the adjacent land owners or to the developer. In that instance there may be some benefit to both properties, that decision to be made by the City. There may be some additional benefit to the existing parcels depending on the configuration of the homes on the property and how the lot can now be used. Councilman Ortte1 felt that many of the stub streets in the City are being used for the dumping of garbage, etc., and didn't see a reason to build those stub streets in this project. Because it is just a short stretch of street, it may be cheaper for the future developers to construct the stubs when they develop than it would be to assume the assessment on it. Mrs. McG10ver - emphatically stated as long as they own the property to the north, there is no intent to develop it; so she didn't understand how there would be a benefit to their property. She also stated there is enough trespassing as it is and didn't like the idea of having an easier access to their property for trespassing. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we delete 150th Lane/Evergreen Street to the west and Evergreen Street/150th Lane to the north at this time. DISCUSSION: was on who is liable for the construction of the road in the future. Attorney Hawkins stated that the developer would be benefitted by the construction of the stub and therefore could be assessed for it. And the two existing lots may receive some smaller benefit if it provided the ability to make a horeshoe drive, etc.; but that is for the City to determine. Councilman Peach noted that this is changing City policy. Discussion also noted that there is only one lot where only the corner touches the street, that of Mr. Frischmon. Glen Frischmon - indicated he did not want the stub constructed at this time. (Councl1man Orttel stated he talked to the property owner to the west of this development, who mentioned that if he would get an assessment for the project, it would be tempting to subdivide and sell a lot by metes and bounds at the end of the stub to pay for the assessment. That would then prohibit the future extension of the street beyond this area, which is self-defeating.) Motion carried unanimously. A1 Smith, 254 150th Lane - asked when sanitary sewer is scheduled for the area. (Mayor Windschitl explained that the City is under the control of the Metropolitan Waste Water Control Commission, describing the eastern boundary of the urban service area, and noting that there are no plans to service this area with sanitary sewer.) Mr. Smith - asked what will be done to control traffic in the neighborhood. (D1Scussion noted that the area will be evaluated at the end of the project to determine placement of traffic control signs, etc. It was also noted that with the elimination of the two stubs from the project, it is estimated the unit cost for those in Smith's Rolling Oaks would be $3,969, assuming Mr. Frischmon will also be getting an assessment.) Bonnie Lee, 14920 Butternut - asked if it is going through or do the people have a vote on it. She also asked if the same contractor would be doing the project, referencing the problem of those in the Southwest area brought out during the Resident Forum. She also asked the situation with the improvement of University Avenue. (Discussion noted that it is helpful to have a petition from the area. It was also explained that the Southwest area project was an extremely large project and this is the first problems encountered in the entire project. That contractor usually works on larger projects than this one would be. The project is up for public bid; and normally if there are problems, the City has security to take care of it. Also, the project will be completed to University Avenue. But University Ave. Ext. must be done in conjuction with the City of Ham Lake, noting Ham Lake indicated it is not presently interested in improving the road at this time.) Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing - Smith's Rolling Oaks/1981-2, Continued) Councilman Peach stated that the feasibility report shows the costs for a concrete driveway, that it appears there is only one concrete driveway in the project, and the assessment amounts to approximately $25 per unit for that item. Discussion was on whether or not there would be some way of adjusting that item, such as using 3~ or 4 inches of concrete or asphalt instead. Mr. Smith - stated it is his concrete driveay, and he would not be willing to have asphalt put in instead. He would be agreeable to 3~ inches of concrete, as that is the thickness of the existing driveway. He questioned if the elevation of the road will be changed, noting the driveway presently meets the existing road, and asked why bid prices weren't available. (Council then explained the procedure and the expenses involved as to why the figures being presented are the Engineer's estimates and not contract bids. Also, the grade of the road is proposed to remain subsantially as it exists, though with the addition of gravel and blacktop, it will be raised somewhat.) Glen Frischmon, 15080 Evergreen Street - stated a petition did go around the neighbor- hood before, which he thought only two people were not contacted. There were 34 in favor of the project. It appears that the cost is going to be the same or less than what the residents were told on the petition, so he didn't feel there was a need for another petition. Also, it is now estimated the project will not be completed until November, and delaying the decision for a couple weeks or months could push the project over until next year, which also would be an increase in the project costs. He stated the biggest problem of the residents was with the two stubs, and that problem has already been decided, feeling that there has been little or no change in attitude about the project by those affected. Dave Hein, 14827 Butternut - asked about the number of culverts in the project and whether lt has been studled in detail. (Council noted it is an open issue, that the cost is estimated to be approximately $350 to put it in; that the homeowner has the option of putting it in himself; that the Engineer makes the determination as to whet he ror not a culvert is needed; that with the modified urban street section there would be virtually no driveway culverts; and there are a number of road culverts being considered.) Mr. Hein - asked if it has been decided whetheror not this will be assessed on a front- foot or unit method, as in his case it would be less costly to him to have a front- foot assessment. He voted in favor of the project assessed on a front-foot basis. If it is changed to a unit assessment, he would still be in favor of the project, but he felt those with larger lots should be paying more. (Discussion was that it was thought the Council had voted to assess on a unit method, explaining that the assess- ment policy for determining assessable front footage has an equalizing effect for all in the project.) Mr. Smith - asked how much is being estimated for his driveway. ($1,246 if his is the only concrete driveway in the project. The Attorney stated that whatever was there has to be replaced if that is what the owner wants. Council discussion was then on the cost of the project, a review of the modified urban section with seeded shoulders, and noting that if the project is delayed to allow for further discussion with the Engineer, it may make it impossible to complete the project this year. The feasibility report indicated that the Plans and Specs could be completed by July 7.) Mr. Hein - his blacktop driveway is five feet back from the edge of the road. He asked lf this project will connect to his blacktop. (The blacktop is placed to the property line, with one 16-foot driveway per lot covered under the project costs.) Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - Smith's Rolling Oaks/1981-2, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution ordering the improvement of bltumlnous streets for the area known as the Smith's Rolling Oaks Addition and 146th Avenue in the Barne's Rolling Oaks Addition and directing the City Staff Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications, a Resolution as prepared. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by City Council, City of Andover, to hereby order the improvement of bituminous streets for 146th Lane from Prairie Road to Evergreen Street at an estimated cost of $1,932 per unit; and 146th Lane from Evergreen to University, Butternut Street from 146th to 150th Lane, 150th Lane from Butternut Street to University Avenue Extension, Evergreen Street from 146th Lane to 150tn Lane, and 150th Lane from Evergreen Street to Butternut Street at an estimated cost of $4,000 per unit; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Andover, to hereby direct the City Staff Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications for the proposed improvement to be presented to the Council on July 7, 1981; the 146th Lane from Prairie Road to Evergreen Street in a rural street section; the remaining streets to be planned to be built in a modified urban street section, 28-foot street with two-foot grass shoulders. (~e Resolution R36-81) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we close the Public Hearing on Smith's Rolllng Oaks. Motion carried unanimously. 8:57 p.m. Recess at 8:57; reconvene at 8:08. PUBLIC HEARING - NAVAHO STREET DRAINAGE/1981-3 Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the proposed storm drainage improvement on Navaho Street was called to order by Mayor Windschit1 at 9:08 p.m. Mayor Windschit1 reviewed the May 28, 1981, Feasibility Report on the 1981 Drainage Improvement No.3, the various alternatives to the improvement, estimated costs of each, and the proposed assessments for the lots in the drainage districts. David Bouley, Block 1, Lot 4 - asked what his assessment would be and where the problem lS. (Estimated to be $155. The problem is on Block 2, the west side of the street.) Gar Larson, 17170 Navajo, Lot 3, Block 2 - had received a letter of the hearing and as e he lS lnc u e . hat ot lS not included and not considered for an assessment.) Barb Jedneak, 17105 Navajo, Lot 7, Block 1 - stated the majority do not approve of this assessment and asked what happens now, feeling they are not benefitting from the solution and wanting to know what can be done about this. A1 Michels, Lot 5, Block 2 - is neutral on the assessment at this time. The problem lS occurrlng mainly on hlS lot. The residents of Block 1, Lot 6, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Lennox, were not present but forwarded a letter dated June 1, 1981, indicating their opposition to the assessment, feeling the problem should be corrected by the property owner and noting they had a simi1iar problem on their lot which they corrected themselves at their own expense. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to delete Drainage Sub-District No.2 from any further consideration of this project. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated when this problem was before the Council last year, he viewed the situation. It was obvious that when the plat was developed, both sides of the street had the same problem. But the east side dealt with it and the west side took in appropriate action, and that's why there is a problem. Motion carried unanimously. - - Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Public Hearing - Navaho Street Drainage/1981-3, Continued) John Dekok, 17150 Navajo, Lot 4, Block 2, adjacent to the problem - stated he is deflnitely opposed to any assessment for the correction of the problem. There is some erosion on his property. He sodded to the problem and put a row of trees in. Other than looks, it doesn't really affect his property. Yes, he would like to have the problem eliminated, but he is opposed to an assessment for it. The problem was rectified across the street by sodding. Also, he would be opposed to giving an additional easement on his property. (Discussion noted there is a 10-foot easement on either side of the property line at this time.) Ms. Jedneak - explained that because of the slope of Mr. Michels' driveway, there is runoff from his property which is also contributing to the problem of erosion. She also explained the problem across the street which the Lennox's spent approximately $1,500 to rectify with additional dirt, sOdding etc. (Discussion was that there probably should have been additional storm drainage done when the project was initially put in; and if it had been, that cost would have been put back into the cost of the lots.) Mr. Michels - stated his house was built in 1977. He didn't feel the problem across the street was nearly as severe, as there is a 3- to 4-foot drop at different times on his side. He also explained that after the City did some repair work last year, he had intended to complete the area, but within one week and after a severe rain the entire thing washed out again. The drop in elevation continues back approximately 100 feet from the road to behind the house. Attorney Hawkins then explained that residents general1yare not 1aib1e for civil damages for water run-off; but under the special assessment statutes, the City is allowed to special assess for storm water drainage to any area being benefitted by it. Ms. Jedneak - stated that when the lots were purchased, the runoff patterns were there and the purchasers were aware of the problems. She felt the problems should be resolved at the expense of the ones with the problem and not at the expense of all the neighbors, just as those across the street did. (There was then a lengthy discussion between the Council and the property owners present, basically Mr. Michels, Ms. Judneak, and Mr. Dekok, as to what the problem is, how it is caused, the possible solutions and costs of each, and the method of payment for the project, also noting that an individual probably would be able to rectify the problem at a much lower cost than the City can do it for. Ms. Judneak and Mr. Dekok argued against an assessment to the surrounding area, feeling that each property owner has an obligation to rectify their problems at their own costs, not at a cost to their neighbors as well.) Mr. Michels - stated he felt that if more fill were brought in to level the area and then once sod would take hold, that that would resolve the problem. (Discussion was then on the possibility of the City bringing in some excess fill with Mr. Michels' paying the hauling costs, and then allowing Mr. Michels to rectify the problem at his own expense.) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we ask the City Engineer to investigate the slte and give us an estimate as to how much fill would be required to bring the ravine up to grade, and then look at the possibility of the City using excess spoil material from various projects to dump in that area with the consideration that perhaps the property owner then putting black dirt and sod on top of that once it is level (the intent is to look at that cost and to see at that point if it is not too expensive to the City, whether we could absorb that cost of putting in the fill). Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Public Hearing - Navaho Street Drainage/1981-3, Continued) Mr. Michels - stated that his original intent was not to have everyone assessed for thlS problem. This spring he had fully intended to take care of the problem, but then the Engineer came out and stated the problem was going to be brought before the Council, so he then waited. If the fill would be brought in, he would gladly take care of the problem and assume full responsibility for it. He just wanted it done. Public Hearing continued to June 16, 1981. 9:42 p.m. VARIANCES/HARVEY FISK P & Z Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the variance request to allow Mr. Fisk to build closer to the river than permitted by Ordinance. She also informed the Council that the DNR has visually inspected the property and concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation because they feel that the variance is being requested as a result of the design of the home and not because of the topography of the land. And the DNR, which is the ultimate authority, probably would not certify the request of the variance even if the Council approved it. Harvey Fisk, 16444 Argon - stated that he designed his house prior to the 150-foot setback requirement. The plans were costly, and it will cost more to redesign the house, which he felt is a hardship. He has spoken to the DNR, who stated they are not concerned with economic hardships. The river bank is 35 to 50 feet high, and the house could not be seen from the river whether it is 75 or 150 feet back. Mr. Fisk also stated he was not notified of the change of setback, and he felt that as a property owner he should have been notified of any change. The lot was purchased two years ago. He stated he would not have purchased the lot if he had known of the 150-foot setback requirement, noting that now he will not be able to construct the house in the woods as he had planned. (Council discussion was on the establishment of the Scenië River Ordinance, on the publication notices of ordinance changes, that the developer of· Rum River Forest should have been aware of the upcoming Scenic River Ordinance, and that allowing this variance would be setting a precedent to allowing a lesser setback from the river for that entire area.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a Resolution to deny the variance request of Harvey Fisk to construct a home nearer the Rum River than provided for in Ordinance No. 52, Section 10.03.01 as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R37-81) DISCUSSION: Mr. Fisk asked if he can pursue this further. Discussion was that the DNR has 30 days to review the request, and the next step for Mr. Fisk is probably civil action, whatever is provided for by the ordinance. Councilman Lachinski did not understand why the City uses the principle that everyone else will want to do the same thing when Mr. Fisk may have a specific situation where there is no adverse impact on the scenic river area. He didn't see where 45 feet difference in the location of the house would be detrimental. He asked that the DNR make a written statement on what adverse affect there would be on the river corridor to have the house 45 feet closer to the river. Discussion also noted that since the DNR has ultimate authority, there is little the Council can do. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we request from the DNR a statement of the impact that the request that Mr. Harvey Fisk has, how that adversely affects the scenic river corridor, building the home 45 feet closer to the river. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 (Variances/Harvey Fisk, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to introduce a Resolution approving the varlance request of Harvey Fisk to declare Plat 65980, Parcel 6600 and Plat 65986, Parcel 2445, as a building site in combination and to allow the building setback of 100 feet from the river, as prepared by the City Clerk, noting that the variance would include the allowing of a building setback of 100 feet from the river. (See Resolution R38-81) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fisk - also noted the problems occurring on a lot in Rum River Forest where it appears people are partying, leaving debris, etc.; and though he has talked with the Sheriff, they have not done anything about it. Council agreed to ask the Sheriff's Department to look into the situation. VARIANCES/WILLIAM RADEMACHER Wayne Anderson - stated they are now in the design development phases; and in antlclpatlon of needs and flow of traffic behind the building, they are anticipating the needed variance pursuant to the Ordinance. Councilman Jacobson asked several questions, generally feeling that the ordinance has been in force for some time and because they were aware of those ordinances coming into the project, those regulations should be adhered to. Mr. Anderson - stated the original site plans and sketches were done by a different architect and not as much attention was paid to the requirements of a major supermarket of this size. The new firm, which has designed numerous shopping centers of this kind, noted the requirements of the City and feels a variance should be acquired prior to construction. Councilman Ortte1 felt that possibly the City's ordinances haven't kept up with the state of the art in commercial development because there hasn't been any in the City. And because of the premium on commercial land, developers want to develop in the most efficient manner possible. Also, the areas behind the shopping centers can become eye sores and it may be an advantage to keep that area to a minimum, especially with the buffer between this center and the houses. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be adequate distance for passing and driving, etc. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving a variance request from William Rademacher to allow construction of a loading dock nearer the rear lot line than allowed by Ordinance No.8, Section 8.09 (A), as prepared. (See Resolution R39-81) VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Councilman Jacobson felt that granting this variance would then be setting the design criteria for the remainder of the shopping center relative to the reduction in the parking requirements. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, a Resolution approving a Variance from Ordinance 8, Section 8.08 as requested by William Rademacher to allow 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square footage of building area for the Andover Community Center as prepared by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R40-81) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. VARIANCE/D. BOWEN MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, the Council approve the variance request to permlt Mr. Bowen to construct a garage nearer the front lot line than allowed by Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 (F) due to the reason that a hardship is created due to the -- .-. Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 (Variance/D. Bowen, Continued) (Motion by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, Continued) topography of his land, that is that the drainage problem prevents him from putting his garage in a more logical place; this variance will not affect the existing or potential use of the adjacent properties; and the use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is necessary for the reasonable use of the land; the rest of the Resolution as prepared. (See Resolution R41-81) Motion carried unanimously. AWARD CONTRACT/1981-1 Council reviewed the May 28, 1981, memo from Larry Winner relative to the contract award for the 1981 Street Improvement No.1, and discussed the financing of the project. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing the following Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for bituminous construction for 172nd Avenue from Round Lake Boulevard east to the Plat of White Oaks Country Estates and a 11 those streets within the Plat of White Oaks Country Estates, and 171st Avenue west from White Oaks Country Estates to its intersection with the street under construction in Oakwood Estates (to Eide1weiss Street), with the Resolution recognizing the bids from N.D.H., Inc., Forest Lake Contracting, Inc., Northern Asphalt, and Lino Contracting; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council to hereby accept the bid of N.D.H., Inc., in the amount of $110,301.05, and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a Contract with N.D.H. for the improvement of bituminous streets; with the addition of 171st Avenue for $4,293.25. (See Resolution R42-81 ) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Attorney to approach local funding sources for an amount equal to $132,124 or there abouts to fund the 1981-1A, 1B, and 1C road building project. Motion carried unanimously. MSA COST ESTIMATES/WARD LAKE DRIVE (Reference the May 29, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner on the Ward Lake Drive MSA Project Cost Estimate) Council noted that the assesement rate of $14 FF is just an estimate and subject to change since no policy has yet been established for an assessment on MSA roads. John Handorf, 16379 Ward Lake Drive, one block off County Road 18 - felt very strongly that he likes the road the way lt lS and would be disappointed if a "freeway" was put in there. There isn't that much traffic and felt it would be a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. (Councilman Lachinski also felt it was hard to justify blacktopping the road for the amount of traffic, but he would like to see the City continue with last year's plan to add more gravel and put some oil on it for dust control.) Mr. Handorf - felt that it might be a good idea to keep down the dust, but by the way the sod trucks come through the area, placing Class 5 gravel on it really makes the road rougher. Mrs. Helen Franz - stated she has more than one-quarter mile of frontage, and is opposed to an assessment for the benefit of the sod farmers and trucks who are the major users of the road. She didn't think the people who use the road once or twice a day should have to bear the same costs for the installation of the road as the sod truckers which are habitually using the road from 7 a.m. until dark from the time the snow melts in the spring until it comes again in the fall. She's not opposed to a partial assessment for upgrading the road, but not for their benefit. -- - f C Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 (MSA Cost Estimates/Ward Lake Drive, Continued) Rog Anderson, 1452 Ward Lake Drive- is opposed to having the road blacktopped. The road lS falrly well malntained now; there is very little traffic; the heavy sod trucks using the road would probably break up the blacktopping; and he didn't feel there was any need to blacktop it. It's a typical rural road. Also, with the blacktopping would come additional high-speed traffic. Allen Palo, 16608 Ward Lake Drive - echoed the sentiments of Mrs. Franz. He's not interested in SUbsldizlng the sod operations. He thought that the road had been graded only once this year and felt a better job of maintenance could be done. He's lived there since 1965 and noticed that recently the grading of the road has been done in a concave manner rather than crowning the road. (Council noted that the grading is supposed to be done on a three-week rotation, and if it isn't, the Council should be provided a report as to when the road has been graded.) In further discussion with the residents present, no one indicated a desire to see Ward Lake Drive blacktopped, especially if it is to have that kind of an assessment. Mrs. Franz ø asked if the City pursued her suggestion in regard to interstate trucks using the road. She has been told that where interstate trucks are using the road regularly for business enterprises, that the City is eligible for additional State Aid funds for maintenance. (It was not known whether that has been pursued or not.) Dave (1) - stated he goes along with the sentiments of his neighbors, preferring to see the road maintained as it is with additional gravel and grading. Several years ago they complained about the dust and traffic on the road, after which a study was done and a recommendation made to change the speed limit. But he felt that some error may have been made, as the higher speed is posted in residential areas and the lower speed limit is in the lower populated area. (Council indicated that would be checked into.) Because no one had expressed an interested in improving Ward Lake Drive, the Council did not pursue the matter further. APPROVAL/GRAVEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we order gravel improvement on the following roads as presented by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 29, 1981, those projects being Prairie Road - Part I, Prairie Road - Part II, Ward Lake Drive - Part I, Ward Lake Drive - Part II, 175th Lane NW, and deleting 175th Avenue NW and Navajo Street NW and 159th Avenue NW. DISCUSSION: It was questioned whether Prairie Road - Part I should be improved at this time if it is going to be improved to bituminous surfacing as an MSA project. The question of placing oil on Ward Lake Drive was also discussed. Councilman Jacobson then AMENDED THE MOTION that the Prairie Road - Part I to be the last project to be done during the year; and before work is commenced on this project, that additional approval be granted by the Council. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we request the City Engineer to prepare for the next regular Council meeting the cost for laying oil on maybe one-quarter mile of Ward Lake Drive. Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSMENTS ON UNBUILDABLE LOTS/NORTHWEST AREA (Reference the May 29, 1981, memo from the Acting Administrator) Discussion was on a clarification of the Acting Administrator's memo and on the events of the October 7, 1980, assessment hearing, noting that it was agreed that the supplemental hearing include an assessment to the lots from 172nd Avenue where blacktop currently - - - Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 12 (Assessments on Unbui1dab1e Lots/Northwest Area, Continued) exists to be made equal to the amount of the original blacktopping project, and that all the "unbui 1dab1e" lots on 174th Avenue be assessed for their front footage on an equal basis. George Beaving, 174th (Lot 8, Block 2, and the empty lot of Lot 9, Block 2) - stated lie lS the only one to own an adjacent "unbuildab1e" lot, and it is not combined. The remaining lots. are now up for sale for back taxes Saturday. He didn't feel anyone would be willing to purchase those lots if there is a street assessment against it as well when they cannot be built on anytime in the near future. So the City will not be getting the money, and the only one to pay is him because he already owns an adjacent lot. He is considering purchasing one of the other "unbuildab1e" lots, but wi 11 not do so if there is an assessment. And if the lot he already owns has an assessment put against it, he stated he would let that one go for back taxes as well. Discussion was on the location of the "unbuildable" lots, which ones are owned by adjacent property owners and which ones are up for tax forfeiture. The Clerk indicated she will know the exact costs of the project once it is completed in approximately two or three weeks and recommended setting a supplemental assessment hearing once the correct project amount it known. At this time the Council took no action as to whether or not those "unbuildab1e" lots on 174th should be assessed as agreed to at the assessment hearing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bose11 asked for a clarification as to what the P & Z is to do relative to the Council directive to review the ordinances in regard to the Liquor Ordinance. Council discussion was that the ordinance presently allows for liquor in certain areas of the City; that the Planning Commission is to recommend whether it should stay there or to allow it in other areas; possibly make recommendations necessary relative to liquor in restaurants and their location thereof; that the Liquor Ordinance assumes on-sale liquor will be allowed only in restaurants but restaurants are allowed in Neighborhood Business zonings, cautioning that limiting liquor to only Shopping Center zones severely restricts liquor in the City, is in effect restricting it to one person, and in the City's case pre-determines the location of liquor; questioning whether liquor is desired in the NB and Limited Business zonings; and determining whether off-sale bottleshop-type businesses should be allowed in a Neighborhood Business. The Council generally felt that the ordinances should be defined up front with careful thought before its implementation so that it would not have to be varied from. Counc il a 1 so felt that the Councilor the Liquor Study Committee would consider comments and recommendations from the P & Z as to the setting of the criteria for granting liquor licenses, that it may be helpful to the P & Z to meet with the Liquor Study Committee on the matter, and that the issuance of licenses probably could come under the Special Use Permit section of the ordinance so that such an issuance would be subject to the public hearing process. Chairman Bose11 also asked for clarification on the Council directive to review the ordinance relative to non-conforming uses in the City. Attorney Hawkins stated there is a ques'tion as to whether or not the section of non-conforming uses covers mobi Ie homes. It clearly covers permanent structures and open uses of land, but the wording should be clarified to include mobile homes. It was agreed that Ms. Bose11 and Mr. Hawkins will discuss this further, with Mr. Hawkins drafting a suggested revision to the ordinance on this matter. Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 13 ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT The Council and Fire Chief Bob Palmer reviewed the Policy for Fire Chief's Vehicle. The following changes were agreed to: * The policy is to apply to all Fire Department vehicles, but the Fire Chief's Vehicle and Rescue Van are the two vehicles that are normally parked away from City facil ities. * Line 1 of the first paragraph, change to: "The purpose of this policy is to assure that all Fire Department vehicles owned by..." * Last paragraph, change to: "The Fire Cheif's vehicle shall be stored in a locked garage at all times. " * Discussion was on the question of using the vehicles for personal use. The policy emPhasizessthat the vehicle be used for official use, which may include use for convenience,! One so at the discretion of the Fire Chief. The paragraph "If circumstances require personal use, it is to be kept to a minimum." is to be deleted from the policy. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the policy for Fire Department vehlc1es as presented by Bob Palmer and instruct the Clerk to make the changes noted by the Mayor and Council and to retype as necessary. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Palmer reviewed the request to purchase uniform smocks for the EMTs working the Rescue Vehicle. Council discussion was on the number of smocks necessary at this time and the source of funding. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the purchase of "uniforms" at the price of $18 each, total not to exceed $300, for the Andover Rescue unit, such money to come from surplus funds. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Palmer asked when the next City newsletter will be sent out, expressing the desire to have a periodical newsletter sent to the residents with City news. The Clerk will find out when the next one is being planned by the Community School. PART-TIME HELP/OFFICE MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, acknowledging the resignation of Vicky Vo1k and authorize Vicky Vo1k to work part time for the City until such time as she is able to return to full-time status and authorize the advertising for a part-time person. DISCUSSION: The Clerk stated she has reached an agreement with Ms. Vo1k to work half days, that Ms. Vo1k will continue to take the P & Z Minutes, and that there will be someone in the office at all times to answer questions relative to P & Z items. Councilmen Jacobson and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we allow Vicky Vo1k, at the request of the Supervisor, a leave of absence without pay up to four hours a day until September 15. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council authorize the Clerk to advertise for help for the position vacated by the leave of absence of Victoria Vo1k on a part-time basis. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Clerk to advertise the posltion for up to $4.75 an hour or commensurate with experience if less. Motion carried unanimously. -. Regular Cîty Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 14 SOD VERSUS SEED/COST REDUCTION TO RESIDENTS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council adopt a policy whereby people on City improvement projects that wish to sod their own property be given credit for the seeding which would otherwise be included in the assessment to their properties. DISCUSSION: was that the property owners would be responsible for informing the contractor as to whether or not they want the right of way in front of their property seeded, that the administration of determining the cost of deleting seed and mulch from a particular lot and preparing the assessment roll to reflect that reduction could be very time consuming and costly, noting that the cost of seed is negligible. Some felt that it should not be seeded if the property owner will be sodding the area, but crediting the property owner for the seed is probably not practical. Councilmen Lachinski and Ortte1 WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that if the people on City improvement proJects wish to have their lawns not seeded and mulched, that they be given that right; and the City will bypass those areas as far as seeding and mulching goes. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt that some minimum maintenance should be done and that the City should continue doing it the way it has been done. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Peach Motion carried. CAB MEETING/JUNE 16 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the firm of TKDA to attend the June 16 CAB Meeting, City of Anoka, at 7:30 at the Anoka City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. CAB REQUESTS Council reviewed the Rrªa1~št~n as prepared by the Clerk, agreeing to change the third WHEREAS to "Such u now indicate there may be a need for such sanitary sewer before 1990." MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacboson, that we approve a Resolution as prepared and amended, a Resolution requesting Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to include the City of Andover in the plans for the extension of the CAB Interceptor. (See Resolution R43-81) Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Apr i1 8 and Apr il 15, 1981: Correct as written. April 21, 1981: Page 4, MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, 7th line, add: " .. .we agree with the recommendat i on ( i n the report)..." April 23, 1981: Page 8, second and third lines, delete the words "...with no respect for him at alL.. " May 5, May 11 Board of Review, May 11 Special Meeting, and May 19, 1981: Correct as written MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, approval of the following Minutes with the corrections as noted: Minutes of April 21, April 23, May 11, and Special City Council Meeting of May 11. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting June 2, 1981 - Minutes Page 15 (Approval of Minutes, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, approval of Meeting Minutes of the May 5 meeting. VOTE ON MOT! ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Minutes of May 19. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, approval of Meeting Minutes of April 8 and Apri 1 15. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Checks 4039 through 4069 for $5,991.65. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Check 471, 474 as void, 475, 476, 478 for a total of $351,515.08. Motion carried unanimously MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~~L Marce a A. Peach Recording Secretary -