Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC October 20, 1981
~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-OCTOBER 20, 1981 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Campbell/Gabrelcik-Rezoning b. Final Payment -(1981-1/H&S) c. F. Padula/Rezoning d. Remuneration/Fire Department e. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Date for Budget Meeting b. Date for Personnel Committee Meeting c. Public Works Meeting d. Clerk's Advanced Education Meeting e. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Authorization-House Burn/Fire Department b. Planning & Zoning Commission c. Park & Recreation Commission 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment .. . ~_. ~ 01 ANDOVER IŒGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 20, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on October 20, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; Planning & Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of the Agenda as published with the addition of 4e, Blackfoot Street Grading and 5e, CDBG Application. Motion carried unanimous ly. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. CAMPBELL/GABRELCIK - REZONING Chairman Bose11 reviewed the Commission's recommendation of their September 8 meeting to deny the rezoning request, noting no one at their meeting was specifically opposed to this rezoning request but the issue was not allowing the rezoning of any NB areas to allow liquor. Brad Campbell, 1905 162nd Avenue NE - presented the Council with copies of a site plan and a prepared statement of arguments supporting their request for rezoning from Neighbor,hood Business to Limited Business. He explained that the situation is unique and cannot be duplicated in any other area zoned NB in the City and made the following justifications as to why the property should be rezoned: 1) The proposed site is located between two main arteries in th© City with 1980 traffic counts indicating a total of 6,291 cars daily at Crosstown and Bunker Lake Boulevards. That is 234 more cars daily than at the intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard, making Crosstown Boulevard the most heavily used road in the City. 2) The gross sales of groceries alone of the Speedy Market, which would be their neighboring business, is in excess of $500,000 a year, which is an extremely large volume for an area zoned NB. It shows that it is more than just the immediate area servicing this store. 3) This is the only retail sales area servicing this side of the City. To deny the location of liquor here would mean placing more traffic on other City streets by the residents who want that service. 4) There are very few single family homes that will be in view of their store. All lots touching their lot are commercial except for one multi-family unit lot. 5) According to the County Highway Engineers, no noticeable affect on traffic would be caused by their store. 6) Adjoining land owners have indicated they see no problem with a liquor store at that location. 7) Employment opportunities would be realized in both the construction and daily operation of the facility. 8) There would also be additional tax base for the City. The request from NB to LB is down- zoning the lot, as Limited Business is more restrictive on the types of businesses allowed. Because of the already intensive traffic, the high gross sales of Speedy Market indicating the area services a much larger area than the zoning indicates, the largest commercially zoned area being just 1/2 mile east of this location, and with the attractive building they are proposing which may promote other businesses, compliment the area, keep real estatesvalues up, and make the area more desirable to live in, he felt the proposal should be approved. - 0--------_. .__ . Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Campbe11/Gabre1cik - Rezoning, Continued) Mr. Campbell went on to say that an off-sale liquor store is a clean operation with no juveniles loitering around the building, time spent by a customer in the building is usually very short, the 1itt~ring problem is nearly nonexistent, and the store hours would be shorter than the existing hours of Speedy Market. The property is zoned NB because at the time it was zoned that was the only suitable zone classification allowed by ordinance; but general retail sales better describes that area. Merle King, 2221 139th - his concern was that it not be an on-sale because that is where the problems occur. He felt an off-sale liquor store would be an asset to the area; and as a resident of the immediate area, he has no objections to it. He stated he has more objections to the Speedy Market than to the liquor store because of the juveniles hanging around it. Bob Palmer, 2540 140th Avenue - stated his feelings are the same as Mr. King's. He felt there is· a real problem with the Speedy Market being a hangout, but has no objections to an off-sale liquor store in the neighborhood. There was then considerable Council discussion on the merits of the rezoning as pointed out by Mr. Campbell versus the concern of not allowing liquor in neighborhood business zones as was expressly intended by the enactment of the Liquor Ordinance. Councilman Ortte1 felt the intent was to keep liquor out of close neighborhood situations, but this situation appears to be more intense than that, that the classification was made prior to the installation of sanitary sewer through the area, that the problem is the ordinances allows for NB or Shopping Center classifications and nothing in between for something more intense than serving the surrounding neighborhood, and that LB is a down-zoning from NB. Chairman Bose11 also noted the Commission is reviewing all NB zones in the City in general as to the intent of the developers where no activities have taken place to date. For the record, Mayor Windschit1 read a letter of opposition to the rezoning from Mr. William Sironen of 2635 138th Avenue. Councilman Lachinski was concerned with the unanimous vote for denial from the Planning Commission but little or no opposition from the neighborhood. He felt that the reason it was decided to keep liquor out of the NB zones is because it is typically in neighbor- hoods where that kind of traffic is not wanted, etc. But the fact that there is an opportunity to rezone provides the City with greater control in this particular case. He agrees that the area is above and beyond a neighborhood business in terms of retail sales right now. Because of the lack of opposition to this particular site, he would be in favor of granting the rezoning. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, approving the rezoning request of Bradley Campbell and John Gabrelcik to rezone Plat 65933, Parcel 1590, from Neighborhood Business to Limited Business. DISCUSSION: Councilman Ortte1 felt that the conditions should be laid down describing the uniqueness of this situation, of which much of the information can be drawn from the report provided by Mr. Campbell. He felt that the City's intent would remain that liquor will not be allowed in neighborhood areas. This is a neighborhood business but it is not necessarily in a neighborhood area, the use is much more intense than NB, it is surrounded by multiple family housing, and it has the largest industrial and commercial area in the City just down from it. Chairman Bose11 stated the Commission looked at the multiple housing as residential, noting that the entire NB zone is surrounded on three sides by residential and is zoned but un- developed residential to the south. Mayor Windschitl felt that granting one rezoning to allow liquor would be setting a precedent for other NB zones in the City to request the same thing. Also, by granting the request, the area would be going from NB to LB to NB, which he felt is not good zoning. Councilman Ortte1 also felt this would not be Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Campbe11/Gabrelcik - Rezoning, Continued) setting a precedent because the Council has already approved a zoning change from NB to SC to allow a liquor store in the Andover Community Shopping Center. Councilman Lachinski CHANGED the Motion to allow the Clerk to prepare a Resolution stating the basis for which this rezoning should occur. Second stands. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated his only reluctance is setting a precedence; but if it can be shown that this would not force the City to change any other NB zones, he would be in favor. Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, asking the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution citing the reasons and justifications for approval of this particular rezoning. That is not approving the rezoning; it is merely allowing the information to be drawn together and allow the Council a second opportunity to approve the prepared Resolution that would indicate approval. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschit1 Motion carried. Discussion: Because a rezoning requires a 4/5 vote and because it was generally felt the absent member would not favor the rezoning, discussion was again on the pros and cons of allowing this particular rezoning, on the similarities and differences between this request and the Rademacher rezoning, and on what action to take in order to not prolong the final decision. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to reconsider the prior motion. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hawkins was asked whether the granting of this rezoning would be a precedent setting decision. Attorney Hawkins stated he could not provide an answer as every situation must be looked at individually as to its location, surrounding neighborhood, roadway system, etc., and the decision made based upon those factors. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, reinstituting the Motion asking the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution citing the reasons and justifications for approval of this particular rezoning. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Windschit1 Motion failed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Windschit1, entering a Resolution denying the rezoning request of Bradley Campbell and John Gabre1cik to rezone Plat 65933, Parcel 1590, from Neighborhood Business to Limited Business; and strike from the prepared Resolution the WHEREAS the City Council is of the opinion that Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, displays the intent of requiring a minimum of 20,000 square feet for each parcel within a Limited Business Zoning. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1, Peach Motion failed. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, we approve the rezoning of Campbe11/Gabrelcik from Neighborhood Business to Limited Business and have a Clerk prepare a Resolution describing the uniqueness of the situation that would allow the rezoning. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Windschitl Motion failed. The rezoning request was not approved. (See Resolution R90-81) Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 FINAL PAYMENT - 1981-1 MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council approve final payment to NDH for 1981-1 Street Improvement contingent upon receipt of the bond covering the second year of guarantee and require lien waivers. Motion carried unanimously. BLACKFOOT STREET GRADING MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we refer the matter of the improper dralnage on Blackfoot Street to the Public Works Department for its resolution or recommendations as to method of repair. Motion carried unanimously. F. PADULA/REZONING Councilman Peach noted that Mr. Chuck Burnham of 16714 Argon called him expressing his objection to the rezoning. Counic1man Ortte1 stated he received a call from Judy Bush also objecting to the rezoning. Chairman Bose11 stated she has just now talked with Mr. Padula on the phone. Mr. Padula was at City Hall late this afternoon and informed Ms. Volk verbally that he wants to withdraw his request. He feels he may win the battle but loose the whole war; he has to live in the area and has offers from other communities to put in the same restaurant. Attorney Hawkins stated that a verbal request for withdrawal was proper as long as he has confirmed it with Ms. Bose11. The Clerk also stated that she talked with Ms. Volk about Mr. Padula's verbal request for withdrawal of the rezoning request. Bruce Perry, 17337 Roanoke - asked if by withdrawing the request it is the same as a denial. (No.) He felt it was another tactic. He wanted to see the Council deny the request on behalf of the homeowners. By making a denial, it would forestall any further application for at least a year from now. Without a denial, they could be going through the same process in a month or two. (Attorney Hawkins advised the Council could deny the petition on the basis of the withdrawal. If the Council accepts the withdrawal, no action has been taken, and it could be brought back in at any time. To reapply, Mr. Padula would have to start at the beginning again.) Mr. Perry - stated that they as residents have had their lives disrupted for the last six months and they don't want to go through this again in another two or three months. It is very frustrating. They have a chance to permit some piece and quiet for at least one year. (Applause from audience.) (Councilman Ortte1 stated they are asking the Council to take away a right of a resident, which he didn't believe was proper to do. Other people in the City are not treated that way, as the Council has always simply accepted withdrawals from petitioners without taking any further action. Attorney Hawkins advised that if Mr. Padula no longer wishes to proceed with the request, the Council can vote for denial because the information has not been provided, and he does not wish to go ahead with it.) Lorraine Terry, 17185 Navajo - asked if it can't be voted on since the withdrawal is not in wrlting and lt is not legal. (Discussion was that a verbal request is legal and that in the past the Council has acknowledged requests for withdrawals without taking any further action.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to acknowledge Mr. Padula's request for revoking his request for rezoning. (See Resolution R91-81) DISCUSSION: Marge Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street NW - wondered in other instances how many neighbors come into meetlng after meeting because of the request. She didn't think other instances were equal to this one, and to equate them is not doing them justice. (Discussion was that the individual's rights are also equal under the law.) - . , Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (F. Padula/Rezoning, Continued) Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo - felt the Council is not recognizing the rights of the nelghborhood and the need to provide them with protection. Without acting to deny the request, they are once again open for Mr. Padula to reapply for a rezoning. (Councilman Lachinski disagreed, feeling the reason this is occurring is the result of inquiries into the situation, talking to a lot of people, and possibly proving to the individual this is not the right place for what he wants to do. Councilman Ortte1 also noted that the Council has received a letter from the County Highway Engineers verifying that the highway is safe.) VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. Gary Larson, 17170 Navajo - asked if the Council requests something of someone and it is not provided, is it the same thing as a forfeit. The Council requested money for an appraisal; it was not given; and Mr. Padula is not at tonight's meeting. (Council noted the request was withdrawn and there is no request to rezone the property in force.) Mr. Larson - asked if Mr. Padula had been here tonight and money had not been deposited for the appraisal, and he still wanted to go ahead with it, what would have happened. (Discussion was it may have been continued, or denied, but at this time it is a mute point. Each Councilmember would have had to make the decision based on the information at hand. Mayor Windschit1 indicated he would not have been in favor unless he was sure it would not devalue the surrounding properties.) Recess at 8:44; reconvene at 8:53 p.m. RENUMERATION/FIRE DEPARTMENT Councilmen Peach excused himself from the meeting, left the room, and did not take part in the discussions because as a firefighter he is directly affected. Bill Bush, Fire Fighter - estimated at $4 a point, the budget would be overrun by $2,000 to $3,000. There are 11 days left to the end of October which is the cut-off for determining points. It was his understanding that the budget was set at $4 a call, with the understanding there would be some leeway depending on the number of calls for the year. After some discussion, the Council generally felt the intention was to give $4 a point; although it was noted that for budget purposes, the estimate should be made with some degree of precision because the City doesn't have the funds to cover any significant overruns. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that for fiscal year 1981 that the Volunteer Fire Department members are to receive $4 for each fire call and drill and other official Fire Department functions. DISCUSSION: was the points are figured from November 1 to October 31. Councilman Ortte1 CHANGED Motion to delete reference to fiscal year 1981 and change to 12 months ending October 31, 1981. Second still stands. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; PRESENT BUT NOT VOTING-Peach Motion carried. Councilman Peach returned to the meeting. AUTHORIZATION - HOUSE BURN/FIRE OEPARTMENT MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Mayor be authorized to sign any house burn agreements on behalf of the City Council in general. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 DATE FOR PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND BUDGET MEETING MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that a Personnel Committee meeting be held on the 27th (October) and that the Clerk notify all members of the Personnel Committee not present this evening. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we hold a budget meeting for the 1982 budget on November 10 at the City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC WORKS MEETING MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize a tuition of $100 for a two-day semlnar for Public Works Equipment Operators School on October 26 and 27 and allow the enrollment of two people and the attendance of no more than two people at anyone time. Motion carried unanimously. CLERK'S AOVANCEO EDUCATION MEETING MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the Council approve $95 for the tuition for the Clerk's Advanced Institute in St. Cloud on November 12 and 13 and authorize the City Clerk to attend. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS - LETTER MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Mayor and Clerk, if necessary, to sign the letter to the County Commissioner's office noting the request for a change in allocation of the Community Development Block Grant Funds from hazardous waste disposal to the Senior Citizen Center. DISCUSSION: The Clerk stated she attended a meeting this afternoon, and the amount of the 1982 funds have not yet been determined. She will have quotes on final plans for the Center for the November 3 meeting. It is planned that just a basic structure of approximately 1200 square feet will be constructed for the $69,000, which is the City's 1981 allocation. She estimated an architect would cost about 6 percent of the project cost. Council disucssion was that a design should be considered that would encompass the two-year grant. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we set a public hearing date on the use of the allocation of our Community Development Block Grant Funds for November 3, 1981, at 8 o'clock. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION - SEMINAR MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize an amount of $17 per person for those members of the Planning and Zoning Commission desiring to attend the Planning Seminar on November 5; and 19 cents a mile for mileage and encourage the members to carpoo 1. Motion carried unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept the resignation of John Wieg10sz from his position on the Park and Recreation Commission and appoint Mer1yn Prochniak, who has been serving in the capacity as an alternate, to fill out John Wieg10sz's term. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Bill LeFebvre's term be designated as terminating on December 31, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Park and Recreation Commission, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the City Clerk to work with the engineer in effecting a change order on the Crooked Lake Boat Landing project wherein the gravel base would be changed to Class 5 and there would be a bitminous mat laid over that Class 5. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski expressed his dis- satisfaction because the engineering firm was directed to include that in the bids. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/DISCUSSION Mayor Windschit1 stepped down to the audience because the discussion was on the plat proposed for property he owns. Councilman Ortte1 conducted this portion of the meeting. (Discussion was on the proposed Lakeside Estates Preliminary Plat. Reference October 13, 1981, Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.) Chairman Bosel1 asked for direction as to whether 152nd Lane should be extended to the west property line, whether Lot 4 of Block 1 has road frontage because the stub of 153rd Avenue in LakeRidge is not constructed, and whether a north-south street is wanted through the plat by having the stub of 153rd Avenue extend southerly to intersect with 152nd Lane. The block to the east in LakeRidge is already more than 1300 feet long. Council discussion was that for the continuity of the street system which could possibly provide an east-west road between Round Lake Boulevard and Seventh Avenue, 152nd Lane should go to the west property line. Attorney Hawkins advised that the developer could be required to dedicate roadway easement through the park so the City could construct a road through that area in the future if it desires. Acting Mayor Ortte1 felt that if it is dedicated as shown on the preliminary, a cu1 de sac should be constructed. But if the road is dedicated to the end of the west property line, than a temporary turnaround should be constructed. He felt by requiring an easement across the park area to the west property line, the City is keeping its options open. Jerry Windschit1, 2312 South Coon Creek Drive - is trying to get the property free to construct a house on it and the ordinances require showing a preliminary on the 40 acres. He explained the LakeRidge Plat was given a variance on street length and they pushed that street stub of 153rd to the next property. He didn't feel the City ever had a situation like this of requiring the next developer to construct a street that was given a variance for by a different developer. The extension of that stub street to 152nd would be 700 feet. The problem is there are three stub streets in LakeRidge that the engineers did not require full construction on. Acting Mayor Ortte1 felt that the developer was not required to blacktop the streets but did so on his own. Those stub streets are constructed of gravel and have been accepted by the City. Mr. Windschit1 - felt the real problem is a variance was given to a previous developer and how he is being asked to extend the street, which is about 700 feet coming through a wooded area, which would be economically unfeasible. The plat was laid out to make a through street going east-west. Council discussion was that good planning would require a north-south street be put through in that vacinity, that without a cross street the problem would be doubled, and that the cross street would not necessarily have to follow the property line south but could be angled to meet 152nd Lane. Discussion was also on other possible road locations, the existing streets in the adjoining LakeRidge plat, and what has been required in the past. Council again stated their preference to see l52nd Lane to the west property line, though not necessarily built but just an easement through the park area to provide a possible link to Andover West in the future. It was also felt that in the platting process, Lot 4, Block 1, would require a cu1 de sac for access; and given that fact, it would not be that much more to extend a north-south cross street from 153rd Avenue stub to 152nd. Council agreed that a north-south cross street should be provided in some fashion to tie into the stub. Regular City Council Meeting October 20, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (P & Z Commission Discussion, Lakeside Estates Preliminary Plat, Continued) Mr. Windschit1 - clarified that the Park Board is considering purchasing some of the 1akeshore property. He told the Park Board he would hold off filing the final until they finally decide exactly what they want to purchase. Once the Park Board knows what they want, he could then file the entire final plat. If the Park Board buys the 1akeshore, Vintage Street would no longer be required in the plat. Chairman Bose11 recommended the developer present an amended sketch plan to the Commission rather than reworking the preliminary plat at this time. Mayor Windschtil returned to Chair the meeting. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to approve Claim Check Number 4373 for $1150. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, we approve Claims 4372, 4374 through 4395, and 4397 through 4398 for a total of $5,603.04. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Checks 512 and 513 in the amount of $40,695.48. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ? ~~ ~:-\ fL~L Marce .A. Peach Recording Secretary - . -, ,- .