Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC October 6, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 6, 1981 AGENDA l. Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. B. Campbell Rezoning b. W. Rademacher Special Use Permit c. Street Vacation/163rd d. Dog Bite/Action e. Final Payment/Allied Blacktopping f. Final Payment/198l-l g. Speed Controls/Costs h. HUD Grant/Plans 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Boat Landing/Survey -- Award Contract d. Certification/Unpaid Sewer Fees b. Ordinance #8 Amendment e. Easements-Pond c. Committee Appointment/Hazardous Waste f. Cert. Bonded Indebtedness 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Claims 8. Adjourrunent - .. - -, ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 6, 1981 MINUTES. The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on October 6, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Lachinski Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Marvin Muecke, 13754 Quinn Street - related incidents of mischievious behavior in the City taking place after dark such as shooting out ref1ectorized signs or pulling them out of the ground, vandalism of mailboxes, letting air out of tires. etc. He asked if it is possible to set a curfew so the kids would have to be home at a certain hour, say 9 o'clock. He felt others were being bothered as well, that it is happening more frequently, but nothing is able to be done about it. (Discussion was on whether or not a State Statute deals with curfews for certain ages, although Attorney Hawkins stated he was not aware of any. A suggestion was that the Sheriff be asked to do a saturation patrol through the area for awhile and that the parents of those who shot out the reflector lights should be asked to pay the damages.) Mr. Muecke - asked if more security lights couldn't be installed, noting it is very dark at night and that is when the mischief takes place. (Discussion was that the City simply cannot afford to be placing lights throughout the City, suggesting he install a private security light. It was agreed to add the matter of a curfew as a discussion item to the Agenda.) Charles Maste1ski of Commercial Auto Parts, and Dean Althaus - asked what they have to do to get a Specla1 Use Permit to start a foreign car parts business on the corner of Jay Street and Bunker Lake Boulevard. (Council and the Attorney discussion was that the previous business let the Special Use Permit lapse, and the City ordinance does not allow for the establishment or re-estab1ishment of auto reduction yards or junkyards on that property or anywhere else in the City.) Mr. Mastelski - asked if he could expand his existing yard. (Discussion noted that the Clerk clearly informed anyone who inquired that that use cannot be used on that property; and the expansion of any junkyard or auto reduction facilities is also pro- hibited by City ordinance. The Council has madea determination that there were sufficient businesses of this nature in the community and that they are not going to allow the expansion of or additional auto reduction yards in the City in any zoning. It was noted the zoning is General Industrial, and the ordinances can be obtained which list the uses allowed on that property.) John Zil1hardt, 3753 145th - asked if the question of curbing past his lot will be dlscussed. (Yes.) The Clerk noted that the appraiser came in tOday to obtain all the necessary information to do the appraisal for the area in connection with the Padula rezoning request; however, Mr. Padula has not yet paid an escrow for that purpose. It was suggested that no City funds be expended and that no appraisal be done unless the money is escrowed by Mr. Padula as had been originally agreed to. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approval of the Agenda as published with the addltlon of Items 5d, Certification/Unpaid Sewer User Fees; 5e, Easements - Pond; 5f, Certification/Bonded Indebtedness; 5i, Curfew; and 4j, Assessment of Southwest Area. Motion carried unanimously. - --, -. Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. B. CAMPBELL REZONING Mayor Windschit1 stated Mr. Campbell has requested the item be continued to the October 20 meeting as he is not able to be present this evening. There was no public input on the matter at this meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we move Item 4a, Campbell Rezoning to October 20. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we move the Special Use Permit Item to October 20 also. Motion carried unanimously. W. RADEMACHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT/LIQUOR LICENSE:' Maynard Ape1, representing the Planning Commission, reviewed the Commission's recommendation made at their September 8 meeting to approve the Special Use Permit. He also stated that their discussion noted that Mr. Rademacher is the owner of other liquor stores in the metropolitan area and it appears they are run in a business-like manner. John Zi11hardt, 3543 145th - personally didn't feel it is a good location for a liquor store because it is located across from a church and a residential area. (Discussion was that it is not directly across from Grace Lutheran Church as Mr. Zi11hardt had thought, but is next to Bill's Superette, which is almost half a mile from the church.) Bill Rademacher - stated they have not had any difficulty with any of the stores he owns. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, entering a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit as requested by William Rademacher for the purpose of constructing an off- sale liquor store on Lot 1, Block 2, of the Andover Community Center as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R83-81) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson, as he does not approve of the language of Item 2 about the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Council, City of Andover, approve an application for sale of Intoxicating Liquor License for W. C. R. Liquors, Inc., at 14041 Round Lake Boulevard. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. STREET VACATION/163RD Commissioner Ape1 reviewed the Commission's recommendation made at their September 22 meeting for denial of the request. Dan Jerord, 23055 Erskin Street, Bethel - stated the following people do not want to see that easement vacated: Ralph and Charlene Shafer, James and Jean Jirasek, Lowell Putnam, Nickolas and Mary Jaworsky, Jerry Ostapiuk, Gladys Ransom, and Art Stenquist who has an interest in it because he sold the lot to Mr. Shafer. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution denying the request to vacate the southerly 33 feet of l63rd Avenue NW in the west half of Section 18, Township 32, Range 24, in the City of Andover as presented by the City Clerk and to delete the fourth paragraph. (See Resolution R84-81) Motion carried unanimously. ---. Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 DOG BITE/ACTION Mrs. Tim Milton, 2133 140th Lane NW - stated she has two very large German Shepherds WhlCh are kept on chains attached to a very heavy dog house to keep them in their restrained area. She has had persistent trouble with children in their neighborhood antagonizing them, many times when she is not home. In the last incident, a three year old wandered in the yard, the neighbor told him to go away, but he didntt and got bit. As soon as finances make it available, she stated she is going to build a fence three feet out of the dogs' diameter and made out of chicken wire so the kids cannot climb over or throw rocks at the dogs. She stated they are not really viscous but are very friendly when they are off the leash. But when they are on their leash, they are protective. She also explained the other incident of a 10-year-01d boy being bitten when a ball rolled into the yard. Council discussion was on the problem of preventing this from happening again, that this can be categorized as an attractive nuisance and the owner is responsible whether something happens on the owner's lot or elsewhere, and that doing something now may prevent lawsuits or harm to others in the future. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution declaring the dog owned by Mr. and Mrs. Tim Milton of 2133 140th Lane NW as a biting dog under the conditions of Ordinance 53. DISCUSSION: It was questioned whether this would be applicable since the incident occurred on the owner's property. Mrs. Milton didn't feel any of the conditions noted in the ordinance were valid, as the child was not playing with anyone in the neighborhood to be invited in her back yard. Attorney Hawkins' interpretation of the ordinance was that it does not apply in this instance, as there was not an implied invitation to the person's lot. He did feel that Section 7 would apply, as the owner has an obligation to prevent a nuisance. This is apparently an attractive nuisance and it would be reasonable to enforce some fencing or containment other than by chain since this apparently isn't solving the problem. Councilmen Jacobson and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that Mr. and Mrs. Tim Milton of 2133 140th Lane NW be notified that their dogs, under Section 7 of Ordinance 53, constitute a nuisance and that within 60 days they shall be required to adequately fence that nuisance to protect the neighborhood from it. DISCUSSION: If it is not fenced within 60 days, the Attorney can prosecute them for violation of the ordinance. Mrs. Milton asked what happens if the kids climb over the fence and get bit again. Counc il discussion was that if it is fenced properly, there will at least be protection of the smaller children, hoping to prevent any disaster in the future. Motion carried unanimous 1y. FINAL PAYMENT/ALLIED BLACKTOPPING The Clerk recommended payment, explaining that Allied Blacktopping did place excess rock per square footage; however, the estimate by the City Engineer of the square footage to be covered was short. Allied verbally agreed to pay 50 percent of the overrun; but due to a miscalculation in figures, they are actually absorbing 75 percent. Council reviewed the calculations to arrive at the $23,738 final payment. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City of Andover pay Allied Blacktopping $23,738.80 as payment for their sea1coating of the streets in Andover in accordance with a contract. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schumacher explained that any problem of dusting of gravel through the winter on roads sealcoated the year before is probably because of the change in specifications in the cut-back asphalt used on the roads. It is now being mixed with water, which doesn't provide as good a bond for the pea rock. Lloyd Reimann - asked why the sea1coating projects can't be done earlier in the season. (Discussion was that it was done earlier this year but it is best to have it done in July or August to take advantage of the higher temperatures during that time of the year.) - - -," .. , f Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 FINAL PAYMENT/1981-1 (White Oaks) Mr. Schumacher stated there is a recommended formula for computing deducts in the event compaction and aggragate gradation tests fail. Council agreed to refer the matter to TKOA for their opinion relative to liquidated damages on the project. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we refer the matter of 1981 Street Improvement Number 1, known as 172nd Avenue NW and White Oaks Country Estates, to TKDA for their review of the available technical data on the tests that were run on the asphalt and the bituminous mixture and get their opinion whether these are indeed to specs; and if not, the specifications of what can be done to correct the situation. Motion carried unanimously. SPEED CONTROLS/COSTS Councilman Peach understood from talking with some residents that they would be willing to have stop signs installed to see if that would help the situation. Mr. Reimann couldn't see having to stop at every block, stating that the stop signs that have been placed seem to have helped a lot. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we refer the matter of the positioning of stop signs in the area we are talking about to the Road Committee for their determina- tion of where they should go. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 felt that is the last time signs should be tried, questioning the cost figure estimated to install speed bumps. Councilman Jacobson suggested in all future street improvements that the depressions be automatically put in. The Clerk stated the $4,000 figure is not only for the Green Acres/Northwoods area, but also to install speed bumps in Chapman's Addition and other areas as well. The prices given by the contractors averaged $200 to $300 per set of speed bumps. Further discussion was that stop signs also cost approximately $50 apiece, and on the trouble in the past over the stop signs placed in the Northwoods area. Motion carried unanimously. HUD GRANT/PLANS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Clerk be directed to request for proposals from three or four architectural firms, in particular those that are working on other Senior Citizen Centers in the area, and have those proposals ready for the first meeting in November. DISCUSSION: was on the suggestion of establishing a senior citizen committee for their input. The Clerk was asked to contact some of the organizations for advisors. Motion carried unanimously. CURFEW DISCUSSION Attorney Hawkins stated he would determine whether or not there is a State curfew law. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we refer the matter of a curfew ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission and also to the City Attorney for his input. DISCUSSION: was the intent was to obtain ordinances from the other cities and review them. There was also some question as to whether it would be appropriate to send it to the P & Z since it is neither a planning nor zoning matter. Attorney Hawkins stated it is more of a policy decision or something to be handled by a crime prevention committee. Mayor Windschit1 felt that the Sheriff's Department should also be contacted for their input. There was then some discussion on the suggestion of re-estab1ishing a public safety committee, how such a committee would function, questioning what it could accomplish, and on the functioning of the police in the City at this time. Mr. Muecke - felt if there was a curfew, it would be easier for the police to handle the area. (Councilman Peach disagreed, feeling it would be an unenforceable law.) . -__0- .. Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Curfew Discussion, Continued) Councilmen Peach and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the matter of consideration of a curfew ordinance be referred to the City staff, namely Pat Lindquist, for the gathering of simi1iar ordinances from surrounding cities, to the City Attorney to check the State Statutes, if any, governing this matter, and from the County Sheriff's Department with their comments toward enforceability and the need of such an ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschit1 suggested the Clerk ask one of the Deputies to talk with Mr. Muecke and go over all the problems he has had. Recess at 8:58; reconvene at 9:12 p.m. SOUTHWEST AREA ASSESSMENT Mr. Schumacher stated they talked to the contractor about adding the curb to the Zi11hardt and Johanson properties in Auditor's Sub. 82. (Reference the Minutes of the Public Hearings held on September 24, September 29, and October 1, 1981.) The contractor quoted a price of $12 a running foot, which would amount to $240 for the Zi11hardt property and $792 for the Johanson property. Council discussion was on the size and shapes of the two lots. Attorney Hawkins advised that the assessments in a project are not so precise as to pay for the specific amount of each component in the project, that in theory the assessment is considering the project in whole and is not broken down as to specific costs to each parcel. From a legal standpoint, they can be assessed for curb whether there is curb there or not. In listening to what took place when the Engineers discussed the assessment with Mr. Johanson, Attorney Hawkins felt the City had some obligation to follow through based on the City's representation in the matter. He didn't feel the curb could be deducted from Mr. Zi11hardt's assessmentøut if he wants it put in, he is entitled to it if the normal policy calls for a curb there. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we direct the Engineer to have curbing installed on the Zi11hardt and Johanson properties with a 100-foot assessment for both properties. DISCUSSION: was that the reason the curb was left off the T- turnaround at the Johanson property was to facilitate the turnaround of public works equipment. Mr. Schumacher stated they would still be able to turn around; however, it would be somewhat more difficult to negotiate the cu1 de sac as it is a very tight radius. The proposal is to curb the piece in front of Mr. Johanson's property, but not the end of the T-turnaround. Councilman Ortte1 ADDED TO MOTION: In an amount not to exceed $1,100 for the two properties, and that this work to be performed by the contractor inthe.origina1 project. Second still stands. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, the City Council adopt the formal roll for all phases of the Southwest Area Improvement Project, and such approval encompass all changes voted on by the Council at the meeting on the 6th of October and October 1. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to reconsider the action just taken on the Southwest Area Improvement Project. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, entering the same motion but include the date of September 29th in that moation. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution adopting the assessment for the improvements of sanitary sewer/public water/storm sewers/bituminous streets under Project Number 1980-3 (Southwest Area) including property within Section 29-32-24, Section 32-24-32, as prepared by the City Clerk, and add this to the previous motion which the Council voted on. (See Resolution R85-81) Motion carried unanimously. ---- Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 BOAT LANDING/SURVEY - AWARD CONTRACT Glenn Cook from Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik & Associates, Inc., reviewed the bids received for the Crooked Lake Public Access and Park Improvements (Reference October 6, 1981, letter from Mr. Cook), recommending the project be awarded to T. B. Contracting Corporation. Mr. Cook stated they did not write the relocation of three spruce trees and one silver maple in the bid because of the difficulty of writing a specification guaranteeing they will grow. It would cost $75 to clear and grub those trees or $200 to relocate each of the trees; however, the chances of them growing after relocation is questionable. Council discussion was that either the County or the City of Coon Rapids has a large spade that may be used for relocating the trees, suggesting Mr. Cook investigate that further. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the construction of the Crooked Lake Boat Landing in the south half of Section 33, Township 32, Range 24 to T. B. Contracting Corporation, 4010 Bunker Lake Boulevard, the contract price of $19,775.00; take note of seven other firms who bid per the Resolution prepared by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R86-81) Motion carried unanimously. The Clerk stated she received a quote from Caine and O'Malley for $200 to $300 and from Ernie Ruud for $400 to $500 to do a survey of the site; however, she was not sure Caine and O'Malley's quote encompassed the entire site. Discussion was postponed until later in the meeting. ORIDNANCE NO.8 AMENDMENT Commissioner Ape1 and the Council discussed the recommended amendment to Ordinance 8 covering multiple conversions, the conversion of rental property to private property. Commissioner Apel stated the Commission discussed the philosophy behind the ordinance, feeling this provides the City more control over such conversions. Attorney Hawkins explained the Uniform Condominium Act referred to in the ordinance covers the conversion of apartments; and there are not that many multiples in the City at this time. So this really covers those existing duplexes within the City. There may be some things from a building code standpoint that may need to be changed; but that change would be part of the criteria the City would set out. As a part of the Special Use Permit, the Building Inspector would provide a report on whether or not he foresees any problems as being in violation of the building code that normally wouldn't be allowed in two-owner property from the start. Those provisions would have to be comp 1 i ed with. Attorney Hawkins felt the City can impose, as a condition of the Special Use Permit, compliance with all the ordinances and statutes in the State. Because the owner is modifying the building with a different type of use (separate ownership versus rental), he felt the City could require compliance of the code for that type of building classification. Council felt that the ordinance should make reference to conformance with all other applicable State and City regulations as well. Discussion was on establishing a minimum square footage requirement for planned unit developments, with the Attorney suggesting the requirement would have to meet those in the existing ordinance, Section 6.02. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, the adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance No.8, the Zoning Ordinance, City of Andover, to be known as Ordinance No. 8N, with the addition of the following language: that nothing in the aforementioned ordinance can be taken to infer that City standards addressed in other ordinancesof the City relating to PUOs, construction, or State Building Code shall be violated; and that all minimum standards of Ordinance 8 to apply. Motion carried unanimously. . - ~ - ,- , Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Mayor Windschit1 recommended appointing Jim Ellison to the Personnel Committee. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that Jim Ellison be appointed to the Personnel Commlttee for a term to expire December 31, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. CERTIFICATION/UNPAID SEWER FEES MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor for collection, unpaid sewer user charges, as shown on the Resolution prepared by the City Clerk, with the understanding that should any payments come in on the date of October 7, those amounts would be deducted from the amount shown in the Resolution. (See Resolution R87-81) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor for collection of unpaid sewer charges of Lot 9, Block 2, Northwoods Addition. Plat 67810, Parcel 520, in the amount of $228.82. (See Resolution R88-81) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution certifying to the County Auditor for collection of unapid sewer connection charges for Lot 14, Block 4, Red Oaks Manor Fourth Addition, Plat 68111, Parcel 2250 in the amount of $344.04. (See Resolution R89-81) Motion carried unanimously. EASEMENTS/POND Mayor Windschit1 explained the problem with the City acquiring an easement rather than fee title is that the same area can also be used as the gross area in a PUD development, which he was concerned with. Discussion with the Attorney was on acquiring fee title versus acquiring easement rights over ponding facilities. Attorney Hawkins stated the reason the one pond in Red oak~ was purchased was because of future ·p1ans to put a park in the area, but he fe1t/ ~~·other facilities the City acquired only easement rights to. Also, the award would be higher to acquire fee title. He suggested Ordinance 10 could be amended to not allow using any property subject to drainage or utility easements in their calculations. But if it is foreseen that some potential use could be conceived, it may be better to acquire fee title. It was agreed that in the future the Attorney should discuss with the Council whether the City should acquire easement rights or fee title when larger parcels are being considered. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the settlement stipulation, Dlstrlct Court, Tenth Judicial District, File Number B-46973, City of Andover versus County Road 9 Company, a partnership composed of Joseph D. Chutich, Matthew Chutich, George Ado1fson, and others: Richard Hand, The George E. Lahn Realty Company, Arnold Henkel, and Gordon Peterson, and authorize the City Attorney, Clerk, and Mayor to enter into all necessary agreements to implement the settlement of the stipulation agreement. Motion carried unanimously. CERTIFICATION/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, approval of an over levy for bonded indebtedness ln the amount of $61,571 for 1982. Motion carried unanimously. BOAT bANDING/SURVEY, Continued MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, authorizing the City Clerk to contact several surveying firms and obtain the lowest price not to exceed $500 for survey by registered land surveyor for the area known as the Crooked Lake Boat Landing park. Motion carried unanimously. -, ~ - . ,- . .. , f Regular City Council Meeting October 6, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of Check 4322 through 4371, with the exclusion of 4332 which is void and 4364 which is void, for a total amount of $82,379.49. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, approval of Check No. 509 to TKDA for engineering services for 79-2, 80-3, and'80-4 projects for $12,780.60. Motion carried unanimous 1y. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, approval of Check 511 to TKDA for engineering services for project 80-4 for $71.42. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfu lly submitted, ... ~~ ~...~~ Marce a A. Peach - Recording Secretary . - . ,--.