Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC September 1, 1981 I ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 1,1981 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Continued Public Hearing - 1981-4 (potowatomi Street Ext.) 5. Discussion Items a. Good Value Homes/Variances b. T. McCabe Variance c. F. Padula Rezoning d. University Avenue Extension e. f. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Budget Meetings b. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Mixed Uses 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment , , . I ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on September 1, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Staff Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL The Mayor suggested the following changes: Add 5e, CDBG Funds/Community Center; 5f, Northwoods Traffic Problem; 6c, Larry Winner Resignation; 6d, Committee Appointments; 7a, P & Z Report; and 7b, School/Staff; and Delete Item 5b, T. McCabe Variance. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Agenda as amended by the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, for suspension of the rules. ~10tion carried unanimous 1y. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1981-4 (potowatomi Street Ext.) The Mayor read a letter into the record from the property ownesrs of Lots 1 and 2 in Castner's Addition (Jerry Ostapiuk and Nicholas and Mary Jaworsky) requesting an additional two weeks to gather information. He also noted a petition received by the property owners of the lots along 162nd Lane whose back lots to the north would abut the 163rd Lane easement. The petition indicates the desire of each property owner to combine his lot and to request the City to vacate the 163rd Lane easement. The Clerk also noted a verbal request from Mrs. Ransom, Lot 4, Castner's Addition, to postpone the hearing for two weeks. Mary Jaworsky - felt that action on the vacation would need to wait until a public hearing since a majority is needed, and they do own property abutting the 163rd Lane easement as well. Mr. Shaffer is also not able to attend this evening's meeting. (Council discussion noted that the vacation would be considered a separate public hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Commission.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to continue the Potowatomi/163rd Avenue Street Improvement Project Public Hearing until September 15 regular meeting. DISCUSSION: Robert Fodness, 4613 162nd Lane - stated they have a majority requesting the vacation of the southern side of the 163rd easement, stating they are not dealing with the northern portion of the easement. Motion carried unanimously. GOOD VALUE HOMES/VARIANCES Discussion was on the square footage of the new lots created. Mr. Winner stated his figures indicate that all three lots meet the minimum size requirements. John Peterson, Good Value Homes, Anoka - stated the new square footage of Lot 30 wlll be 7,127; Lot 31 wl11 be 7,003; and Lot 32 will be 10,332 square feet. Lot 29 was not changed. Mr. Peterson also explained how the error was made, that the surveyor had used the wrong stake when doing the initial survey for the location of the building and the mistake was not discovered until the final survey was done after the structure was already constructed. Good Value Homes is in the process of selling one of the twin homes but is still the owner of both units. Discussion also noted that the request is for multiple family; therefore the variance fees should be $50. r ._->-~~ -. ...~. ~.. .. ~--- - Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Good Value Homes/Variances, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering the prepared Resolution approving the variance request of Good Value Homes to allow a rep1atting of certain lots within NorthG1en I. (See Resolution R69-81) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, entering the prepared Resolution approving the variance request from the provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 and Section 5.04 to allow the construction of a residence closer to the front lot line than as provided for in the above for property at 3469 138th Court; contingent upon the payment of the correct fee for this type of variance. (See Resolution R70-81) Motion carried unanimously. FRANK PADULA REZONING Planning Commission Chairmand'Arcy Bose11 reviewed the Commission's findings and recommendation (Reference Memo to Mayor and City Council of August 24, 19S1). She also explained that the Commission discussed the existing wildlife and rural character of the area, that the site in question contributes to that setting, that few residents actually abut the property, and that the request for General Recreation would not be ruining the property This request is not significantly different than the previous request for a Neighborhood Business zoning; the property descriptions are properly included; a restaurant is an allowable use in a GR zone; a petting ranch is being proposed although the ordinance does not deal with that use as such; and the site plan sets the restaurant considerably away from the home to the south with Mr. Padula consenting to place a birm between them consisting of gravel mound, trees, etc., for screening. Frank Padula, 4550 173rd Avenue NW - reviewed a sketch plan of the proposal. He stated "he walked the area last night as lt relates to the property to the south, that a 12- foot birm will be placed with,'pine trees planted along it so the house doesn't look at the restaurant, and he doesn't want his clientele seeing that house. The restaurant would be approximately 275 feet from the corner to the lot line, plus it will be set down in the natural decline of the property. He is also planning to build up a natural birm on the north side so it could not be seen from 173rd. Staff parking is well below the hill. He also owns the 10-acre piece of land to the east which has not been included in the proposal. Mayor Windschit1 felt there would be a visual problem with Philip Seebach's house in that the petting farm would be directly to the back of his property. Mr. Padula felt that moving the petting farm to the north would not make a difference, that he would not be charging admission to it, and that it is there to provide a rural atmosphere to the setting. Mike Knight, 4622 175th Avenue - questioned the legality of hearingthe rezoning request at this tlme, referenclng Section 5.02F in that application cannot be made within one year of a denial of a rezoning request and feeling that the change from NB to GR is merely a cosmetic change and violates the intent of the ordinance. He felt if the Council hears the petition that it would be setting a precedent by allowing other zoning options without changing the intent or by someone else in the family being able to reapply for the same site. Their attorney feels the hearing of this petition is illegal, and he asked for a formal position from the Council on the matter. (It was Attorney Hawkin's opinion that the intent behind that restriction in the ordinance is not as restrictive as Mr. Knight feels and that it is Mr. Padula's legal right to request another zoning on that property at this time. The first application was for a rezoning to an NB District, but the second application is for a different zoning with different classifications involved. That was his strict interpretation of that provision, not dealing with the intent of the applicant.) . . -,_. - .-., r Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) Mr. Knight - stated if this is acceptable logic, then Mr. Padula would be able to reapply for as many zoning options for the same property for the same intent or some- one else in the family could reapply. He argued that the intent of the ordinance is being violated by hearing the petition, and again asked for a formal position from the Council. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that only the Attorney can provide the legal opinions, and Mr. Hawkins is representing the City as far as legal issues are involved. The Council is in no position to disagree with the City Attorney when a legal opinion is rendered. Discussion was on whether or not a second opinion is desired on the matter. All Councilmen indicated it would not be necessary in this instance, feeling the ramifications of NB are much different than the GR zoning in terms of what can be done on that property.) Marjorie Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street NW - as members of the Northwest Andover Homeowner's Assoclatlon, she stated their Opposltlon to the request, citing reasons for the opposition based on sections of the Comprehensive Plan, the desire to maintain the rural open space character of the community, the desire to raise their children in a rural atmosphere, the desire to protect and maintain the existing wildlife in the area, feeling the more intense use of the land would not contribute to those desires. She also expressed their frustrations at misrepresentations at meetings, noting that County Road 7 is not shown as a major thoroughfare through the City in either the Comprehensive Plan or the County's Plan but is shown as a local road to serve local neighborhoods; and that the Anoka County Park Planner has indicated that the regional park is to be a wilderness park hoping to establish hiking trails, canoe landing, and picnic area, all depending upon funding available. She also questioned how or if the regional park would provide additional clientele for the restaurant. Since the last time the proposal was heard, the proposal has become increasingly rural. She stated the neighborhood is unified in their request that the Council deny the request, noting no documentation has been shown that such a development is needed. Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo - is increasingly concerned with the process in that it appears to contlnue to be an uphill struggle for the residents in the neighborhood to justify their position and to show that the request is not appropriate to the neighborhood. He felt a demand and need for the service should be established and it should be clearly shown that a particular structure will not be incompatible with the surrounding district. Mr. Wandersee stated they have consistently felt that Mr. Padula's plan is inconsistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan and that the decisions should be based on the overall concepts, objectives, and philosophy in that Plan. He then took the next few minutes quoting concepts, objectives, and philosophies from the City's Comprehensive Plan that he felt justified their position that a restaurant in that location should not be allowed, feeling that voting in favor of the proposal would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked how much time, money, and consultative services have been put into the Plan and what the intent was behind doing the Plan. (Discussion was the cost is approximately $16,000, virtually all funds provided by grants from the State Planning Agency which is supported by Minnesota taxpayers; that this was done as a result of a legislative mandate; that it is an experiment in metropolitan government testing the ability of an une1ected form of government in metropolitan areas; that the Metropolitan Council has statutory' rights to force a community to comply with what they think should be in the Plan; that there are several other plans that go in hand with the Comprehensive Plan; that the Plan has been adopted by the Planning Commission, with the Council being in agreement, but is being held up by the Metro Council because of the question of their interpretation of how many sewered lots or population is allowed for in the urban service area.) , .., I , Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) Mr. Wandersee - asked if the City Council intends to make the decisions on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan and using its overall concepts. (Discussion was that the Plan is merely a guideline but the Council is forced to comply with the ordinances in effect, which may be contrary to that Plan at this time. The intent is to update the City's ordinances to correspond to the Plan once the Plan is adopted.) Mr. Wandersee - sees that the Planning Commission and Council makes its decisions based upon the applicant meeting the requirements of the ordinance, but has not seen them take a planning and development position; and he believed that is one of the major intents of the Comprehensive Plan. He didn't feel the ordinances disallow the Council from making decisions based upon the Comprehensive Plan. (Discussion was the Council clearly has to follow existing ordinances.) Mr. Wandersee - felt that the issue is whether or not the proposal is compatible and appropriate for a land use, feeling it is the duty to listen to the public, the neighborhood, the residents, and the need to take into consider the total developmental plan for the City. He argued that the Council can take into consideration whether or not the proposal is appropriate for a particular land site even if it complies with the ordinances. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that is the purpose for the hearing this evening.) Mr. Knight - referenced Page 159 of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with commercial development stating that a demand will have to be documented, and no such documentation has been done in this instance. He felt that is an important part of this petition. Bruce Perry, 17337 Roanoke - stated the question of the safety of the site has been brought up and related some measurements he made the other evening. As a person comes up the hill from the river to 173rd to the time he would seethe proposed driveway is 480 feet, which would take approximately 8 seconds to travel going 55 mph. The Minnesota Driver's manual shows stopping distances for 50 mph at 193 feet, and 264 feet for 60 mph under the conditions of dry, clean, level pavement. He felt that other factors should be considered, such as the awareness of a dangerous dri veway, the alertness of the driver, the dryness of the road, the possibility of fog in the area which there often is, etc. He questioned whether we want to put the public that drives that driveway or the City with a possible hazard. He felt the safety question should be a very important consideration. Willard Maki, 4639 175th Avenue - related his experience of living by a tavern and llquor store ln Fridley but moved to Andover to avoid those problems. He felt that Mr. Padula knew the zoning on the property when it was purchased. Though rezonings are common, he stated this rezoning request for a restaurant cannot compare to others such as for a church, relating possible problems that could occur with a restaurant, particularly if liquor is involved. He also felt that though liquor wasn't applied for, beer and wine are also alcoholic beverages, and he cited the alcohol equivalents of each, the effects of alcohol on the body, and some statistics showing the high number of traffic accidents that are alcohol related. They do not want that type of traffic in their area. Mr. Maki went on to relate an incident in a town west of Duluth where an applicant for a beer license was turned down several times and who subsequently shot and killed three out of six people at a town meeting, then shooting himself. Mr. Maki concluded that the Council voted itself a whole lot of problems. Roger Gorham, 17349 Roanoke - lived there for two years, moving away from the "city" atmosphere of Fridley and Coon Rapids. Prior to moving he checked that the zoning was residential and took faith in that plan. He stated Mr. Padula is now trying to move in what he and his neighbors have moved away from. He cited the problems of traffic, noise, etc., noting he cannot afford to move away from their now. He rea 1 i zes the Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) Council has a legal decision to make, but he felt a moral decision is also involved as to the dreams, work, hopes, and ideas of all people who previously moved out there having faith in that zoning, which he felt were more important than Mr. Padula and hi s money. Lester Gubbins, 17260 Roanoke - is across the road from the proposed driveway location. He felt that with the height of the building proposed, he would be able to see it from his place. He was also concerned that cars coming from the restaurant would probably turn toward Anoka, and the headlights would sweep across his yard, which he didn't feel could be prevented by constructing a birm or trees, etc. He also related an incident of an accident by his driveway last fall, emphasizing the safety factor there. Jan Sturgeon, 17307 Roanoke Street NW - asked the Council how, in a clear conscience, can this be approved when the origlna1 request was denied. She cited the reasons given in the June 16 motion for denial, asking if any of those reasons have now changed. (Councilman Orttel noted that the main thrust of his motion for denial was on Mr. Padula's application for Neighborhood Business, which is to serve a one-mile radius of the area, and it did not meet that requirement in that respect. That was a requirement of the ordinance, and the Council is obligated to follow the ordinances. And any change now made by Mr. Padula has beenmore rural in nature. One reason for denial previously was that it appears to be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan in that it is premature commercial development in a rural residential area and no demand for such a use has been shown. Councilman Orttel felt that has now changed by the nature of the zoning request from NB to GR zoning. Also, according to the ordinance, Mr. Padula is not required to document need with a market analysis study.) LaVona Newstrom, 17365 Navajo Street NW - summarized the feelings of the Association and other residents in the area stating this is the same proposal but different zoning, that it is a supper club with liquor, and asked that the Council listen to the people who have invested their lives and their dollars to live in that area. It is zoned for single family, and they have no problem with homes on that land. They have made no demands upon the City, but this is a high price to pay for one man's dream. They moved to the area to get away from commercialism. She expressed their feelings of frustration, anger, and bitterness; and together through their Association membership, which is increasing, getting stronger, and is taking an active interest in the management of the City, they plan to increase their activities and make their position known. They intend to protect their property investment and not have to defend against those whose singular interests are contrary to the vast majority. Ms. Newstrom asked the Council to consider a night club with food and liquor, to consider the same establishment in their neighborhood. She stated the proposal is not considered an attractive building, questioned whether it is feasibly operational and will make a go of it since Mr. Padula has no experienced qualifications, and cited statistics of increased commercialism in the United States. She stated the residents should not have to be pressured into making adjustments so a restaurant is allowed in their neighborhood. Mr. Padula's dream can be fulfilled by locating in a number of places in the City, and she asked for a denial of rezoning of the property in question to any other zoning. (Applause from audience.) Bruce Perry - there would appear to be a devaluation of Mr. Seebach's property. But he owns the 5~ acres directly north across 173rd which is currently used as a pasture. Mr. Perry stated he has been considering constructing an earth sheltered home on that hill in the future. If the restaurant is placed wherecproposed, it would definitely have an effect on his plans to use that property, as he'll be able to see the entire site area. It is wide open and cannot be birmed or screened. He asked the Council to consider that point. .. . -t~·· .,- ---, Regular City Council Meet ng September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) Recess at 9:06; reconvene at 9:19 p.m. Attorney Hawkins advised that the Council has an obligation to deal with the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.8. He believed the City should consider the effects of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the occupants surrounding the proposal, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Windschitl asked the Attorney to render an opinion on whether a petting farm would be an allowable use in this instance given the definition of the urban agricultural use as being allowed on five acres or less. Later in the meeting Attorney Hawkins advised that the urban agricultural allows only the raising of domestic animals on lots five acres or less. Since this is for 15 acres, he didn't believe that portion of the application would be permitted as either an accessory use or as a special use. Council discussed the question of a feasibility study, noting that the Ordinance does not require such a study for this type of rezoning. General consensus of the Council was that a feasibility study would not be required of the developer. Council discussion was also on other problems raifPd: .1~ the line of sight for car headlights from clientele leaving the restaurant a fectlr he Gubbin property. Chairman Bose11 explained if the rezoning were approved, Mr. Padula would need to submit his plan to the County and receive County approval for driveway alignment, etc. Mr. Padula stated he has talked with the County Commissioner's office, who was to send a letter to the Mayor on the study the County made on the road, the sightings, and the safety of the road in that area, stating he will see that the Council gets the letter. 2) The possible affect on Phil Seebach's property and on possible solutions, including birming. Each of the Councilmen then expressed their opinion on the issue. Councilman Jacobson felt that there has been no substantial change since the last request; that there is a Neighborhood Business zoning to the south which could be used for the proposed facility; that the main function is for the restaurant and not for any recreational activities; that any recreational use of the property would be extremely minimal; that the rezoning is premature development in the rural area; and that there has been no demonstrable need for the rezoning for a restaurant in that area. Councilman Lachinski stated he voted against the rezoning last time for three main reasons and feel those same three problems still have to be addressed. One is the traffic problems and location of the driveway. The other is the emergency protection issue in which he has talked with insurance people and which the Council has since ordered a study for the extension of County Road 58 to increase response time. He felt that is probably one of the highest priorities of the Council for road construction. Also, the possible devaluation of surrounding property, suggesting a professional opinion be obtained as to whether or not the adjacent property will be devalued. Ms. Perry - pointed out that their concern is not only the economic devaluation of thëTr property, but on the peace and quiet now enjoyed in that neighborhood, asking how can that be determined. Councilman Lachinski thought those qualities probably could not be evaluated, but also noted that though this is a rural area, it is not that far from the urban area and that the proposal is a rural proposal. Councilman Ortte1 agreed with Mr. Perry's time estimates from the top of the hill at l73rd to the proposed location of the driveway, noting that the County has the final say on driveway locations onto all County roads. He thought moving the driveway to the south may possibly eliminate the headlight problem on the Gubbins property. He would also like to see what position the County would take on the driveway position. He noted in viewing the property that it is difficult to determine the impact the t-·· -, -, , Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) restaurant structure would have on the Seebach property, indicating he does not know the exact birming that is proposed. He thought the Council will need to know the economic impact on that property if all the birming is done as proposed. The scenic use is a question he was concerned with, especially not being able to have this use on the large acreage yet it would be allowed where there is a potential for having houses surrounding the area on smaller acreage. He preferred to see any development on larger lots, which is what the City is striving for: He felt more study should be done on the accessory use as to whether it would be allowed; and if not, what are the alternatives. Councilman Peach stated he has talked with both the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief, who felt that the building could be adequately protected with what Mr. Padula proposed if the Fire Marshall's suggestions are adhered to. It would also provide leverage to improve the service into that area. He also wanted to specifically know the economic impact on the property to the south and directly across the street, and how that property is going to either be protected or compensated for. He also wanted to see the County's recommendation on safety and driveway location. Council discussion was then on what procedure to take at this time and the various alternatives. The two main areas of concern were an appraisal of at least two parcels of property and the County's opinion on safety and driveway location. It was also noted that a 4/5 vote is required on all rezoning requests. Attorney Hawkins felt that an appraiser would probably want to meet with the Chairman of the Planning Commission, the applicant, and the property owners and make a decision based upon the information given to him. Several residents expressed concern that~information presented could be biased, therefore affecting an appraiser's decision. They were concerned with receiving an impartial opinion and felt all surrounding properties should be evaluated. Several statements were also made by the residents that they feel the Planning Commission would not adequately represent their interests and that the Planning Commission Chairman appears to be advocating the proposal. Council noted that the appraiser would be one who has done work with the City and is familiar with the market and the area. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Attorney be directed to contact a reputable appraiser to be requested by the City to find specifically the economic impact of the proposed Padula development upon the property immediately to the south and across the street to the west of the said property; the appraiser to be compensated through an escrow fund to be set up by Mr. Padula. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated it is intended if the appraiser's report indicates the analysis has to be extended further, the Council will authorize it at that time. If it is found that those two properties are affected, Councilman Lachinski felt Mr. Padula would have to reconsider, as the Council cannot approve a rezoning that will devalue the neighboring properties. Councilman Peach stated with this information, Mr. Padula can determine how he will protect or compensate any devaluation. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the petitioner for the rezoning, Frank Padula, to provide the Council with documentation on the traffic hazard, if any, involved on County Road 7 adjacent to the . property he has proposed to rezone, and to have County approval of an exact location of the driveway to those premises. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion continued with various residents that the City Attorney is handling the appraisal, that the report will be a public document with copies available to the public, that the appraiser will decide who he needs to talk with to render an opinion, that the I Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (Frank Padula Rezoning, Continued) intent is to ask Malcolm Allen to do the appraisal, and that if there is a substantial devaluation of the properties being evaluated, the Council would consider denying the request or Mr. Padula would determine how to protect or compensate that property. The Attorney noted that there will always be some minor devaluation when commercial development occurs. He stated he is comfortable with Mr. Allen's qualifications, that Mr. Allen is qualified to do both residential and commercial evaluations, is an independent appraiser licensed with the State of Minnesota and is qualified to testify as an expert witness in District Court throughout the State. Barb Jedneck, 17105 Navajo - felt that the possibility of liquor should be taken into consideratlon. She stated she would not want to buy a home next to an establishment which has liquor, and felt that possibility should be considered. She asked the procedure if Mr. Padula would apply for a liquor license. (Discussion was that public hearings are held on a special use permit, and one of the criteria would be on consideration for any devaluation of neighboring homes.) Discussion was then on when the issue will be discussed again, noting the 50-day requirement of the Council to act from the date of referral from the Planning Commission. Mr. Padula stated he is unable to attend the next two regular meetings and agreed to waive the 50-day requirement. All agreed to continue the matter to the October 20, 1981, regular Council meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we take the matter of the Padula property rezoning up on the October 20 regular Council meeting date; this extension of time has been approved by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Clerk be directed to notify Mr. Perry upon the availability of the appraiser's report. Motion carried unanimously. SMITH'S ROLLING OAKS PROJECT/BIRMS Otto Bonestroo of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik, explained that approximately 75 percent of the project is in cut. When there is that much of a project in cut, it is very feasible to put in a shoe curb which would permit containing the water within the street and running it to the low points. There are culverts within the project that would adequately remove the water and enhance the looks of the project, feeling it is to the advantage to the City to prevent erosion and to be more easily maintained. It would also require less excavation in the project. They have not had any experience of the birm being knocked out by the snowplows. He would not be recommending the shoe birm for the 146th from Eide1weiss to Prairie Road. Council discussion was on the appearance of the shoe birm of 4 to 5 inches high and approximately 12 inches wide; that the intent of the road standard is that the engineers would decide whether a birm would be up or inverted depending on how the water had to be maintained; that this would be adding another road standard for the City; fearing the concentration of water over the road would cause" problems because the City did not purchase drainage easement for this; that the idea was to let the water run to the sides of the roadbed feeling there probably would be little erosion because of the sandy soil conditions in the City; and expressing some concern with reducing the driving width to 25 feet. Both Ray Sowada and Dave Almgren, City staff and residents in the Smith's Rolling Oaks area, were not in favor of the shoe curb. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Engineer to keep the plans as presented. Motion carried unanimously. . "-,--. -._--. -, , I Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bose11 explained that the Commission has been dealing with the possibility of adopting an Agricultural Preserve District within the City. One of the concerns are those properties within the MUSA area that are requesting Ag Preserve. The Commission is looking for the Council's opinion as to whether those properties should be included in Ag Preserve, taking into consideration that once the property is in Ag Preserve, it takes eight years from request of decertification to be removed from that designation. The Slyzuk property is the only property in the MUSA area still designated R-1; the others are all R-4 or comparable. Council discussion noted that the Ado1fson property is subject to a sewer trunk assessment the end of this month and the Vosika property is subject to a possible assessment for the extension of Hanson Boulevard and possible extenion of sewer trunk line in the near future. It is not in the City's interest to designate either of those properties as Ag Preserve. Council also agreed that the Slyzuk property could be designated as Ag Preserve even though the sewer line will be going past the home- stead property along Crosstown Boulevard. But there was a question as to whether or not the homestead parcel would or could be assessed for sanitary sewer. Chairman Bose11 also informed the Council of the September 10 Special Commission meeting on the Ag Preserve, hoping to have a model ordinance that they would like the Council to look at. Chairman Bose11 also noted that Mr. Slyzuk is receiving complaints on his agricultural property about his spraying operation. If that property is designated Ag Preserve, is the City then saying this spraying is normal farming operation? Council noted that the agricultural activity was there prior to the residential development and felt the spraying activities would be regulated by other agencies. The Clerk was directed to contact the appropriate agency and to find out the regulations governing this practice. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Discussion with Fire Chief Bob Palmer was on the problems of Workmen's Compensation not paying the medical bills of fire fighters that have been injured. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Attorney be authorized to expedite problems we are having with Workmen's Compensation. Motion carried unanimously. NORTHWOODS TRAFFIC PROBLEM Mr. Sowada explained that Anoka County does not have the time, so City Staff will have to install the speed bumps or whatever is desired to slow traffic. It wi 11 take several men to do the job. He stated the Council must decide exactly what is wanted (rumble strips, one large bump, or a dip), whether or not it is wanted across the entire road or just across the traffic lane, and where they should be placed. There was disagreement among the Council as to what would be the most effective method of reducing traffic speed. It was finally agreed to have the Road Committee determine the exact place the strips should be located, and that rumble strips be placed as high as possible. SCHOOL/STAFF MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize Ray Sowada to take the course entitled "Public Works Supervision" and Kevin Starr to take the course entitled "Introduction to Public Works" at a cost not to exceed $45 per course. Motion carried unanimously. - - - " I Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS/COMMUNITY CENTER (Reference the September 1, 1981, memo from the City Clerk) Council discussed the several alternatives the funds could be used for. The Clerk indicated the County would help with all plans, etc., if the decision is to constrct the Senior Citizen room. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the City commit the CDBG Funds to a Senior Cltizen Center as an addition to the existing City Hall Community Center. (See Resolution R71-81) Motion carried unanimously. UNIVERSITY AVENUE EXTENSION MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that we validate the petition with reference to the University Avenue between Andover Boulevard and 146th. (See Resolution R71A-81) Motion carried unanimously. Before proceeding any further, it was agreed the matter should be discussed with the City of Ham Lake, and that possibly the City could commit to a majority of the costs for the improvement. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that Councilman Ortte1 be authorized to discuss the matter of University Avenue improvement with the Ham Lake City Council. Motion carried unanimously. BUDGET MEETING MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we have the meeting date Thursday, October 1, 7:30 p.m., for the first budget meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.8 AMENDMENT - MIXED USES MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, Ordinance 8M, an Ordinance amending Ordlnance No.8, adopted the 21st Day of January, 1971, known as the Zoning Ordinance as presented with the following addition: Delete "Two-family homes in R-4 and R-S Districts only" and add: "Two-fami 1y homes in R-4 and R-5 Districts only when lot locations are included and approved in the original plat." VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach, as he felt there were other ways to control the number of two-family homes in existing neighbor- hoods, such as the size of the lot or number of lots in a neighborhood. He also felt the Planning Commission misunderstood the Council's directive. f~otion carried. LARRY WINNER RESIGNATION Council recessed at 11:14 to allow the Mayor time to read the August 27, 1981, letter from Mr. Winner to the Council asking for a one-month extension on his employment wi th the City. Meeting reconvened at 11:22 p.m. Council reviewed the last motion of the July 28, 1981, Council Minutes; "Motion by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we terminate Mr. Winner's position in the City of Andover as of August 31, 1981, pending acceptance of his resignation." Discussion was on the interpretation of that motion, with some feeling it meant Mr. Winner is no longer an employee of the City as of today, noting that the August 27 letter is not a 1ette r of resignation. Mr. Winner stated the job market is poor right now and he found no jObs available as of yet. Also, there are several projects he would like to finish, such as completing the White Oaks project and doing the assessment rolls, completing the sea1coating project, the inventory map for the Capital Improvements progra~etc. Also, he felt that the Council could then see the final costs of the White Oaks project and reconsider any previous actions. ,- -< -" ~ , I Regular City Council Meeting September 1, 1981 - Minutes Page 11 (Larry Winner Resignation, Continued) A suggestion was made that the Personnel Committee look into some of the allegations made in Mr. Winner's August 27 letter. Discussion was then on what course of action to take at this time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we terminate Mr. Winner's position as Clty Engineer in the City of Andover as of September 30, 1981, and also that specific work to be accomplished within this month would include outstanding requests from the Capital Improvement Committee, finishing up the White Oaks Area project, the sea1coating project, and others; and that the City Clerk be directed to advertise for City Engineer position. DISCUSSION: was again on whether or not Mr. Winner is still a City employee. Attorney Hawkins reviewed the motion, then stating it appears the intent of the motion was to terminate his position as of August 31, 1981. He felt it terminates the positi<on but allows the individual prior to that date to submit his resignation to be more favorable to him. Attorney Hawkins stated he would consider the position terminated as of August 31. Discussion then noted that the motion is out of order. Councilmen Ortte1 and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we hire Mr. Winner as a part-time temporary City engineer at the former salary until September 30, 1981, for the purpose of completing the White Oaks project, the sea1coating project, and those outstanding requests from the Capital Improvement Committee, and also to authorize the City Clerk to advertise the position of City Engineer for the City of Andover. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Peach Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Claims 4262 through 4286, note that 4284 is voided, in the total amount of $14,603.57. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m. Respectfully submitted, -~~~ ~~- Mar 1a A. Peach Recording Secretary °T' - -. -., ~- r