Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC September 15, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-SEPTEMBER 15,1981 AGENDA 1- Call to Order 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Continued Public Hearing - 1981-4 (Potawatomi Street Ext.) 5. Discussion Items a. T. McCabe Variance b. L. Bonneville Special Use Permit c. J. Reimann Special Use Permit/Liquor License d. P. Urbach Variance e. J. Weins Lot Split f. Final Payment/Allied Blacktopping g. Final Payment/1981-1 h. Speed Controls/Costs i. 6. Non-Discussion Items a. Committee Appointments b. Bond Sale - 1981-2 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment - - --ï-~- -" -., - ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on September 15, 1981, 7:37 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach Councilman absent: Mayor Windschit1 Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosel1; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL Acting Mayor Orttel recommended the following additions to the Agenda: 5i, Coon Rapids Letter/Clinic Request for Funding; 5j, MSAH Street Estimate and Crooked Lake Boat Landing Plans/Bonestroo; 5k, University of Minnesota/Land Planning Act Seminar; 51, Flood Plain Ordinance Amendment; and 5m, Kelsey Park Grant Application; and delete Items 5f, Final Payment/Allied Blacktopping; 5g, Final Payment/l981-1; and 6a, Committee Appointments. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Agenda be approved as amended. Motion carrled unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous 1y. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1981-4 (POTOWATOMI STREET EXTENSION) Dan Girard _ 23055 Erskin Street, Bethel - represented Nicholas and Mary Jaworsky, Jerry Ostapiuk, Ralph Shafer, and Gladys Ransom. Mr. Girard stated they are in agreement that they would like to see the street go through but feel the last feasibility study lacks credi~ili\r.. They proposed having another feasibility study done to include extending oto atoml Street between 162nd and 163rd and constructing 163rd 250 feet to the west and 400 feet to the east. That proposal would eliminate the assessing of some of those in Stenquist opposed to the assessment and would still provide access to the back lots of those in Castner's Addition plus to Mr. Shafer's lot, as they do want to build back in there. He poi nted out that Mr. Shafer's lot is not buildable unless a road is constructed to it, but Mr. Fodness was allowed to build on his back lot. Mr. Girard stated he has talked with Ron Smith, developer of the property to the east, about extending 163rd eastward to come out to Makah, and Mr. Smith was opposed to the proposal. So he felt there was no other alternative but to go with their new proposal. Mr. Girard also stated he has been unsuccessful in contacting Mr. McKusich, owner of the most easterly lot in Castner's Addition. He challenged the engineer's report that there would be a lot of peat removal for the extension of Potowatomi north from 162nd, stating he walked the area last weekend. Also, Mr. Brooks would have access to his garage if Potowatomi were extended. Mr. Schumacher stated he could come back with a revised feasibility study which would consist of a revised price for 163rd since the shorter distance proposed would eliminate a lot of the tree removal, a significant item on that street; but he would stay with the original estimate given for Potowatomi Street extension, having confidence in that fi gure. He stated when probing the soils, he found there would need to be a significant amount of peat removal to construct that street. He also noted that costs could be 10 to 15 percent different next spring when construction is done for either excavation, bituminous, etc.; but the significant cost would be in the peat removal on Potowatomi extension, that cost being along nonassessable footage and to be borne· by the assessable footage along 163rd. He estimated the cost for tonight's proposal would be less expensive than constructing all of 163rd. -~ -., ~. r , Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Continued Public Hearing - 1981-4, Continued) Council discussion with Mr. Girard continued noting the extremely high cost for the overall project; noting that bringing Mr. McKusich's property into the process would be adding additional assessable footage to the project; questioning whether the City could legally place such a large assessment since it can assess only the amount of increased benefit to the properties, which would then result in the City not being able to assess the entire project cost back to the properties involved; feeling that even with the revised proposal of this evening, the per-front-foot cost of the project would remain extremely high; questioning the rationale of putting a road through in that location; noting that this evening's proposal would not provide an additional access/exit to that entire area. Councilman Lachinski felt that if the people still want the road knowing the high cost of its construction, the City should provide them access. He suggested another approach be taken, that of asking a general contractor, such as Burton Kraabe1, what his cost would be to rough in that road, which might provide a cost savings. Mr. Ralph Shafer stated he would be willing to cut down all the trees for the wood if the City would approve. Discussion was then on the suggestion of just extending 163rd easterly to meet Makah, by swinging it up or down to go along the lot line in the RLS property east of Stenquist Addition and questioning whether or not that would be less expensive than constructing Potowatomi north from 162nd because of the better soils conditions. Acting Mayor Ortte1 also noted for the record a letter dated September 11, 1981, from Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Fodness, 4613 162nd Lane NW, indicating their opposition to the entire project proposal. Councilman Peach stated it was his understanding from the last meeting to extend the hearing to allow those in Castner's Addition to plat their property. He stated he is opposed to the project, that tonight's proposal is virtually the same as the original proposal, that he doesn't think it is a good idea forcing those in Stenquist Addition to pay for this road to provide access to one lot, that it is a very high price plus ending up with a 1300-foot cu1 de sac, and that the City is under no obligation to build this road. He didn't want to spend any more money on this project. Attorney Hawkins explained that the creation of lots imposes no legal obligation on the City to put the roads in and that the City has no legal obligation to construct roads on all City right of ways unless building permits have been issued and building is allowed. He also advised that another factor to consider is that it appears the City may not be able to assess the entire costs of that project. Ron Smith, 14942 Evergreen Street, developer of the property to the east of the 163rd easement - stated he would not want 163rd to be extended eastward through the middle of a lot. He stated it would be more cost efficient for him to have 162nd extended easterly where he would be able to make four lots from the existing two. It isn't a matter of him not wanting to cooperate; it's a matter of his costs involved. He also felt that extending 163rd would be creating a traffic problem for him becau~ it would be going through cleared property. Council discussion with Mr. Smith was on several alternatives, and Mr. Smith's reaction to them. After the discussion, Mr. Smith again indicated curving the road to the south along the southern lot line of Tract "R" would be of no benefit to him, feeling he would not be able to split Tract "S" because of the terraine. He stated he would be interested in looking at the extension of 162nd, as he could then easily subdivide the abutting lots. Jim Halter, 16100 Potowatomi - asked the Council to consider the safety question of Potowatomi if it is extended through to Seventh Avenue. He stated that there were problems with the hill in front of his place as far as visibility and safety. With the street improvement two years ago, he felt the problem is now worpet fet1iog an error may have been made by cutting between 159th and 160th. By extending 0 Qwa oml throu9h to Seventh Avenue, more traffic would be on the road plus there would be two hills with visibility problems on the road. Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Continued Public Hearing - 1981-4, Continued) Ashle~ Brooks, 16221 Potowatomi - stated since the last meeting, those along 162nd petitloned to combine their front and back lots. They feel the extension of Potowatomi and construction of 163rd wou d be of no benefit to them, especially if the lots were combined, and that there would be no increase in value to them. He asked how they would proceed to have their lots combined. Attorney Hawkins indicated they should consult with their own lawyers. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we terminate the discussion on the Potowatomi Street Extension for the reasons that Council is concerned about an extra exit in the area and the proposed plans do not meet that; the Council is also concerned about the high cost of the said project and the assessabi1ity of it; there is also the question of the financial showing of benefits to the lots for any assessment; there is some question as to whether or not, even if the property owners agreed to pay the extra cost, whether that can be sustained; and also because the City has no legal obligation to build a street on public right of way. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach noted those people are not without recourse, as those in Castner's Addition presently do have public access to Seventh Avenue or they could plat their Addition. Acting Mayor Ortte1 also noted that when those in Stenquist Addition combine their parcels, he thought the City's policy would be for no assessment to those properties. Then it would be clear that those people paying for the project would be only those that are benefitted. Councilman Lachinski opposed the motion, questioning the credibility of the engineer's feasibility study. He encouraged those in Castner's Addition to gather more firm estimates if they still wish to pursue the matter. There was some general discussion with Mr. Shafer relative to the costs of the streets and possible alternatives. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; NO-Lachinski Motion carried. T. McCABE VARIANCE Thomas McCabe was present. Discussion noted that with the addition of the porch, it would not encroach upon the City's ability to maintain the sanitary sewer. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution approving the Variance Request of Thomas McCabe to add a porch to his residence in violation of Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 and Section 5.04, as presented. (See Resolution R72-81) Motion carried unanimously. L. BONNEVILLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT Laurie Bonneville, 3608 143rd Avenue NW, was present. Chairman Bosel1 noted the safety concern raised for the trafflc problem on Round Lake Boulevard and 143rd, with the Commission feeling the one-chair operation would not be increasing traffic congestion, and Round Lake Boulevard has been recently improved to handle the traffic. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, entering a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit for L. Bonneville to allow a beauty shop in her home at 3608 143rd Avenue NW, as presented by the City Clerk, with the change in the last paragraph: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby require an annual review of the permit. (See Resolution R73-81) Motion carried unanimously. J. REIMANN SPECIAL USE PERMIT/LIQUOR LICENSE Lloyd Reimann, 2813 142nd Avenue - reviewed the modifications to their building for the off-sale Ilquor store. He also noted that the Anoka County Highway Department has sent a letter to the City indicating their approval of the exit onto County Road 20 and CSAH No.9. . "r' - -, Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (J. Reimann Special Use Permit/Liquor License, Continued) Chairman Bose11 explained that at the time of the public hearing by the Planning Commission, there was no public opposition; however, since that time some opposition has been raised and she has directed those persons to bring their concerns before the Counci 1. John Theiss, 164th Avenue NW - stated he has lived in the City only eight months, but he objects to the liquor store three blocks away from his house. He felt that such a store would affect the traffic, that Round Lake is a busy road, generally feeling it would affect the health, safety, and welfare of himself, his family, and his neighbor- hood. He also suspected that the young people obtain liquor from the SRO in Oak Grove now, and this would only provide some place closer for them to obtain liquor, noting the consumption of liquor takes place in cars, sand pits, yards, etc. He also noted the problems they have in their neighborhood relative to certain parties' annoying behavior, drinking, driving over yards, and general disrespect for others; and he explained their frustration with having to call the police several times and still not receiving satisfaction on their complaints. He again expressed his disapproval of a liquor store at that location, that there are no shoulders on County Road 20, asking why it is needed and why should the community be subjected to that. (Discussion noted the County's letter indicating approval of the exit onto County Road 20 and CSAH No.9, that the driveway exists approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of County Road 20 and 9 which will avoid creating a traffic hazard or congestion.) Mike Beal, County Road 9 and 164th Avenue - felt there was some concern about some of the studies made dealing with the feasibility of municipal controlled liquor. He was concerned as to the benefits to the City of these licenses, asking the license fees and tax benefits. He also noted a petition has been presented to the City calling for a referendum on the liquor issue, feeling that should be brought to the attention of the people applying. (Discussion noted that the license fee is set by State Statute and will cover administrative expenses of the City.) Mr. Reimann - stated they are aware of the petition for a referendum, that the people should declde in an election, and that they are willing to take their chances. Mr. Beal - went on record as being in favor of having the referendum. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 felt that the Council was basically in agreement with a referendum, that the issue has been worked on and studied extensively for over two years prior to its passage, and the Council felt it was reacting to satisfy a consumer demand in the community.) Penny Hardt, 16340 Jonquil - asked what is meant by a special use permit. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 explained the reason for a special use permit is to provide some specific control over the use by the City, such as it being subject to an annual review, etc.) Ms. Hardt - stated they have all their problems already without the liquor store. The area is wide open through there and traffic cuts through the fields now, feeling that would continue to get to the liquor store. She felt they already have too much trouble that has not been stopped by the one policeman in Andover, and that a liquor store would only add to those problems. She asked if they can't handle what is going on ~ow, what will happen if a liquor store is allowed. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated he had a phone call from Buster Talbot, Anoka County Sheriff, this afternoon, who stated that basically liquor stores are not a problem and that the traffic will be addressed by the County. He also stated, when referencing the party and problems in that area as mentioned by the residents this evening, that if anyone has to call three times or it is not properly satisfied, that the residents call Mr. Talbot personally; and Acting Mayor Ortte1 suggested to the residents that they do just that.) . - - t~· . - _-0 Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (J. Reimann Special Use Permit/Liquor License, Continued) Ms. Hardt - stated they are talking about serious problems, about involvement of some parties in serious crimes, with nothing being able to be done about them. She fe It that the applicants should be concerned about robbery of their store, since there are no houses in the vacinity and there will be no one observing the premises other than passer-by cars. She was also concerned about the safety factor on the intersection and the fact that there is only one police officer assigned to the City. Mr. Theiss - stated that liquor will not take away from their problem. He again expressed his concern at the problems occurring in their neighborhood where nothing is done by the police and feeling wherever there is liquor there must be policing. If a liquor store is a tax benefit to the City, he felt it is an expense on the policing end, and again expressed his opposition to it as it is not needed and is of no benefit to the City. (Discussion noted that the cost of the licensing is generally indicative of the costs, and that facts show there are few problems with off-sale liquor stores; in fact, they are even less problems than the Tom Thumb-type stores. It was also stated that having an off-sale liquor store in the City will not necessarily increase the number of drinkers in the City. The general feeling of the Council, in passing the liquor ordinance, was to satisfy a consumer demand for that service in the City; however, the City has also installed some very restrictive rules governing liquor sales within the City. Council also expressed concern over the problems in the neighborhood brought out at tonight's meeting, noting that neither they nor City staff were aware of them, and that Mr. Talbot should be made aware of those problems.) Jan Stur~eon, 17307 Roanoke - took issue with the statement that by placing liquor there people wl11 not drink any more. She related a story of increased consumption by young people following the opening of a liquor store next to Bob's Super Value in Ramsey, the point being that responsible adults may not drink more, but consumption by young peo1e and minors will increase because it is more readily available and closer to home. She was also concerned about the accessibility of liquor, especially to minors. (Counc ilman Lachinski felt that should not be a problem, as the applicants would lose their license if found guilty of selling liquor to minors.) Ms. Sturgeon - argued that minors do not necessarily obtain their liquor themselves but via other people. She also asked who the owners are of the J & J Bottle Boutique. (It is a corporation whose principals are Judy and Lloyd Reimann and Frank and Jackie Padula. ) Susan Bea1, 164th and Round Lake Boulevard - asked how much police protection the City of Andover has and how many liquor licenses are allowed. (Contract with Anoka County Sheriff calls for one officer in the City for 16 hours a day, plus normal County patrol. The number of licenses issued is governed by State Statute, 6 off-sale in Andover, it being determined by population.) Ms. Bea1 - wondered how the police protection would be able to cover the City if six or even one liquor license were issued, especially if liquor is sold to people who are under age. Who is going to patrol them? She felt the police protection was inadequate now and asked what will happen once liquor sales are allowed. (Discussion was that the owner would be very foolish to sell to minors and that typically the police do not patrol liquor stores looking for sales to minors.) Ms. Bea1 - again stated she felt there was inadequate police protection to take care of llquor sale businesses. She was also opposed to the proposal because it is in an area of wide open spaces, and there aren't enough people around there. She felt one ,isn't needed, that it isn't well enough protected, and that it provides no benefit to Andover. She stated that adding a liquor store in that location would result in other than homeowners and adults buying liquor, bringing increasing problems into the neighbor- hood. She again stated her opposition and asked why it is needed. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 again explained it is satisfying a consumer demand by the residents of the City.) , --r-·· ~ --. .. Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (J. Reimann Special Use Permit/Liquor License, Continued) Mr. Theiss - stated the testimony has been that there is not enough police protection now, feellng liquor stores will only add to that problem. He also repeated many of his previous arguments for not having liquor in the City. (Acting Mayor Ortte1 again noted law enforcement facts show that off-sale liquor stores create very few problems.) Bruce Perry, 17337 Roanoke - asked for a clarification of the statements being made that there is a consumer demand in the City as to how that was determined. He understood from talking with the Liquor Study Chairman that a door-to-door survey found that residents were not opposed to liquor in the City but did not want a store in their neighborhood. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated that from the hearings held, from the work done by the committee members appointed at large, from talking with people in the City, and from statistics in general, he felt there was a demand for this use.) Mr. Perry - felt the Council is addressing the demand for a developer, referencing work done with the Rademacher development of the Shopping Center. He felt that is where the demand is coming from and that the Council has made concessions in that area. When asked what specific concessions the Council has made, Mr. Perry stated the Council had to do something to attract Rademacher to the City. He felt the demand for liquor is not so much the consumer, but that of the developer. (Council discussion was that the developer was attracted to the City by consumder demand as there is no development of this kind in the City. Also, if there is no consumer demand in the City for off- sale liquor, in all probability the business would not remain solvent.) Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard - related incidents of seeing people of legal age purcashing-1iquor at the off-sale store by Kemps and then providing it to minors located in the parking lot, the point being minors will get the liquor if they want it and not necessarily by purchasing it themselves. He asked the number of licenses the City will grant. (Discussion was that six off-sale licenses are allowed by State Statute, eight beer and wine licenses, and no specific number for on-sale, although on-sale licenses require a minimum of a 100-seat restaurant facility) Mr. Cann - felt that a restaurant was not mentioned when the Rademacher development was flrst presented. Also, in talking with the deputy sheriff, the only trouble with off- sale as far as law enforcement is the robberies of the building. (Discussion noted that that is the problem of the owners and operators.) The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Jacobson then expressed his opposition to this use in that area, feeling that although it does meet the ordinances in terms of square footages, etc., he felt it will be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Councilman Peach noted the ordinance does not allow more than one license to a person in the City, which may impact Mr. Padula's plans since he is a principal in the corporation. Mr. Padula stated he is aware of that. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit for the purpose of selling off-sale liquor as requested by Judith Reimann - as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R74-81) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. Discussion was then on the issuance of the Liquor License. Several questions were asked relative to meeting the requirements of the Ordinance, with the Clerk indicating all requirements have been met with the exception of the City conducting a financial investigation. There was some discussion as to the reason for including that requirement in the ordinance, what facts would be requested, and the interpretation of those facts. -p-.. ---0 -, I Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (J. Reimann Special Use Permit/Liquor License, Continued) Mrs. Reimann indicated that all papers of incorporation are in the City's file, showed proof of cash purchase for their building, and noted that the corporation has just been formed. Attorney Hawkins felt if the Council has any doubts as to the financial ability of the applicants to conduct business, the ordinance allows for requiring such financial information that may be necessary. However, no standards are set forth; therefore, the Council has to look at the applicants and decide whether they feel comfortable with their financial qualifications. Councilman Jacobson felt that since this is the first license issued in the City, all aspects should be followed according to the ordinance so as to not set a precedence by ignoring certain portions of the ordinance. Councilman Peach stated he is satisfied with the applicants' ability to run the business, personally knowing some of the applicants for several years. Acting Mayor Ortte1 felt that the provision is there to be used to find out who is behind corporations, etc., in cases where the individual applicants are not known, and he was not sure exactly what kinds of information would be asked for. Council recessed at 9:38 to review the papers of incorporation in the file; reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Acting Mayor Ortte1 explained it is the Attorney's opinion the intent of that portion of the ordinance is to determine who is behind the liquor store, who is putting up the money, who is in charge. In this particular case, the Council can determine who is involved and where the money is coming from. A financial investigation done by an investigator may not provide much information in this particular case because the corporation has just been formed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve application and the issuance of an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Judith Ann Reimann has President for and in behalf of J & J's Bottle Boutique at 3121 161st Aveunue NW with the license period to run to December 31, 1981. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. Mr. Reimann asked the hours the store can be open. Attorney Hawkins felt it was governed by State Statute. Brad camåbe11, 1905 162nd Avenue NW - thought the late hours were governed by the State an has to do with the mi leage based on the distance from Minneapolis/St. Paul. He stated the City of Ham Lake can stay open late every night of the week except Sunday. (Discussion was that Attorney Hawkins will check into this question further.) P. URBACH VARIANCE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution denying the variance request of Phyllis Urbach from the provisions of Ordinance No.8, on the lot width and area for a buildable 10t...(See Resolution R75-81) Motion carried unanimously. J. WEINS LOT SPLIT John Weins was present. Discussion was on the dedication of a 30- or 33-foot road easement along the southerly and southeasterly boundaries of the parcel and on how that would be described as the existing road does not follow the easement. Attorney Hawkins advised that Mr. Weins would provide a Quit Claim deed described as 30 feet from the center line as now laid out and traveled. . -¡-. - -, ." Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 8 (J. Weins Lot Split, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, approving of a Lot Split for John Weins subject to the payment of appropriate fees for park dedication and subject to an easement given to the City 30 feet north of a center line of the existing traveled cartway as shown on the Registered Land Survey as presented to the City Council along with the Lot Split application, and to furnish the City with the Quit Claim deeds for said easement. (See Resolution R76-81) Motion carried unanimously. CROOKED LAKE BOAT LANDING/FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Bradford Lemberg, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates - presented plans for the Crooked Lake Boat Landing, explaining that the specifications were written utilizing the plan originally done for the Park Board. He recommended the City obtain a registered survey of the property since there are fences going in as a part of the project. They have also broken the bid down into unit prices so that items can be removed if the bids come in high; although they are estimating the cost to be below the amount budgeted. Bids are to be opened 10 a.m. on Friday, October 2, with the project to be completed this year. Council discussion with Mr. Lemberg and Wes Mand of the Park Board was on the amount of funds available and on the possibility of blacktopping the parking area yet this year. Council agreed to have the blacktop as an add-on item to the bid for either next year's construction or possibly done in conjunction with the road improvement project being done in Smith's Rolling Oaks if it can be negotiated with that contractor. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Final Plans and Specifications for the parking lot and boat ramp for the Crooked Lake public access and authorize the Park Board and engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik to advertise for bids. Motion carried unanimously. The Clerk was directed to obtain quotes to have the property surveyed and to bring that back at one of the special Council meetings within the next two weeks. MSAH STUDY/BONESTROO (Reference the September 9, 1981, letter from Glenn Cook of Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik and Associates, Inc., estimating the cost for the development of an MSA street,"report at $1,800.) Mr. Lemberg stated the quote does not include soil borings, which are normally done when the plans are done. Discussion was on the possibility of borrowing the sounding equipment from Anoka County if it would be necessary to determine depth of peat in some instances. Mr. Lemberg noted that borings taken now would not be reimbursable out of MSA funds, but would be if done in conjunction with a road plan. The planning for MSA streets can come from the MSA account. They can work with the soil conservation maps, and he was confident they would be able to provide reasonable cost estimates for MSA streets to be proposed. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the Engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik & Associates to proceed with the MSA State Aid Street report as outlined in the letter to us of September g, 1981, at a cost not to exceed $1,800. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lemberg thought the plan would be done in approximately four to six weeks and will include a feasible extension for County Rd. 58. -----1'.-. Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 9 COON RAPIDS LETTER/FUNDING FOR NORTH SUBURBAN FAMILY SERVICE CENTER (Reference August 31, 1981, letter from City of Coon Rapids on the matter.) Council discussion was on the services provided by the Center, that it is a walk-in center but the County does refer people to it, and that any donation from Andover would go toward reducing the rates to those residents using the Center. It was agreed to discuss the matter at the 1982 budget meeting. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA/LAND PLANNING ACT SEMINAR MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Clerk to attend the meeting on October 14 at the University of Minnesota Earl Brown Continuing Education Center for a meeting on the Minnesota Land Planning Act. Motion carried unanimously. BOND SALE - 1981-2 MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution awarding the sale of $175,000 general obligation improvement bonds of 1981, fixing the form and specifica- tions therefor, directing the execution, delivery and providing for payment, as presented by the City Attorney. (See Resolution R77-81) Motion carried unanimously. SPEED CONTROLS/COSTS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to table the question of speed bumps until the Mayor is present. DISCUSSION: Council also felt that Ray Sowada of Public Works Department should also be present. Motion carried unanimously. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to refer Ordinance No. 50A to the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on the same. Motion carried unanimously. KELSEY PARK/FINAL GRANT APPLICATION Mr. Schumacher stated he and Mr. Mand met with a representative from Minnesota Economic Development on the Kelsey park site and reviewed the parcels. The parcels now being considered are the one just to the north of Lund's park and two parcels fronting on the lake of approximately eight acres in the plat being proposed by Mayor Windschit1. The proposal is to include the 3~ acres of Parcel 6000 and also the approximate eight acres of Mayor Windschit1's property, which is the lake shore. They are asking for authorization to obtain a land appraisal, the appraisal required to be included with the final grant application. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the City Attorney to obtain appralsa1s on Plat 65920, Parcel 6000, and other parcels abutting Round Lake as determined by the City Engineer that will be necessary for a grant application for the park which will generally be called Kelsey Park, the cost to come out of the Park Budget. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schumacher also noted that a final resolution by the Council must be made prior to submitting the grant application, the application to be in by October 2. Council agreed to discuss the item following the assessment hearings on September 29. Mr. Schumacher also noted that two lead persons, contact people, should be designated, normally the City Clerk and an elected official. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City's Acting Administrator and the Clty'S Acting Mayor, Ken Ortte1, be designated as the contact persons for Kelsey Park Grant. Motion carried unanimously. , -, Regular City Council Meeting September 15, 1981 - Minutes Page 10 WINNER/RESIGNATION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we reconsider the Agenda to discuss the reslgnation of City Engineer, Larry Winner. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council, City of Andover, accept the resignation of Larry L. Winner from the position of City Engineer; the last day of his employment to be that of Friday, September 25, 1981. VOTE ON MOT! ON : YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Peach, as he felt it was a mute point since Mr. Winner is already a part-time temporary employee and that it is an unnecessary action. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the approval of Checks Numbers 4287 through 4320, excluding 4297 which is void, and including 4321, for a total of $9,777.48. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, for approval of Check No. 508 for Kenko for $119,919.58 and Check Number 510 to Burke & Hawkins for $4.40. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~(ì~'-~~L~~ Marc lla A. Peach Recording Secretary . --,~., .. - . ..