Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 3, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1982 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - Project No. 82-7/Street Improvement-Russell Addn. 5. 9:00 P.M. - Informational Hearing/Address Changes 6. Discussion Items a. Hawk Ridge Final Plat b. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Sgle Family Homes W/Apts c. Award Contract - Sealcoating d. City Hall Grading Plan e. f. 7. Non-Discussion Items a. b. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Community Schools/Summer Program - Hagman b. CIP/Equipment Purchases 9. Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of Claims 11. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF, COMMISSIONS FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADM. DATE: AUGUST 2, 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - AUGUST 3, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 6e (Special Use Permit-King Construction) ; and Item No. Sc (Volunteer Fire Department). Item No. 4 - Public Hearing - Project 82-7/Street Improvement Attached are some comments from residents in the area who will not be able to attend the Hearing. Per my memo of July 28, the interest rate to be charged on 10-year bonds would be approximately 13%. Attached is a draft resolution ordering the improvement. The maker of the motion will have to fill the blanks. Item No. S - Information Hearing/Address Changes Attached is a petition from residents on Enchanted Drive, requesting that their street name not be changed. You have received a copy of the proposed ordinance making the required changes. Mr. VanDusen and Frank Stone will be present to explain the "91111 Emergency System and the need for address modifications. Also attached is the letter that went out to all our homeowners whose street name or address is included in the proposed changes. Item No. 6a - Hawk Ridge East/Final Plat The streets have been check and Mr. Schrantz will have a report ready for the meeting. An escrow deposit or maintenance bond will be required to handle the few small corrections needed and any problems occurring through the year. The Title Opinion has been received and is satisfactory. A park dedication fee of $9,SBS is still required. Item No. 6b - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Sgle Family Homes W/Apts Under separate cover you have received comments on sanitary sewer connections and septic system requirements. This item is on the agenda for discussion; if such an ordinance is desired, the staff should prepare it, incorporating the Council's decisions on the criteria for such use. These decisions should be made at this meeting. Agenda Information August 3, 1982 Page 2 Item No. 6c - Award Contract/Sealcoating Only one bid was received, that being from Allied Blacktopping. Jim Schrantz has worked with them and is recommending award of the contract. A draft resolution is attached. Jim is negotiating with Burt Kraabel to do the required crack patching. There is sufficient monies in the , Budget to complete all the work. Item No. 6d - City Hall Grading Plan The Plan was just received today and the Park Board has not had the opportunity to review it; therefore it is recommended that it be referred to the Park Board and Planning Commissions for their review and placed on the Council Agenda for final action on August 17. Item No. 6e - Special Use Permit/King Construction Attached is a request for a Special Use Permit from Julian M. Johnson (subcontractors for King Construction) for the purpose of mining some dirt to be used in the construction of Hanson Boulevard. They were not aware until yesterday that such a permit was required; and if they were to proceed through the normal channels, the project could be delayed a month to six weeks. It is recommended that we waive the Special Use Permit as was done with Round Lake Boulevard construction, inasmuch as it is a County job. Anoka County has reciprocated with similar provisions when other county/City streets have been done. A finish grade plan should be furnished to the City for our records. Item NO. 8a - Community Schools/Summer Program For those of you who may not know, Nancy Hagman will be leaving the Anoka School System to move to st. Cloud. Before she does go, she would like to review the Summer Program and introduce her replacement. Item NO. 8b - CIP/Equipment Purchases Attached is a memo from Jim Schrantz covering the equipment purchases outlined in the Capital Improvement Program. It is self-explanatory. Item NO. 9 - Approval of Minutes June 10, June 15, July 6, July 14, July 20. ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 1982 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on August 3, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; BRA Engineer, Glenn Cook; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk. P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Windschitl suggested the addition of Items 6e, Special Use Permit - King Construction; 6f, Junkyards; and 8c, Volunteer Fire Department. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approval of the Agenda as presented with the additions made by the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. PUBLIC HEARING - PRO~ECT NO.~2-7/STREET IMPROVEMENT - RUSSELL ADDITION Mayor Windschitl stated the public hearing is being held on the basis of a petition circulated in the neighborhood; and the petition was for the feasibility study, not for the improvement itself. It would take a 4/5 vote of the Council for the project to be ordered unless the improvement is petitioned by 35 percent of the affected property. Mr. Cook then reviewed the feasibility report, noting the proposal is to place bituminous surfacing over the existing roadbed within the subdivision but to construct l65th up to Zuni to the City's rural street standard, utilizing the existing gravel for shoulder material. The estimated project cost for the project excluding l65th is $171,930; the estimated cost for 165th is $81,710. The total number of units estimated in the project is 90, which includes 14 units assigned along 165th. There are two or three lots in the addition that have been questioned as to whether or not they are buildable, which in turn affects the assessment. Because of the lateness in the construction season, Mr. Cook recommended ordering the project this evening or in all probability it would have to be delayed until next spring. He felt if this project is ordered, it could be combined with the MSA projects presently being bid in the City and placed as an alternate for all the bidders. The meeting was then opened for public testimony. .;~ Dave Peterson, 16732 Argon Street NW - initiated the petition for the project. His thought was to look at this as an entire project. Realizing there is a problem with the large assessment on the Russell property, he wants to work something out to help Mr. Russell with that part of the project. He doesn't intend to have Mr. Russell pay for all of l65th and hopes the neighbors and the Council can work something out. The main reason he is in favor of paved streets is because of the dust factor, mud, rutty streets, increased market value on the homes, etc. (Mr. Schrantz provided the estimated costs for several assessment methods: 1) Dividing total cost of the project by 90 units amounts to $2,820 per unit or $520/year; 2) If the subdivision would pay the entire cost of the project and Mr. Russell be assessed nothing, the assessment would be approximately $3,250 per unit or $600/year; and 3) If the subdivision was not paved but l65th done between Seventh Avenue and Zuni, the assessment to only those within the subdivision V/ould be approximately $l,050/unit or $195/year with ~1r. Russell receiving no assessment.) Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 ~ublic Hearing - Project No. 82-7, Continued) Glen Rogers - asked why l65th couldn't be constructed to Argon. (Mr. Schrantz stated they stopped at Zuni because it becomes more difficult to build the wider road between Zuni and Argon. It would help the drainage problem on Argon if it were constructed that far.) John Ottenstroer, 5230 l63rd Lane - asked the cost if l65th were brought down to Argon. (Mr. Cook stated it would make no significant difference in project costs. It could increase the unit assessment to $1,100.) Mr. Rogers - was against the project in 1973 because of the costs to Mr. Russell. He asked if he can be assessed for l65th for indirect benefit even though he receives no direct benefit. (Mr. Hawkins felt that he could be assessed that benefit. But the amount of the assessment hinges on whether or not the amount of the assessment is equal to the amount of the market value increase.) Mr. Rogers - asked if those along Zuni to Seventh Avenue derive a benefit off their side. Are they assessed more? He also asked if culverts will be assessed. (~. Schrantz recommended against the side yard assessment because the project is proposed to be assessed on a unit basis. The driveway culverts will be charged separately if they are needed.) Mr. Rogers - asked if the assessment for an unbuildable lot would be transferred to all other properties. He also asked about the driveway approaches. (Discussion noted that if it is determined a lot cannot be developed, it would not be assessed and the cost would be spread among the rest of the project. The project cost includes only two feet of driveway approach, because of the varying widths, number of driveways, and materials used within the project area. If a property owner wishes surfacing to the property line, that can be negotiated and assessed separately.) Ed Wilson, 16831 Argo~ - stated the addition of blacktop will raise the value of their property and asked how much the tax increase will be for each unit and for Mr. Russell. (Discussion noted it is very difficult to determine tax increase because of the homestead credit; but on open land, the County assesses on a per-acre basis so the road improvement would not have an appreciable affect on open land. On an average $80,000 estimated market value home, the improvement will not raise the valuation of the home for two years. In the third year, the increased valuation will amount to approximately $10 to $12 per year in increased taxes.) Mr. Wilson - asked for figures on maintaining the blacktop. He expressed disappointment in the grading done in their area from the standpoint of workmanship and frequency. He is concerned with the cost of maintaining blacktop as opposed to maintaining dirt roads. (Mr. Schrantz stated the policy is to sealcoat the roads about every five years at a cost of approximately $2,700 per mile. To maintain Class 5, about two to three inches of gravel should be replaced every five years. They have not been able to roll l65th when grading it because there is not enough gravel on it at this time. The policy is also to blade the major roads with high volume traffic immediately following a rain. It doesn't do any good to blade the roads when it is dry.) Clyde Russell, 16518 Roanoke Street - thanked those people who were concerned with his Tnterests. There has been some question about his developing the property. He stated if he does not have a large assessment against the property, he is not going to develop the property along l65th at all, as it is farmland. When this was improved eight years ago he stated he would not develop it; he hasn't; and he doesn't intend to because he doesn't have the capital nor the energy. And he believes farm property is needed. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - Project No. 82-7, Continued) Ron Rehmann, 16350 Argon - asked when sewer and water would come out to their area. How was 90 lots arrived at? (Mayor Windschitl explained the plan of the Sewer Board through 2050 allows no capacity in the sewer lines in Andover to come above approximately l47th. There is no talk about water in that area. Mr. Schrantz explained 14 units were assigned along l65th based on 300-foot lots along the road. And there are 76 units within the subdivision. He is concerned about the developability of three lots in the subdivision. Each lot would be assessed one unit. If an owner has two lots, two units would be assessed.) Mr. Rehmann - stated it is not the intention of many that Mr. Russell have to pay the entire cost along l65th. He will derive little, if any, benefit from it; but the residents would derive both indirect and direct benefit. He felt the most fair and equitable approach would be to assess the residents in the area for the entire project on a unit basis. Are there any other funds available from local, county, or state that could be used for assistance alon9 165th? (Mr. Schrantz stated he is not aware of any.) Bill Gow, 16516 Argon Street - asked what is meant by a seven-ton road. (Mr. Schrantz explained the tonnage is based on the amount of traffic and volume of truck traffic. A little heavier road would be built along l65th than in the subdivision to handle the extra traffic.) Mr. Gow - asked how they will gain entrance andexist when l65th is done, as that is the only road to the subdivision. He also asked if there was a policy to deal with farmland that the property only pays a certain percentage of the assessment. (Mr. Schrantz stated they will be routing the traffic. No major reconstruction will be done. There is no policy for assessing farmland differently than any other land.) Mr. Gow - asked if all the lots in the subdivision are 300 feet wide. And there are some people who have wider lots than others. (Mr. Schrantz explained most of the lots within the subdivision are 200 feet wide. The current zoning law requires a minimum of 300 feet wide. He also explained the lots are similiar in size and the unit method of assessment is the simplest.) Mr. Gow - áskerl lf something can be written that if Mr. Russell or his heirs decide to develop the property that those in the subdivision would be reimbursed for their share along l65th. (Mr. Hawkins advised there is no legal way for the residents in the subdivision to be reimbursed because street projects have to be assessed at the time it is put in.) Jim Sturgeon, 16555 Yakima - asked several questions on the projects -- Can the estlmated cost of $2,820 come down once it is gone out for bids? (Yes -- it can go either up or down, but the engineer's estimate is usually high.) Is the City obligated to take the low bid? (Lowest responsible bidder.) Would a better price be received if this project is attached to the others in the City? How far will it be paved into each person's driveway? (Two feet.) Would the owner be responsible for the additional space between the pavement and the property line? (Yes. ) Do the people have any say as to whether or not the project is ordered? Will the drop in the prime rate have any affect on the bond issue for this project? Are the maintenance costs for the pavement paid for by the residents in that area? (Discussion was that the City usually notifies the people if the bid is over 20 percent of the engineer's estimate. They would try to attached this project to the others so the bidder would have to bid on it and provide a fair price. It would be up to the Council to decide whether to accept the base bid and alternate or the base bid alone. It would be bid as a separate project from the others. In theory this should provide a lower project cost because the contractor would already have his equipment in town doing the other projects. The City has generally ordered projects if the bid is the same or lower than the engineer's estimate. The Regular City Council Mee..ng August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - Project No. 82-7, Continued) time for the residents to vote for or against the project is at a public hearing like tonight. The Council generally would not order or would inform the residents if a bid came in higher than the engineer's estimate. The intent of the Council is to put into the neighborhoods what the residents want at an acceptable price. There is a great deal of unpredictability in the bond market at this time, but the percentage used by the fiscal agent is felt to be reasonably attainable if sold under existing conditions. Hopefully the percentage rate would be less. The maintenance sealcoating costs are paid for through the taxes of the City at large. A neighborhood cannot be reassessed for the same improvement during the length of the bond issue for that improvement.) Mr. Sturgeon - thought the price of $2,820 could be considerably less when talking to others who have had similiar projects, although he realized it could also be higher. If it is less than $2,820, he is in favor of the project. If it;is more, he is against it because he didn't feel he could afford it. He is not willing to pay for any part of l65th because there is no way he can get his money back out of it if that property develops some day. If that were possible, then he'd be willing to consider paying for a portion of l65th. Arnold Reise - asked whether this was considered a road or a street when the area was developed eight years ago. Andover required Mr. Russell to upgrade the road and then accepted it as a street. He asked why isn't the county paying for all of it. (Discussion was the property was part of Ramsey until both Ramsey and Andover became cities and the area then became part of Andover. Andover accepted the roads once they were upgraded. The County has no affect on interior city streets. The on ly roads the County pays for and maintains are County roads. Any interior streets are the responsibility of the City.) Mr. Russell - stated the road was inspected and accepted by the Township of Ramsey ~1:T-~ It was never a County road. (Mr. Hawkins stated the confusion may be that they are called roads in townships and streets in cities. So they were called roads when part of Ramsey Township and called streets in the City of Andover.) Pat Mann, 16757 Argon - the cost to him for this road is worth it. Because he's on the end of the street, he doesn't have the dust problem; but he has the problem of having to drive on more dirt road. It doesn't matter to him whether Mr. Russell benefits from this or not. The cost is worth what he would derive from it. Plus the fact that his property would have an increased value by that amount. His wife is allergic to dust, so that would be a plus. They both run, so that would be a plus to have pavement to run on. He also related other ways he would gain by having the roads improved, even offering to help others pay the $50 a month for the improvement! Mr. Russell - stated he checked into the Ag Preserve Act, but there was no protection against assessments for roads, only for sewer and water. He stated he would be willing to sign any legal document stating he wouldn't build or subdivide his property for a period of ten years, but it would just be used for agriculture. (Applause from audience.) Mr. Peterson - stated he talked with the City Clerk this morning and was told the City has funds available at 10.7 percent interest. Are those funds available for this project? (Mayor Windschitl noted the $450,000 is a carry-over from a previous improvement project at 10.7 percent assessment rate. Some of that money would be available, depending on how the Council wants to divide it among the various projects.) Clint Patterson, 16636 Maniteau - asked if the neighbhood were neutral on the project, would the Councll take it upon themselves to blacktop the area in time. (Mayor Windschitl stated the Council has tried to stay away from City-initiated projects and has let each neighborhood bring in what they want to do.) For an indication of what the majority of the residents want, Mayor Windschitl aksed for a show of hands on the three proposed assessments. It was then decided that during the recess the residents could sign a sheet for the proposal they want. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing - Project No. 82-7, Continued) Mr. Peterson - asked if Mr. Russell would pay for one unit along l65th for his resldence. Also, would he pay for those lots within the subdivision that he owns? (Under the proposal, Mr. Russell's residence would not be assessed, but that alternative could be considered The assessment would be somewhat lower if Mr. Russell was assessed for one unit along l6Sth. The assessment could also be lowered if the project was assessed this year because the construction interest would'<not have to be carried. Mr. Russell's lo~within the subdivision would be assessed if they are buildable.) Mr. Russell - stated the lots within the subdivision are sold on a contract for deed and should be assessed like the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Ottenstroer - felt the issues are whether to do the entire addition or how much should be split to take the farm property out of the assessment. First thing to be determined is whether nothing is wanted, only 165th, or the entire project; and then decide how to assess it. Councilman Orttel stated if the money available at 10.7 percent interest were used in this project and if the subdivision paid the entire project for $3,250/unit, the annual payment would !'emain the same as if each lot paid for its own at $2,820/unit at 13 percent interest. Ruth Ann King - asked how the assessment works. Does it go on their house payment? (Discussion was it goes on the tax statement and is paid with the taxes. It may be an addition to the house payment where the mortgage company would keep that amount in escrow for the property owner. There is no interest added; the only interest paid is that to the City which is charged on the assessment.) Bob Andrews, 16360 Zuni - if the property is assessed and he'decides to sell, that assessment has to be pãid and/or negotiated with the seller at the time of sale. Increased taxes amount to merely $12 a year. He wondered how much his property really will increase in value and if it can be justified as a salability factor. Gerry Boardman, 16415 Zuni - stated the next door neighbor sold their house several years ago. They have stated they could have sold their house ten times over if it wasn't for the road. Councilman Jacobson noted there may be some people who would pay more than the proposed assessment because of a needed culvert or the extension on the apron into the driveway. These would be assessed separately. Mr. Gow - on the corner of Argon and l6Sth. Stated he has a culvert, but he has had standing water on both sides of the driveway because the culvert is higher than the bottom of the ditch. Others are bent and/or buried. (Discussion was the culverts will be lowered if need be. The culverts crossing the road would be taken care of as part of the project cost. The low spot in the road will be filled and the drainage will be taken care of.) Recess at 8:45; reconvene at 9:03 p.m. to allow residents to sign the petitions. Discussion was on a number of questions brought up during the break. Mr. Cook reviewed the lots in the project area, noting the lots that are low with questionable buildability. The property at the end of Maniteau was not counted. Mayor Windschitl also stated Mr. Russell would be allowed to subdivide his land by metes and bounds into five-acre lots with a minimum of 300 feet of frontage under State law. City ordinances would allow him to plat to a minimum of 2~ acres with 300 feet of frontage. If the land is placed under Ag Preserve, it prohibits any platting or development of the property for eight years and allows only one house per 40 acres. Mr. Glenn stated on the higher proposal, if Mr. Russell were to pay for one unit along l6Sth, the proposed unit assessment would be reduced by approximately $50. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - Project No. 82-7, Continued) Mr. Ottenstroer - now it is a very rough road but no one can speed on it. When the improvement is in, he felt there will be many problems between Argon and Seventh. Are there proposals for speed bumps, or how will the traffic be controlled? (Mr. Schrantz stated it could be posted for 30 mph speed limit. Speed bumps are not recommended because of the liability for the City.) Betty Lacy, Maniteau - stated relative to speeding that she has been traveling on l6Sth at 30 mph and cars have passed her. She felt she would rather have them pass her on a hard-surfaced road than having them fishtail trying to pass her on the dirt road. Mr. Gow - stated they get a lot of motorcycle traffic and dirt bikes from people who do not live in the neighborhood. Mayor Windschitl noted the following letters from people who were unable to attend the public hearing: Karen and Dean Lips, 16631 Zuni" preferring the improvement of l65th only, but the $3,250/unit method of assessment for the entire project as second choice; Robert (? ) , 16360 Zuni Street, in opposition to the project; and Bruce Leet, 16656 Argon, for the $2,820/unit method of assessment for the entire proejct. The results of the petition signed during the recess were read: 55 units were represented. Alternate 1, for $3,2S0/unit -- 27 in favor; Alternate 2 for $2,820/unit -- 16 in favor; Alternate 3 for $l,OSO/unit -- 8 in favor. 4 units opposed the project entirely. This is assuming Mr. Russell votes for one unit along l6Sth. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to close the public portion of the public hearing on the Russell/Stack Addition Street Improvement Project No. 82-7. Motion carried unanimously. Council discussion was on a course of action at this time. It was generally agreed that the bond money on hand should be used in this project; that the assessment hearing for this project should be held this fall even though the project will not be completed to save on the capitalized interest costs; that any reassessment can be done following the completion of the project; and that to protect the residents in the subdivision, Mr. Russell agree to sign a contract or place his property along l6Sth in AgP to insure it will not be developed for at least ten years. It was noted that the figures presented include the estimated capitalized interest; therefore, if the project is assessed this fall, the estimated assessment would be less than presented. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we order the Final Plans and Specifi- cations and advertise for bids for the bidding process for Project Number 82-7 Street Improvement Project in the Russell Addition and that special consideration be given in the case of Mr. Russell that he be assessed only one unit on l6Sth Avenue and that he be required to either designate his property along l6Sth Avenue as Agricultural Preserve or enter into a development contract stating that he would not develop the property along l65th Avenue for a period of ten years and that be done by the time the assessments be assigned to the project, that being in 1982; and designate that available funds from prior projects, 80-3/4, be used for financing this project at approximately 10.7 percent. (See Resolution R67-82) DISCUSSION: Any lots Mr. Russell owns within the subdivision would be assessed. The AgP designation or contract would run with the property and would remain enforce even if the property was sold. The project number refers to the legal areas included in the project area. Motion carried unanimously. Hearing closed at 9:33 p.m. INFORMATIONAL HEARING/ADDRESS CHANGES Council noted receipt of the petition from residents along Enchanted Drive requesting their addresses not be changed. Councilman Peach suggested rather than changing the number and street that it be divided into North and South Enchanted Drives. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 (Informational Hearing/Address Changes, Continued) Fire Chief Frank Stone - felt it would still cause a lot of problems for the Fire Department and rescue squad even with the north/south designation. He would rather see sequential numbers from one end to the other. Dave Almgren, Building Inspector, felt house numbers may have to be changed even on the north/south designation. Rich Olson, 3936 Enchanted Drive - asked if the present numbers wouldn't be in sequence with the north/south deslgnation. (Mr. Schrantz felt they would be except for a few.) Dick Witcher (1) - stated it is a lot of paperwork to change one's address because everything has to be changed including house title, social security, drivers license, etc. And it is costly as well. He would be willing to have the north/south designation. (Discussion was the main reason for the change is for emergency service.) Jason Willett, 3879 Enchanted Drive - felt the best thing for everyone on Enchanted Drive to do to help emergency vehicles is to prominently post house numbers so it can be found. (Chief Stone advised not putting the numbers on the garage door because they cannot be seen when the door is open.) Lou Forcier~ 3880 Enchanted Drive - felt the dividing point between the north/south designation should be made clear. LeRoy Walkner, Rescue Coordinator - felt the present addressing system is not a good one. It is easy to respond to addresses which correspond to the City's overall system. He agreed it is expensive and time consuming to change the address but felt it would be worth it if it meant finding the house sooner to save a life. Mr. Thompson - stated the Fire Department made it to his house within two minutes even though he did not have his house numbers posted. He disagreed that it would take seven or eight minutes to find a house in that area under the existing addressing system. He felt the Fire Department out here does know the area and can respond to it. Mr. Walkner stated the extra minute or two it may take because the correct house cannot be found may very well mean the difference between life and death. Tom Koll, 3890 Enchanted Drive - stated they have had three ambulances respond and they responded very well. But lt is not always the Andover volunteers that get there first, as it may be the police or somebody else that does not know Enchanted Drive. He didn't feel it would be wise to depend on the local residents who know Enchanted Drive to respond in all emergency situations. (1) - felt it would be more confusing from an emergency standpoint to have Enchanted Drive divided into three street names because it is all one street. He felt the numbers are in sequence and that the north/south designation would be adequate. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the proposals for address changes for Andover in relation to changes on Enchanted Drive NW, that the changes be designated as North Enchanted Drive and South Enchanted Drive, and that the City Building Inspector and/or Engineer select the point on Enchanted Drive where that separation shall be; and notify individuals by mail into which section they fall, either north or south, and authorize the Engineer and/or City Building Inspector to insure that the numbers are consistent; and if there is an inconsistency, to notify the owners of the new number. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Katoala, 2117 Quinn Drive, Woodridge Acres - didn't understand why another name is needed for his street; as it is really all one street there, not two different streets. (Mr. Almgren stated changing it to Osage puts ,the street in the alphabetical sequence with the grid system. As it exists, Quinn Drive is posted twice along Crosstown Boulevard. Because of the house numbers, it is not known whether it is on the northern or southern stretch of road. The current numbering has five digits on the south side Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 8 (Informational Hearing/Address Changes, Continued) and four digits on the north side. The street that runs north/south should have a five digit number. MOTIDN by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council adopt the changes on Quinn Drive to Osage Street as proposed by the Building Inspector and City Engineer. DISCUSSION: Mr. Almgren stated the houses in the corner where the street isn't constructed would retain the Quinn Drive address. Only four lots are affected by this change. Mr. Katoala still didn't understand why it couldn't stay Quinn Drive as there are so few houses now he didn't feel it would be difficult to find. He agreed the numbering could be changed but still would like to see it remain Quinn Drive. Mr. Almgren stated it would be difficult to change the numbers to the five-digit numbers. Motion carried unanimously. Glen Sonsteby, Auto Repair Shop, 4100 Seventh Avenue - the proposed change is to 14123 Seventh Avenue. (Mr. Almgren stated the present address is an Anoka address, and the proposal is to put it in the right sequence for Andover. Also, that side of the street should have an odd numbered address.) Mr. Sonsteby - asked why it is necessary to change it at this time. It will be more dlfficult because of his business. He also felt the proposed address is difficult to recall and wondered if it couldn't be 14100 or 14101 if a change had to be made. He owns two acres on the corner. (Mr. Almgren had no problem with 14101.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the property at 4100 Seventh Avenue N be changed to 14101 Seventh Avenue Northwest. DISCUSSION: It was noted the 4100 refers to 41st Avenue in Anoka and it is Andover's l4lst street. Mr. Sonsteby stated eventually that area will be developed and wondered if the road coming through there will be the City of Andover. Mayor Windschitl stated it would remain Andover wherever the road would go. Discussion also noted that with an Anoka address on that property the problem is any emergency calls for that address would be directed to Anoka, not to Andover. Four-digit numbers along Seventh Avenue in Andover would be on the curve further north of the City line as a four-digit number is an east-west number in Andover. Mr. Sonsteby - also noted the problem with people looking for his business passing Anoka streets of 40th Lane and 41st Avenue and suddenly coming to a 14101 address. Councilman Orttel felt that the City has a responsibility to place a street sign indicating the proposed street number past this area. Motion carried unanimously. Council generally agreed a street sign should be placed in this area. Tom May - explained he lives south of l40th on Crosstown but has a l40th address. It is very confusing especially for the police department. Mr. Almgren stated that area was looked at seriously, realizing there is a problem with the numbering in that area. The problem was Mr. May's address was established before Red Oaks Addition was developed, and l40th Avenue was actually placed too far north. He explained the problem with establishing sequential numbering in that area and so no change was proposed. Council suggested Mr. Schrantz and Mr. Almgren review that area again and make a recommendation to the Council. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council, City of Andover, adopt the proposal for address changes as presented to the Council by the Building Inspector and City Engineer with the exception of the actions taken tonight by the Council noting changes therein and request the City Clerk to draft an ordinance implementing these changes and present it to the City Council for final approval. DISCUSSION: The City Clerk stated an ordinance has already been prepared with the only change needed of the action taken this evening. It was agreed to postpone further action until later in the meeting to allow the Clerk to correct the proposed ordinance. Councilmen Orttel and Jacobson WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 9 HAWK RIDGE FINAL PLAT Mr. Schrantz recommended approval of the final plat, but he was unsure of the amount of the warranty bond. He noted $4,000 was required for the LakeRidge plat; however, this plat is approximately half that size. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept final streets in Hawk Ridge East Subdivision subject to $2,000 bond for a period of one year plus escrow money for unpaid charges, subject to the payment of park dedication fees in the amount of $9,585. (See Resolution R68-82) DISCUSSION: Larry Carlson asked if a Letter of Credit is sufficient. The Mayor stated it is if lt is irrevocable for the duration of the warranty. Motion carried unanimously. ADDRESS CHANGE ORDINANCE, CONTINUED MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, ordinance providing a uniform system for numbering properties and principal buildings and renaming of certain existing streets in the City of Andover, County of Anoka, Minnesota, which is identified as Item No.4 on the meeting Agenda this evening as presented by the City Clerk noting changes under Section 4.01 which were made by the Council during the evening's meeting. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY SCHOOL/SUMMER PROGRAM Nancy Hageman, Community School Director, introduced her replacement, Tony Strukel. She also reviewed the summer program enrollment, noting most activities experienced an increase in participants this summer. She also noted the results of the community school survey taken in Andover are being compiled and will be sent to the City and Councilmembers. Mayor Windschitl thanked Ms. Hageman for the time, effort, and years of service to the community. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire fighter Tom May - stated they are working on the specifications for a new tanker truck. He stated a decision must be made on purchasing a radio for the truck to take advantage of the savings in purchase price through the State EMS bid. He understood there would be no other bid opportunities this summer that has this price advantage. The funds could come from existing capital budget but the original plans were to use funds from an equipment bond issue for the total vehicle. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Fire Department be authorized to purchase a 110 watt model T83SRA3200K radio with 3db gain antenna under the State EMS bid at a pucrhase price of $2,183. DISCUSSION: It was questioned why the radio is being purchased when the decision has not yet been made to purchase the new tanker, noting the Capital Improvement Plan has not yet been adopted. It was also pointed out that the dollar amounts for requests for capital purchases are beginning to add up if all requests are approved. Chief Stone informed the Council they have two pieces of equipment that could go out of commission at any time, which he didn't feel would be worth repairing any more. So something will have to be looked at to replace them. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone presented a sketch plan for the installation of poles and wires for use by the fire fighters for waterball. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the location of the waterball equipment as shown be located on a drawing presented by the Fire Chief. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 10 (Fire Department, Continued) Chief Stone also stated he has received quotes from Lein Electric of $1,195 and from Go Electric for $615 to complete the electrical work in the Fire Station. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the expenditure of $615 to Go Electric for the completion of the electrical work in the Fire Station. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone stated the Fire Department picnic is planned for this Sunday behind the City Hall. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, acknowledging that the Fire Department is gOlng to hold their summer picnic from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, August 8, at the Andover City Hall site. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY SCHOOL, CONTINUED MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we request the City Clerk to draft a letter for individual City Council signatures for Nancy Hageman for her years of service and betterment of the community, etc. Motion carried unanimously. flP/EQUIPMENT PURCHASES Council agreed that Mr. Schrantz should go out for bids on the truck, plow, and sander. It was also agreed that the proposed Capital Improvement Plan be placed on the August 17 Regular Council meeting Agenda. AWARD CONTRACT -,SEALCOATING MOTIOrl by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for 82-10 for sealcoating in the area of Barnes Rolling Oaks Second Addition and Johnson's Oakmount Terrace as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R69-82) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, authorizing the City Engineer to provide crack seallng and patching in appropriate areas at a cost not to exceed $8,200. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - KING CONSTRUCTION Council discussion was on the legalities of granting the Special Use Permit requested by Julian M. Johnson for the purpose of mining some dirt off site to be used in the construction of Hanson Boulevard. Some Councilmen questioned whether a mining permit should even be required in such instances, though that would require an ordinance change. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we issue a Special Use Permit to the Jullan M. Johnson Construction Corporation for a mining permit to remove approximately 3,000 cubic yards from the John Scherer property, Plat 65925, Parcel 5900, west ~ of west ~ of SW \ of SW \ of Section 26, Township 32N, Range 24W; this fill to be used in the construction of County State Aid Highway #78; conditions of the Special Use Permit are that the firm furnish a grading plan to the City before grading begins which must be accepted by the City Engineer, and that the existing topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled and then respread over the area after it is mined, and subject to the payment of the normal Special Use Permit fee application in the City. (See Resolution R70-82) Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARDS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution revoking the Junkyard License for Andover Auto Body at 13526 Jay Street Northwest in the City of Andover for the reasons set forth in the Resolution. (See Resolution R7l-82) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 3, 1982 - Minutes Page 11 (Junkyards, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution revoking the Junkyard License for K & K Salvage Yard at 2050 Bunker Lake Boulevard in the City of Andover as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R72-82) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, a Resolution revoking the Junkyard License of Rite-Away Auto Salvage at 1856 Bunker Lake Boulevard in the City of Andover for the reasons proposed in the Resolution. (See Resolution R73-82) Motion carrie d unanimously. MOTIDN by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, enter a Resolution revoking the Junkyard License for Commercial Auto Parts, 13576 Jay Street NW in the City of Andover as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R74-82) Motion carried unanimously. BLACK MAGIC/LUNDS ROUND LAKE ESTATES AND WARD LAKE DRIVE Mr. Schrantz stated a property owner in Lund's Round Lake Estates has requested the City to lay the substance known as Black Magic in front of his property at his expense. Council also felt that this substance should be placed on several hundred feet of Ward Lake Drive as a test of how it works for dust control. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize the City Engineer to spend up to $300 to purchase a product called Black Magic and use City equipment to lay the product down on a stretch of Ward Lake Drive as a test of the product for dust contro 1. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the property owner on Blackfoot Drlve in Lund's Addition request to apply the matter known as Black Magic at his own expense. Motion carried unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we send the grading plan for the City Hall Site to the Park Board for their earliest possible consideration, and that it be returned to the City Council for their August 17 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Engineer was also directed to obtain quotes on the grading plan. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Engineer be directed to take the matter of playground equipment for the Crooked Lake Boat Landing site and the City Hall to the Park Board for their earliest possible consideration, and putting some blacktop around the basketball hoop in Green Acres. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, approval of Checks 5126 through 5165 noting that 5164 is void in the amount of $94,752.11. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Ma ella A. Peach Reco ing Secretary