Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 7, 1982 " / ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 7, 1982 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3 . Agenda Approval 4 . Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16 5 . Discussion Items a. Variance/M. Bakker b. variance/D. Carlson c. Special Use Permit/Downtown Deli d. Sign Permit/Downtown Deli e. Ag Preserve Eligibility and Rezoning/J. Eveland f. Sketch Plan/Lakeview Villa g. Dedication of Easement/W. Rademacher h. Vacation of Easement/R. Sonsteby i. Modification of Contours/Landfill j . k. 6. Non Discussion Items a. Approval of Licenses 1 ) Bill's Superette 5 ) speedy Market 2) Downtown Deli 3 ) G-Will's Liquors 4) JJ's Liquors b. Amendment/Cable Ordinance c. Ordinance/Fire Code d. e. 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9. Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment , .. CITY 01 ANDOVER MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY AND STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADMINISTRATOR DATE: DECEMBER 2. 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - DECEMBER 7, 1982 Item No. 3-=~enda Ap~oval Item No. 4 - Public Hearing-Hanson Boulevard (82-16) This hearing is to consider the improvement and potential assessment for all or a part of that portion of Hanson Boulevard between Bunker Lake Boulevard and Andover Boulevard. This was constructed by Anoka County, with costs being paid from their municipal state aid highway funds; and all right-of-way costs were paid by the City of Andover. The City costs included appraisal fees, attorney fees and engineering fees involved in the land acquisition process. The policy has been adopted that all right-of-way costs incurred by the City for MSAH street improvements will be assessed to the affected property owners; and in addition, commercial and industrial properties will be assessed a portion of the construction costs. All affected property owners have been notified of this hearing. Enclosed is a resolution covering the acceptance of the Feasibility Report, Ordering the Improvment, and Accepting the Assessment Roll. The Resolution also orders the Assessment Hearing and sets the date for same. Item No. Sa - Variance/M. Bakker Enclosed is the Planning and Zoning recommendation for approval of the request of Mr. Bakker to construct a garage nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. You will note the p&Z based their recommendation on the fact that the property in-line or to the rear of the principal structure is either low land, has a pipe- line through it or is developed as a wildlife refuse. A resolution will be prepared granting approval. Item No. Sb - Variance/D.Carlson Please find the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the request. You will note from the recommendation that the approval is granted, not on the criteria set forth in Ordinance 8, but rather because the location was approved by the Building Inspector prior to construction. Such approval was based on a misunderstanding of the lining of the two structures, however, was not discovered until footings had already been poured. A resolution for approval is prepared. - Agenda Information December 7, 1982 Page 2 Item No. Sc - Special Use Permit/Downtown Deli Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the request of Downtown Deli to amend their S.U.P. to allow for the placement of tables for seating in the deli area. You will note the restriction as to number of tables and seating capacity is covered by the Commission in their recommendation. A resolution granting approval will be prepared, including the above restrictions. Item No. Sd - Sign Permit/Do~town Deli Included is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for denial of the request to allow an advertising sign to be erected on residential property. Research of the Zoning Ordinance indicates there are no provisions allowing for variances to erect this sign. A permit was requested for the sign after it had already been partially erected; the appl"ièation and fee were accepted:cin èrrm:." by a staff member, "however, technically, the permit was never approved for issuance. The applicant was made aware of the ordinance provisions within an hour after the acceptance of the fee. Inasmuch as the sign was already erected, procedures to take it down were not started until after complaints were received from neighbors. This is the procedure used for all matters of this type, i.e., we are fully aware of thousands of ordinance violations occuring within the City, however, we do not request compliance unless we receive complaints, or if it effects the health, safety or welfare of the residents. Based on the above it would be my recommendation to require the sign be moved to the commercial property pursuant to ordinance. Item No. Se -Ag Preserve and Rezoning/J. Eveland --- Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the request of Janett Eveland to rezone 20.4 acres of land in the Urban Service Area to AgP pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance S7A. I have checked the soils map to verify the land meets the above ordinance provisions; and Jim Schrantz will be preparing a report for your information. It would not seem necessary to require soil borings in this case, inasmuch as the map verifies the land to be unsuitable for development for residential or commercial purposes. This probably would only be necessary if there were still some uncertainy after a review of the map, which in this application, there is not. A resolution will be prepared to declare the land eligible and to approve the rezoning. There was a question as to the requirement of Mrs. Eveland paying the $1S0 for the rezoning, inasmuch, as this parcel was included in her original request, but due to the provisions of the ordinance at the time, the Commission and Council were not able to consider it. We have kept a record of our expenses on this rezoning to-date and will continue until all forms are filed, so if the Council feels Mrs. Eveland should only be required to pay exact costs that can be done. - Agenda Information December 2, 1982 Page 3 Item No. Sf =-Sketch Plan/Lakeview Vill~ Enclosed please find the Sketch Plan and correspondence covering the developing of 6.6 acres south of Round Lake into multiple units. Although I did not meet with the developers, they did speak to Mr. Schrantz and d'Arcy Bosell. Jim will have comments on the ability to get public sewer and water service. Several other IIzoning" and "subdivision" type items will have to be addressed during some stage of the sketch plan, i.e. , l)privately owned streets (prohibited by ordinance) , 2)length of cuI de sac street (shows considerely in excess of ordinance requirement, 3)county approval of street exiting onto Round Lake Boulevard (more distance is normally required between exits onto thoroughfares), and 4) parkland (there are no parks in the immediate vicinity; and have been required for the higher densities). At this time, the Council is only responsible for dealing with the "over-alII! concept of the Plan. Item NO. Sq - Dedication of Easement/Rademacher & Associates A request is being made to extend the easements and dedicate more for installation of three (3) fire hydrants for the Shopping Center. This will require the dedication of additional easement to the City. Enclosed are full particulars on this easement. At this time I do not have full information in-hand, therefore, cannot make any comments. Mr. Schrantz will also have his review available for you by Tuesday evening. Mr. Hawkins has reviewed. Item No. Sh - Vacation of Easemen!LR~S~stebz Enclosed is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for denial of the request of Mrs. Sonsteby to vacate a roadway easement in the SE~ of the SW~ of Section 29. The p&Z has taken the position that essentially "nothing has changed" from previous requests. The City Council did, in concept, vacate a portion of this street when Mrs. Sonsteby presented her plat for adjoining property, however, the Plat was withdrawn, and inasmuch as the vacation of that portion was contingent upon the finalizing of the Plat, the vacation was not activated. Mrs. Sonsteby has brought to the attention of the Council, the statement in the deed, i.e. , if the roadway ceases to be used for the purpose for which it was intended, it shall revert back to the original owners". The purpose was for roadway purposes for the public; and it is used for that purpose yet by the Hagens and whomever else desires to use it. I would concur with the recommendation of the P&Z to have the City Engineer install "NO Parking" signs on this stretch of roadway. By installing the signs along the right-of-way, it would also define the exact location of the right-of-way. Item No. Si - MOdification of Contours - Landfill - ----- Attached is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering his comments on the requested modification. After attending the meeting at the PCA two weeks ago, it would be my recommendation that we hold off on any approval until we receive comments from them dealing on what impact any modification would have on potential groundwater contamination, etc. Bob Hutchinson, Anoka County, will be present to answer any questions you may have. Agenda Information December 7, 1982 Page 4 Item No. 6a - Approval of Lice~~ The following have applied for renewal of their licenses as shown. No complaints have been received against any of the vendors during the 1982 Year. All required documents have been filed by the applicants. 1) Bill's Superette - Cigarette, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor/Off-Sale 2) Downtown Deli - Cigarette 3) G-Will's Liquors - Cigarette, Intoxicating Liquor/Off-Sale 4) JJ's Liquors - Cigarette, Intoxicating Liquor/Off-Sale 5) Speedy Market - Cigarette, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor/Off-Sale Item No. 6b - Amendment/Cable Ordinance The Quad-City Cable Commission is requesting an Amendment to the Cable Ordinance, with such Amdendment to allow the Commission to approve/disapprove various changes in the Ordinance as requested by the Cable Co. Such changes would be for such things as 1) type of material used, 2)layouts, etc. It would not be any major changes. The feeling of the Commission was that the requirement of Council action of each item could many times delay construction because of various City requirements (Anoka requires almost 6 weeks to pass an ordinance per their Charter) , and, in most cases, the Council's would not be familiar with the change. Often, the change could be no more than a "brand-name" change. The Commission felt that they, not the Cable Company, should have the control of determining whether the change would have any affect on the system. A motion is needed to approve such an amendment. I should have copies of the actual language for the amendment by Tuesday. IteE.!...Y~.:. 6c =-Ordi~nce/Fir~Code Attached is the proposed ordinance adopting the Uniform Fire Code. All required changes have been made by the Fire Department. A Representative will be present to discuss this with you and answer any questions you may have. Item No. 8 - Approval of Minutes November 16, 1982 - ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 7, 1982 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on December 7, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmem present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach Councilman absent: Mayor Windschitl Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James E. Schrantz; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Caroll Abbott, 2917 l42nd Lane - felt that an area on Bunker Lake Boulevard between the north and south turnoffs for County Road 18 is a speed trap. That one block is a 40 mph speed zone, but it is 50 mph to the west and 55 mph to the east of that area. He was stopped by a County Deputy who said he was speeding in that area, which was later found to be untrue. His concern was there is no sign indicating the speed limit and most people are unaware of that 40 mph zone for that one block. Secondly, he was concerned with the snowmobilers coming through the Green Acres area in a careless manner or at excessive speeds. He read various sections of the Minnesota Snowmobile Safety Rules and Regulations stating these rules were being violated during the last snowfall, including persons under 14 years of age operating the snowmobiles. He suggested the municipality look into regulating these activities on city streets before someone gets hurt. He called the Sheriff when it was happening, but he didn't see anyone come to investigate. He did talk to Buster Talbot the next day, who stated he would patrol the area after the next snowfall. He again expressed the seriousness of the problem in Green Acres and wanted the Council to be aware of the situation. Attorney Hawkins stated that unless the City has a prohibition of snowmobiles, they are allowed ønmunicipal streets but not on County roads. However, they still have to follow the traffic code, and carelessness would be a traffic violation. Discussion on Mr. Abbott's first concern was that the area should be posted for whatever the speed limit is so the people are aware. Mr. Schrantz was directed to look into this further. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Agenda as published with the Additlon of Item 5j, Maintenance on l49th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - HANSON BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT, 82-16 (Councilman Jacobson stepped down to the audience as he has an economic connection with one of the parties involved.) Pursuant to public notice thereof, Acting Mayor Orttel called the Public Hearing for the Hanson Bouelvard Improvement to order. He gave a brief review of the joint City/ County project, noting the purpose of the hearing is to explain the project and proposed assessment. Mr. Schrantz reviewed the feasibility report for Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, explaining it is the City's policy to assess 100 percent of the right-of-way costs to the benefitted property owners along MSA streets or County State Aid roads. The only City costs in this project were the right-of-way acquisition costs. He reviewed a map outlining the area of benefit of the improvement, explaining the assessment is based on the area of land opened up by this improvement, excluding the land along Bunker Lake and Andover Boulevards and along the creek. The total City cost of the project was $43,641, and the cost per acre for residential land has been determined to be $139.83 per acre and $279.66 for commercial and industrial property. -- Regular City Council Meetlng December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) The Hearing was then opened to public testimony. Walter Vosika, Parcel 3000 - stated he could come into his property from Bunker Lake road. Also, a good portion of his land has been classified as swampland by Anoka County, and he doesn't pay taxes for that 40 acres. Secondly, the only place he could get to his land from off Hanson Boulevard would be about an 8-foot drop from the high bank, then over the high land and into the other 40 to get to his house. It is shorter going through Bunker Lake Boulevard. He also stated the figures he received from the City office are different from what the Engineer presented. He then reviewed his figures for what people were paid for their land: Hupp, $1,865 for 3.73 acres, approximately $500 an acre; Wayne Sorenson, $18,860 for, 4.48 acres, approximately $4,000 an acre; Waste Disposal, $7,760 for 3.79 acres. He fe It the pri ce of $44',000 could have been reduced and felt an excessive amount was paid to Waste Disposal. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated the total land costs were $37,000, questioning Mr. Vosika's figures.) Mr. Anderson, 1653 Andover Boulevard - wanted to see the City's figures. (The figures paid each owner were shown, explaining the amount paid was according to the appraisal. Several in the audience shouted that was wrong, stating they were paid in the range of $500 to $4,000 an acre.) Mr. Anderson - stated why doesn't the City rent the new road out as a drag strip. He doesn't need it nor the new extension being proposed. Bill Hupp, Parcel 7300 - was paid $1,865 for his 3.73 acres at an approximate rate of $500 an acre. He is being assessed for 17.34 acres. He didn't want the road in the first place. Secondly, in talking with the City representatives, they said it is a necessity the road go through because there is too much traffic on the arterial highways, and this would better control traffic. His question was who benefits. It is fine if the City needs the highway, but he stated he doesn't benefit. The maj or ity of his land is low or undevelopable, but he is being told he benefits from it; and he didn't see the rationale for that. In the past these costs were borne by the City; it was considered a City project for the betterment of the City. Everybody has to pay for their land, and he felt it is false to say the only people who own property along the road are benefitted by it. But he was under the impression that he didn't have a ~ay in it because the City would condemn the property whether he wanted to cooperate or not. He asked how the City could change its policy from not assessing on such streets to assessing adjoining landowners, especially when the road was paid for by the County and the only City expense was the cost of the right of way. He didn't see the rationale for taking the land from them when most of them didn't want the road to begin with, then turning around and taxing them more than what they received to begin with, taking land costs plus administrative and taxing it against a very few select people in this instance. He only uses the road once a week. A car he had sitting on his property has been ransacked and parts stolen from it since the road was constructed. People have been coming on his property. Debris has been blowing onto his property from the landfill. He was having a hard time finding the benefit he is getting from the road. To him it is a detriment. Mr. Hupp went on to say he gave his land for $500 an acre because he didn't want to bother with it; but others have been paid up to $4,000 an acre. And now he is being taxed for more than what he got out of it, which in essence is saying he gives his land and then he pays for the road as well. (Acting Mayor Orttel noted the cost of the road was something over half a million dollars, and that is not what is being assessed. He stated there is a benefit to high developable land in having this road past it, possibly not the lowland which needs to be addressed further. There has been discussion for several years about whether or not costs should be assessed on MSA streets, as Andover is about the only city that does not assess those roads as streets. Normally they are assessed what a -- Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) normal street would cost and anything over and above that would be absorbed by the City. The City's policy is the actual street construction would not be assessed because there is somewhat of a nuisance factor that goes with the improvement. So the agreement was to assess that portion of the project that would come out of the General Fund, legal and engineering costs, and the right-of-way costs, which would amount to a minimal assessment. The City gets reimbursed from the Municipal State Aid fund for actual land costs, which are State funds from taxpayers throughout the State. The City is allotted only so much of the State funds for construction each year throughout the City. Other cities assess these streets as a means of making the funds stretch further to be able to build more road. Of the $43,641, approximately $32,000 were reimbursed from State Aid funds. The remainder came from the City's General Fund.) Mr. HU1~ - asked if the property owners along Prairie Road were assessed. Will the speed lmit change in the future? (Mr. Schrantz stated the policy is only to assess for right-of-way acquisition; and for the last project done on Prairie Road no right-of-way acquisition was needed. Acting Mayor Orttel again explained the City has the option of assessing the entire street on these projects, but the City has taken the attitude not to do that. In other cities that is done as a matter of course. All municipal street projects done within the City are assessed 100 percent against the property owners, and those projects are ordered when there is a majority in favor of the project. There are laws that affect the speed limits and the housing density. The speed 1 imits c.are contro lled by the County. Councilman Lachinski reviewed how the assessment policy came about, feeling there is some benefit even to the farmers and developable land.) Mr. Hupp - according to the policy, that person is the sole beneficiary of this road. The people throughout the rest of the City that are using the road are also benefitting. (Councilman Lachinski stated the road is intended to have high-volume traffic. One of the policies in the past was on such roads a frontage road would be required to limit the number of accesses onto it. One of the things the Council determined was that a frontage road would not be required if the property was to be assessed, because a frontage road would take away that benefit. He felt if the property owners would donate the property for these types of streets, that would be enough of a gift to the City so there would not be an assessment. There wouldn't have to be any cost. There will be a benefit either way whether it is donated or not. The idea was to make the assessment about equal to what the property owner was paid.) Mr. Hupp - stated the City wants free land for the project. The benefit is not only to the property owner but to the City as a whole, and the City is compensated for it. (Councilman Lachinski stated it can also be looked at that is a small amount to pay for the benefit being derived from the· street. The City only gets about $200,000 a year MSA funds or less, which doesn't build very much road. It is felt this is just a token assessment to assess just right-of-way costs. Acting Mayor Orttel stated Mr. Hupp as a little different situation than what was contemplated in the policy, but that will be looked at at the assessment hearing. If the land does not benefit, the attitude has been not to assess. But that would be in relation to the soils condition, and Mr. Hupp may have a case on that point. Anyone who has developable land, at some time when the land is brought to a higher use than it has today that person would be required to build the roads, pay for them, and donate them and the land to the City.) Mr. HuPg - interpreted the policy to mean the City doesn't believe the people who own the lan should be reimbursed for it. The road is a benefit for the City, the land is being taken from the people for nothing, and then taxing for the construction of the road on top of that. Actually the entire City benefits from that road. He realized Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) the City is given so much for each individual road, but for him it makes more sense to spread the costs throughout the City. (Councilman Lachinski stated the MSA funds are coming from all the people, and the bulk of that street put in there came from MSA funds. Acting Mayor Orttel stated there is a direct and indirect benefit for such roads. The direct benefit goes to the adjoining property whose value is increased by that project. The indirect benefit is to everyone else who uses the road. If the land is useable where it abuts the road, there is a benefit.) Mr. HUfP - explained Mr. Allen, the City's appraiser, offered him one-half the initial cost 0 what the land was worth. He waited until the first hearing to find out the situation. When it was taken to court, another appraisal was done by Mr. Allen, and the assessment was for $500 an acre. He was upset because he only got $500 an acre for his land where no fill was needed for the road; but other areas were paid $3,000 to $4,000 an acre, and part of those parcels had to be dug out for the road construction. Then the power company donated their land, they were given a credit, which no one else was given; but that land was all low which added to the construc~~8n cost of the road. He felt in essence what has happened is the City stole his landJ now making him pay $1,400/$1,500 on top of that. And according to the City assesser, that land wasn't worth that much to begin with. (Attorney Hawkins clarified the procedure of acquiring right of way for such projects, that the engineers determine the amount of right of way needed from each property owner, an outside independent real estate appraiser is hired to value each parcel based on several factors, including zoning classification and suitability of the property for building. The prices are not uniform per acre because of the factors involved in determining the value and are not arbitrarily picked. Those offers are communicated to the property owner. Mr. Hupp did not feel that amount was a sufficient amount, stated Mr. Hawkins. The City cannot get in the position of negotiating, so the next alternative is to go through the court system, which has three independent real estate appraisers who set the value. The City went to court with Mr. Hupp, and the three" court-appointed appraisers set the value on Mr. Hupp's property at $SOO/acre. They also set the value on Mr. Vosika's property.) Mr. Hupp - stated he understood the process, but was opposed to the assessment now. He wasn't able to negotiate once the $SOO/acre was set and to take it to the next step would cost the City money. He let it go just to have the situation finished, until this came up. He asked if Mr. Hawkins felt there was a consistency in the amount paid for the land. (Mr. Schrantz explained the proposed assessment roll is based on an area assessment, stating the Council will take into consideration any low or undevelopable land at the assessment hearing. Changes can be made prior to the adoption of the assessment roll. It was felt the area assessment was more fair and equitable than the front-footage basis. The land along the creek and the southwestern portion behind the creek of Mr. Hupp's property was not considered in the assessment.) Mr. HU~ - again stated according to ,what the City assesser's evaluation was and what he lS eing assessed, he felt the inequity is obvious. (Acting Mayor Orttel felt there should be a relationship between what the land is being assessed and what it is worth now. And part of that has been taken into consideration, as the properties with the largest assessments are the ones who received the higher per/acre payment for the right of way because they are commercial property and are worth more.) Mr. Hupp - stated but the commercial areas faught the acquisition, which increased the admlnistrative, engineering, and attorney's costs for the project. (Attorney Hawkins replied the only two that were'appealed were Mr. Hupp's and Mr. Vosika's Everybody else settled on the price appraised by Mr. Allen. He then reviewed the amOllnts paid for the right of way, stating Mr. Scherer was paid $1,328/acre. All the rest of the properties were appraised at $2,000 an acre. Mr. Hupp's was appraised at $SOO/acre. Mr. Vosika appealed and the three court-appointed appraisers estabJished a value of $2,OOO/acre. Mr. Vosika then appealed the case, but the City offered an extra $700 to settle the case, which Mr. Vosika accepted.) Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) Mr. Hupp - asked the zoning on the City dump and what was paid on that property. (Resldential. $2,OOO/acre.) He's three blocks away from the dump and wondered if anyone would want to purchase his property or live next to the dump. He's concerned with the assessment versus what he was paid for his property, because he is paying more for the assessment than what he was paid for his land. (Mr. Schrantz stated the City was trying to be fair in its acquisition of the right of way by paying on the value of the land. And the assessment policy is also trying to be fair in assessing the benefit, realizing the property increases in value due to the improvement.) Mr. Hupp - also pointed out this process is being done after the fact. The right of way was purchased and nothing was said about an assessment; the road was constructed and after the fact assessed when in the past there was no assessment. (Councilman Lachinski stated it has always been the Council's intention to assess at least a portion of this road. And it has always been his thought that MSA roads should be at least partially assessed. Prairie Road was a special case because the people were told at the public hearings that there would be no assessment. He did feel there may be some inequities. The landfill was paid $2,000 an acre, but even though it is zoned residential, they have a special use permit to do commercial business and it is an on-going business. There are two properties at R-4 -- Mr. Hupp's at $SOO/acre and another at $l,328/acre. It was the intention of the Council to give credit to donated property. He felt that inequity should be checked into. Attorney Hawkins stated the reason the value was lower for Mr. Hupp is because it is mostly low, swampy land. The other property is all high, developable land. Councilman Lachinski stated possibly that could be looked into and base the assessment on the developable land. It is the intent to be as equitable as possible in this process.) Mr. Hup~ - stated there is something wrong with the process and felt now is the time to get lt worked out and to find out who benefits by that road. I If it's the people who use the road, the City as a whole should pay for it as it is a City benefit. (Councilman Lachinski also noted by law the City is not allowed to assess property for more than the benefit to the property. But it is the feeling of the Council that the benefits far, far exceed what the assessment would be, assuming it is being done in an equitable way.) Mr. Hupp- stated according to the $SOO/acre appraisal, it isn't. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated the assessment doesn't have to do with the dollar value of the property but with the conditions of the property. If his is low, there would be an adjustment to the assessment; but that decision would be made at the assessment hearing and not this evening.) John Scherer, 1560 Andover Boulevard - read a statement to the Council and also provlded a copy of that statement for the records. He formally objected to assessing landowners along Hanson Boulevard for the City costs in the road construction feeling the proposal by the City Council doesn't reflect the cost/benefit principal. The road was constructed as a benefit to the City because no one in the area was asking for it. To apply the principal of cost/benefit, the many other people who benefit should share in those costs through taxing or use of MSA funds. In this instance, the benefits to the landowners along the road are speculative and remote and not obvious or immediate. To assume there will be developmental land is speculative and those who own the land didn't make the investment for that purpose. The ability to weather the increased assessment to wait for future development is also a factor and a worry for him. With this assessment and possibly sanitary sewer in the future, the costs would be prohibitive; and he felt he would not be able to develop his land and make a profit on it. Not only is land to be taken into consideration, but the kind of people who live there; so he didn't think too much stock should be put into the assumption that they should pay taxes because they will benefit financially. Thirdly, ., , Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) the nature of the road is arterial. Mr. Scherer felt the primary purpose of the road is not for development, as there is very little developable land in the parcels being assessed. He admitted there is a potential benefit for him to be able to split off lots on his property, but the street was built not to open up areas of the City but primarily to be able to reach other parts of the City. So passing on the total assessment to those living along the road is not a fair way of doing it. His fourth reason for objecting to the road is the policy to assess the landowners was not part of the original discussions on it, as he had the feeling from working on the P & Z that there was not the intent to assess. If the Council was intending to assess, it was never made claer to him. Mr. Vosika - asked why the landfill area isn't zoned commercial or industrial. (Council allowed Mr. Scherer to finish first.) Mr. Scherer - the fifth reason he objected is he felt future benefits are speculative ~d ~~~. The rea] cost to him has been a dramatic increase of trespassers coming onto his property because they now have access, which damages the seedling trees. The bike riders have been a real problem for him, plus hunters have been in· that area. There has also been dumping in the area. His crop is Christmas trees, and he felt he would be bothered with thieves from Thanksgiving to Christmas every year, which wasn't a problem before. The City purchased 1.5 acres, the best of his pasture, and he can no longer have cattle, which is a loss to him personally. He felt the benefit is to far more than the adjoining landowners and he was concerned with the inequity of the pro- posal. (Councilman Lachinski clarified that no one got $4,OOO/acre for their property. Only one parcel received more than $2,OOO/acre, which was Mr. Vosika.) Mr. Scherer - stated that is not the argument. The question is whether or not to assess the landowners is the right thing to do. In his opinion it is not fair because it ignores who benefits, as a lot of people benefit who do not live along the road. (Acting Mayor Orttel clarified the pOlicy is not just for roads done on a joint venture with the County but for all MSA roads. It means that on a City MSA road, 90 or better percent would be borne by the City at large and the right-of-way co~ts would be as~essed. In this case, about 6 percent of the total project costs are being assessed to the property owners. The rest is being borne by the City and State in general because the Municipal State Aid monies come back from the State after being paid by the taxpayers.) Mr. Scherer - stated the principal ignores the principal that the fewer the number of people the street serves, the more the people at large benefit. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated it is not an arbitrary figure but just right-of-way acquisition costs. He agreed with Mr. Scherer's statement that the benefit goes to other than the abutting property owners, and only about 6 or 7 percent of this project is being assessed to the property owners.) Mr. Scherer - was talking about the City costs being borne soley by landowners. He sees it as being a City cost, and the City is choosing to pass all of its costs onto the abutting landowners. (Councilman Lachinski stated for all City street projects, the costs are borne 100 percent by the property owners unless it is an MSA street. There is both indirect and direct benefit on MSA streets. In this instance, about 93 percent of that street cost is an indirect benefit and should be paid by all, and about 7 percent is a direct benefit and should be paid by abutting property owners. Councilman Peach stated the majority of the costs were from County State Aid funds, and the residents of the City pay those taxes; so they did pay for the majority of that road.) Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard Improvement, 82-16, Continued) Ken Heil, 1425 Andover Boulevard - is not being assessed but is adjacent to Mr. Scherer's property. He questloned using an acreage basis for taxation, asking what would happen if the road were go to past l50-foot lots and past large amounts of undeveloped land. He didn't feel most people wanted to develop their land, that they moved out here because of the rural qualities, not because it is a City. $37,000 of the cost were reimbursed by MSA funds, and this is the first MSA road being assessed. He stated that money will be collected from six property owners and put into the General Fund. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated the money has to go back into MSA funds and spent only on other Municipal State Aid projects.) Mr. Heil - stated then those funds will be used to construct other roads that are a beneflt for everyone. It is an arterial road, feeling a frontage road would be needed if the property were developed. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated they would be able to access onto the highway subject to the County rules. 330-foot lots are allowed. If no access were allowed, the City would be hardpressed to assess, a1thou9h with the fraction of the construction costs being assesed, the property would still have that benefit. ) Mr. Heil - stated he has eight acres where his residence is and 20 acres behind Mr. Scherer I s 1 and. If it upgrades Mr. Scherer\s land,he stated it upgrades his also. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated his land does not benefit because it is still landlocked and he is not able to access onto the new road.) Mr. Heil - stated Mr. Hupp's land is swampland. He asked how long it will be before someone can build on the dump. It may be zoned residential, but it is very unfeasible to build on it, suggesting it will become a City park. He stated Mr. Vosika's land is low, and he has four acres south of the creek which has no access to it. The land is to their benefit, purchasing it because they wanted open areas. He didn't think the people being assessed deserve to accept all the responsibility for the cost of the road. (Acting Mayor Orttel again explained it is the City's right to assess the entire costs of MSA streets, but chose to assess only right-of-way acquisition. The remaining costs are borne by the residents at large.) Mr. Heil - stated the City paid the owners for the land and is now assessing them, WhlCh lS not even tax deductible. The City took more away than what they are getting back. Who can afford to develop this land, so how do they really benefit? Because Mr. Vosika happens to own 40 acres of land, the City is going to penalize him. He's a farmer. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated agricultural land can be deferred.) Mr. Heil - stated the costs should be passed on to the future people who will develop the land. What if the current property owner does not want to develop the land or wants to wait 20 years before developing it? (Acting Mayor Orttel stated Green Acres provides for that on agricultural land; as by deferring the assessment, the benefit would be realized at the time it would be developed and that is when the assessment would be paid for. The only way to make sure the benefit is passed onto the individual who develops the property is to attach the assessment to the land.) Mr. Heil - stated if it is found that one person's benefit is not as much as the proposed assessment, then the remaining property owners would have an increased assessment to make up the difference. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated it doesn't have to increase anybody elses, because the benefit to the others doesn't necessary go up if the benefit to another goes down. The intention is to recover all the City's costs, but it isn't mandatory that that be done. That too would be decided at the assessment heari ng. ) Mr. Heil - again stated he felt it is not fair that the six property owners pay for the costs that the City duly deserves. If the people were paid for their land, don't take it away from them. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated the City purchased an easement Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 8 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard, 82-16,' Continued) over an area that duplicated another easement that had already been purchased and paid for some years ago. Councilman Lachinski asked Mr. Heil if he would be in favor of not assessing these people and taking that $40,000 and putting it on the tax rolls of the City of Andover.) Mr. Heil - stated yes he would (applause from the audience). (Acting Mayor Orttel noted that's just one road. Times that by all the different roads.) Mr. Heil - then if the City doesn't have the money, don't build (applause from the audience) . The people knew what was here when they came; they can use the existing streets. If the City doesn't use the funds, turn them back to a city who can use them. Or use the funds to maintain the existing streets. (Council noted the funds are needed in this City and that there are restrictions as to how those funds can be used. Also, it would not be fair to the residents of Andover who paid those taxes to return them.) Mr. Heil - stated the road is a drag strip with people coming onto their land. They cannot be stopped except for fences, and he cannot fence by the creek, expressing his frustration with the bikers using his bridge as a loop to go back to the road. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard - felt that a feasibility study should be done before something lS built, not after the fact. He felt there was no rationale for assessing costs back for a County road. He's not directly affected by this project but will be as it is extended north of Andover Boulevard. He also stated the "crooks" hired by UPA to acquire the land for the power lines originally offered $20 across a 40. And when the landowners wouldn't settle, they offered $100 across a 40. He a 1 so noted that everyone should be sitting in back like Councilman Jacobson, because UPA is a co-op and everyone is served by Anoka Electric, which means everyone is a stockholder in UPA. When the land from Waste Disposal was purchased by the City it was considered commercial because there is a Special Use Permit on it, and the top rate was paid for the right of way. He stated when it is being assessed, that area is being considered residential and is being assessed at the lower rate. (Council noted that appears to be correct and should be reviewed again.) Mr. Holasek - also noted lS7th is being done ~Iithout an assessment because it will stay wlthln the existing right of way. In order to stay within that right of way, a street standard with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer must be used at a higher con- struction cost. (Council noted storm sewer will not be used on l57th as they wi 11 be using curb cuts to drain the water. Also, in this instance, the construction costs for concrete curb and gutter was less than for a rural standard.) Mr. Holasek - stated his point is the right-of-way costs ' would be needed for a rural standard and would have been assessed back to the people as is being done in this case; therefore, he felt the extra costs for curb and gutter should be assessed. The same MSA funds are being used regardless of whether more right of way is acquired or curb and gutter is being constructed. He didn't believe it was a good policy to receive no assessment for donated land and didn't feel it is born out in actual practice because UPA is still receiving a $2,666 assessment for donated land. (Councilman Lachinski stated if all the land needed for the project were donated, there would be no assessment to anyone; but if land needed to be acquired, all adjoining property owners would have to pay something.) Mr. Hupp - asked if the pOlicy was in effect before the project began. (Acting Mayor Orttel stated the policy was in effect during the project.) Mr. Holasek - stated for the next extension, three property owners would have about 3/4 of the land involved. From talking with those people, if this project is assessed, they are all totally opposed to any further extension of Hanson Boulevard. He too Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 10 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard, 82-16, Continued) assessing the people this way. He's not involved in this project, but he is opposed to the way the entire matter was handled. He felt the hearings should have been held prior to the construction and the people told what is going to be done. He a 1 so asked about the drainage for the park area. He thought the culverts were placed so the water would have to run up hill. (Council stated that will have to be looked at to determine if it was constructed per the plans or if the plans were correct.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to close the public input portion of the Public Hearlng. Motion carried on a 3-Yes vote (Councilman Jacobson not voting). Council discussion was that with the absence of the Mayor and one Councilmember not being able to participate in the debate, it was felt a decision of this nature should not be made by three Councilmembers. It was felt the policy could be reviewed again prior to making the final decision, as there are special concerns that should be considered with public input such as this evening. Attorney Hawkins advised the Council must make its decision within six months of the hearing this evening. It was fe 1t that because both of the Councilmen-elect were present this evening to witness the public testimony, that the hearing be carried to next year to allow a full Council to make the decision. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we continue the Public Hearing for Hanson Boulevard between County Road 116 and County Road 16 until the Second Regularly scheduled Meeting in January, 1983. Motion carried on a 3-Yes vote (Councilman Jacobson not voting). Recess at 9:37; reconvene at 9:41 p.m. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we suspend the rules for the remainder of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/M. BAKKER MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution approving the variance request of Marlus Bakker to construct storage buildings closer to the front lot line than the principal structure as required in Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R107~82) Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/D. CARLSON P & Z Chairman d'Arcy Bosell explained a misunderstanding occurred in the conversation between Mr. Carlson and the Building Inspector, and the garage ended up being closer to the road than the principal building. Dean Carlson - stated the map in the Agenda material was the one drawn up by the Building Inspector as a result of their conversation. He neglected to look at the drawing and Mr. Almgren neglected to show it to him. He did not get a copy of that:"map. Council discussion was on the events which took place and the misunderstanding that occurred per Dave Almgren's memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated October 28, 1982. It was felt the original drawing was correct, which should be clarified in the Resolution. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, enter a Resolution approving the variance request of Dean Carlson for the construction of a garage nearer the front lot line than the principal structure on Plat 65924, Parcel 2430, and change the fourth WHEREAS in the Resolution presented to the City Council that the apparent reason for the mis- location of the building was due to a misunderstanding on the City's part as to the desired location by the property owner. (See Resolution R108-82) Motion carried unanimous ly. Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 9 (Public Hearing - Hanson Boulevard, 82-16, Continued) is opposed if it is going to be assessed. It's a County road; and once it is extended to Crosstown, the traffic will more than double on it, predicting even more traffic when it is all completed because there are no other good north-south arteries in the City. And the nuisance value for such a road far outweighs any benefits received, relating incidences of picking up junk, etc., along Prairie Road. He felt this process being considered by the City is very challengable. Mr. Anderson - stated from what he has seen this evening, there appears to be a lack of concerrïlJy the Council for these people. He was curious how many acres each Councilman owned in the City. (Acting Mayor Orttel, approximately 3~ acres; Council- man Lachinski, approximately 1/3 acre; Councilman Peach, approximately 6 acres. Acting Mayor Orttel noted their assessment for their property and for what Councilman Peach paid when he lived in the southern portion of the City are substantially more than what is being assessed to any of these individuals. He didn't feel land area could be equated to anything.) Mr. Anderson - stated it seems the point of the meeting is to assess a few for the benefit of many, and he thought that was deplorable. percf Tomlinson, Santa's Tree Farm - stated this road is a main thoroughfare and will bene lt the entlre Clty, lncluOTñg the communities to the north as well. Perhaps the road will appreciate some properties, but it will be a detriment from the value in other cases. If the road is continued next year, it will have a significant impact on the property he represents. There will be 1/2 mile of property that will be exposed to everybody coming in that will do a lot of harm to their product, Christmas trees. He felt it is an inequitable distribution to expect the people who happen to have property along the road to pay for the total expense. He felt it would be more equitable if the City as a whole picked up a large part of that. If the assessment policy is applied to the next extension of the road, he stated he would be forced to challenge the legality of this process because it could very well put him out of business. Bob En~leking, Santa's Tree Farm - to put the inequity of this in focus, he asked what would appen if a person owned a 200-foot parcel running for 1/2 mile on the road. If the City takes 150 feet of it and assesses it, they would end up with land that has virtually no use. If the entire parcel was purchased, who would be assessed? (Acting Mayor Orttel stated if the property~is such that it is no longer usable, the City would owe for the property.) Mr. Englekinfi - also felt this seems extremely inequitable to tax only six people when so many are enefitting. He asked the total City costs related to this project. ($43,641 which is being assessed to the six property owners.) So nothing is being borne by the rest of the people. (Council noted the majority of the cost of that project is being borne by the taxpayers.) Mr. Engleking - stated all the rest of the people benefitting from that road are being assessed zero dollars for the City's costs. (Correct.) He felt that is a great inequity to these people. If that should continue, he stated it would be a tremendous disadvantage to their tree farm. They have no plans for development of their property, as they do not have the money to develop it at this time. They want their kids to grow up learning the process of running a tree farm and a business and taking an active part in that, not because they will get rich off of it. The road going through will primarily benefit the entire City. And taking their land away and charging more than what they are reimbursed doesn't seem like an equitable way of doing it. Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard NW - stated the City only had 24 feet of roadway along Prairie Road at one time, questioning the statement that no right of way was purchased for that project. In looking at the 1974 Anoka County thoroughfare map, this road is definitely a thoroughfare. The road is needed, but he felt it was really unfair Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 11 SPECIAL USE PERMIT/DOWNTOWN DELI Council reviewed the Planning Commissiøil's recCiJJ11mendation to approve the amended Special Use Permit requested by Frank Padula to allow the seating of 20 persons maximum and five tables in the deli. Frank Padula - acknowledged the deli does nothav~dishwashing facilities that would meet the requirements of a restaurant, and the intention is to use disposal plates and utinse ls. Chairman Bosell noted there are no cooking facilities on the premises either. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving the Special Use Permit amendment to allow for the placing of tables for eating purposes at the Downtown Deli at 3131 l6lst Avenue Northwest as presented. (See Resolution R1D9-82) Motion carried unanimously. SIGN PERMIT/DOWNTOWN DELI Chairman Bosell explained the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the sign permit in a residential area as there are no provisions allowing for a variance to erect this sign. She stated P & R ~roperties requested the sign permit, paid for it, and owned the property at the time of the application. The application filled out by the City states JJ's Bottle Boutique, but the draft and property owner were P & R Properties. The ordinance does not allow such signs within 75 feet of a residential district. Council discussion was the application for a sign permit was taken out on April 28, but the City notified Mr. Padula on May 5 that the sign was not allowed in the district. It was also brought out that many contractors who work in the City do not feel permits are required for anything in the rural area of the City, and SignCrafters told Mr. Padula that a sign permit was not needed. That is a problem which makes some of the citizens victims. Mr. Padula presented Chairman Bosell with a statement from SignCrafters stating the work for the sign was ordered and completed on April 28, 1982. Chairman Bosell reported in the process of installing the sign, Mr. Padula asked SignCrafters if they had received a sign permit from the City. SignCrafters stated no permit was needed; so that is when Mr. Reimann came to the City Hall to apply for the sign permit. The Commission talked a little about allowing commercial signs in residential areas, but reached no conclusion. It is proposed that the ordinances will be redrafted in the coming months. Attorney Hawkins stated while that section of the ordinance does not allow a variance, he felt it has been the policy of the City in the past if something has been done in error as a result of misinformation or mistake by City officials, that the City has considered that a hardship not related to the land. He stated if the Council feels that is the situation here, he believed that would be sufficient basis for a variance. Chairman Bosell stated there were some residents at the first meeting of the Commission. One person was opposed to the sign loation as he didn't like it and could see it from hi shouse. Another didn't like the sign but was also opposed to the deli and liquor storein the neighborhood. Mr. Padula - stated the sign is down now because it was being repaired, but the pole is sti 11 there. Councilman Lachinski felt that some period of time could be given to move the sign to another location. Councilman Peach stated there is a hardship of the land as traffic coming from the south on Round Lake Boulevard do not know the establish- ments are on County Road 20 because of the trees. And the nature of this business is to have advertising. The purpose of the sign is to provide that visibility. Chairman Bosell noted Mr. Padula does not own the property south of County Road 20 that blocks visibility of his establishment. Councilman Jacobson had a problem with the fact that the permit and installation of the ~ign were done on the same day. The sign had to have been ordered in advance, and he felt the permit should have been applied for in advance as well to be sure it was allowed. -, Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 12 (Sign Permit/Downtown Deli, Continued) Mr. Padula - stated he was told no sign permit is needed in the rural area. And such mistakes are made and the City has given variances for these mistakes. They came in with good intentions to get the sign permit. He applied for the permit as soon as SignCrafters had told them they had not applied· for a permit. Councilman Peach stated in driving down County Road 9 yesterday, he counted 33 signs in the residential area, excluding the shopping center and the commercial property off County Roads 9 and 20. He guessed only one or two had permits, and this is the only one the City is now asking to have taken down. He suggested approving the sign because of the error for six months pending revisions of the ordinance. Counci lman Jacobson felt if there are complilints about the other signs, it should be treated exactly like this one. If changes are desired in the ordinances, they should be changed; but until they are, they should be enforced and not varied from. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution denying the request by Frank Padula to install an advertising sign on residential property in the City of Andover on Lot 2, Block 4, Pine Hills Addition, as presented by City Staff. AMENDMENT TO MOTI0N by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to allow a period of one year for the removal of the sign due to an oversight on the City's part for issuing the sign permit, that the one-year period should be adequate time to have the sign moved to a different and proper location. (See Resolution RllO-82) VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Jacobson Amendment carried. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. AG PRESERVE ELIGIBILITY AND REZONING/J. EVELAND MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution establishing eligibility and approving a rezoning to AgP as requested by Janett Eveland for that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 32, Range 24, in the City of Andover as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution Rlll-82) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the question of requiring Mrs. Eveland to pay $150 for the rezoning since this parcel was included in her original request; but due to the provisions of the ordinance at that time, the Commission and Council were not able to consider it. The Clerk reported that portion of the tape where the Council discussed the question of whether or not to charge the filing fee for the rezoning within the MUSA area was unclear and no definite decision had been made. Councilman Lachinski felt Mrs. Eveland shouldn't get charged twice just because there was a period of time that the City needed to approve the Capital Improvements Plan and the ordinance changed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the second J. Eveland request for rezoning, the charges be refunded because the reason for the second rezoning request was due to delays which were caused by the City. DISCUSSION: Councilman Jacobson stated when Mrs. Eveland applied, this parcel was not permitted. He had no problem with the rezoning; but this is a new parcel, a new publication date, it was not allowed before and now is, and there are extra costs incurred. Therefore, he felt the fee should be paid. Mrs. Eveland is getting a benefit from the rezoning, and he felt the City should not be incurring costs that benefit her. Councilman Peach felt the reason this could not be considered at the time of the first request is because of the Council's inability to make a decision. Acting Mayor Orttel stated the Council decided to base its decision on the approval of the sanitary sewer plan and capital improvements plan, but it could have allowed AgP in the MUSA area at any time. He questioned the immediate gain of Mrs. Eveland by the rezoning, thinki~g the savings would not recover the amount of the filing fee for quite some time. Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 13 (Ag Preserve Eligibility and Rezoning/J. Eveland, Continued) Don Eveland, 14744 Crosstown Boulevard - stated at the last meeting it was Councilman Jacobson who stated the flling fee should not be paid again. Councilman Jacobson stated he did not remember saying that. Councilman Peach ADDED TO THE MOTION: and due to a prior Council commitment. Second stands. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. SKETCH PLAN/LAKEVIEW VILLA Council reviewed the sketch plan of Lakeview Villa, a proposal for multiple unit development on 6.6 acres on the southeast side of Round Lake. Larr{ Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Associates, representing Elktoka, the partnership deve oplng the project - stated the developers are proposing twin homes and putting in a much less dense configuration than what was originally proposed. They are proposing 34-unit twin homes. They are asking for concept approval for the proposed density, that public sewer and water be available, and for private streets. The developer is interested in forming an Association. The lots would be sold to the homeowners and maintenance of the entire 6.6 acres would be maintained by the Association of which the homeowners would be members. They would provide internal drainage to the pond and grade the site to meet the requirements of the flood plain. It would be an FHA proj ect. Council discussion was because it is coming in under a PUD, there is some flexibility in the normal zoning. It was generally felt that private streets would not be allowed, and suggested talking with the County about the location of the exists onto County Road g. It was also noted the cul de sac is very long. An item of major concern is the lack of parkland in that area. Mr. Koshak asked if land was dedicated for park, their concern would be if that land could be counted for the density. It was suggested the developers speak with the Park Board; because if the funds generated are large enough, they may consider purchasing land in that area for a park. Mr. Koshak stated because of the lowland there will be a substantial amount of regrading on s 1 te . Councilman Peach was concerned with the high density in such a small area near a flood plain, questioning what impact that would have on the area. Mr. Koshak stated the lake is ground water level and the 100-year flood level is at 870. The buildings are at 871. There is a fair amount of material in front. The pre liminary design on the land shows it is feasible. It was suggested the developers talk with the City Engineer about the availability of public sewer and water facilities. Mr. Schrantz stated water is at l40th Lane and Ms. Sonsteby has just recently petitioned for water. He estimated it would cost about $60,000 to run the water trunk to l44th Avenue to this property. He stated the Council will need to decide if the other properties along Round Lake will be assessed for the trunk extension when it is installed or to not assess until the time of connection. Mr. Koshak stated Elktoka owns the undeveloped property across Round Lake Boulevard; and should this project be successful, they would be interested in petitioning for sewer and water for that property as well. Council agreed this decision would have to be made by a full Council, probably by the new Council after the first of the year, although it was suggested an assessment be made so the City wouldn't have to carry those costs. Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 14 (Sketch Plan/Lakeview Villa, Continued) Discussion returned to the issue of the private roads. Mr. Koshak stated if they would have to dedicate the 60-foot right of way throu~ there, the development concept would not meet the ordinance setbacks, etc. He wasn't talking about compromising the width of the road; it's the public right of way and setbacks. Council suggested there is some flexibility in the ordinance for PUDs to vary from the setback require- ment, suggesting some compromise may be worked out. DEDICATION OF EASEMENT/W. RADEMACHER MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council, City of Andover, accept the dedication of easements from Andover Partners, Suite 350, 2925 Dean Parkway, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as presented to the City Council on the Seventh Day of December, 1982, and referencing easements Numbers -1, 2, and 3 from Orr-Schelene- Mayeron Engineering Firm outlining the exact legal description of said easements. Motion carried unanimously. VACATION OF EASEMENT/R. SONSTEBY Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request of Rosella Sonsteby for a vaction of an easement. She stated essentially there have been no changes with the circumstances surrounding the situation since the previous requests. To resolve the issue, the Commission recommended the City Engineer place "No Parking" signs on the length and width of the easement. Jim Neilson, Attorney representing Rosella Sonsteby - stated the question was not what was ln the final resolution from the P & Z on October 26, 1982, nor their resolution of October 22, 1980. Both of those resolutions pertain to a strip. of land 10.89 feet in width, and not to the easement at all. That easement is on the north 33 feet of the south 33 acres of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29. He went on to say that easement was created by a deed that had a termination portion, reading a copy of the deed to the Council. The deed, dated November 12, 1941, provided when and if said tract of land shall cease to be used for road or cartway purposes, then the easement shall cease and title revert to the party of the first part. That deed was from the owner of the entire quarter quarter, Lappins, to the Town of Grow. That 33-foot strip of land was never maintained by the Town of Grow nor by the City of Andover. The court cases refer to the 10.89-foot strip of land and merely provide that the Hagens had a prescriptive easement over a portion. The parties to the south might have a right to use it, but the question is does the City of Andover still have a public road. Mr. Neilson argued that the City has never used the road and that it has reverted back to the owners pursuant to the deed. He was of the understanding that all the previous vacation requests were for the easterly 429 feet of the easement and not to the balance of it. They definitely want the westerly portion which abuts the Hagen property to be vacated at this time, stating there is no question that nobody has ever used it as trees are growing in the easement. He requested the City to go on record as not maintaining the road, that it is no longer a public road, and that the interest of the public be served by vacating it. Councilman Jacobson disagreed with Mr. Neilson's interpretation of the deed, stating the deed refers to the use for road and cartway purposes but does not refer to the maintenance of the easement. Mr. Neilson agreed, but stated the maintenance gets into the question of whether it .1S a publìë road still pursuant to the 40-year law. Attorney Hawkins stated the question is the interpretation of the deed as to whether or not the City can exercise any additional rights over it other than accepting the easement. He was not in agreement with Mr. Neilson's interpretation. At this point he didn't think any conditions have changed indicating the City has used it for another purpose contrary to that reversionary provision. At the time it was given, it - - - Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 15 (Vacation of Easement/R. Sonsteby, Continued) wasn't developed; it was in an unnatural state. And it's a question of intent as to what the grantor intended. The issue before the Council is whether or not it is in the public interest to vacate that easement. Councilman Orttel stated it must be assumed that the use of the Hagen's structure is totally dependent on this easement being available to them. Rosella SOnS~ebY - answered Councilman Jacobson's question that she is coming in with the sketch p an for her property west of Round Lake Boulevard. Councilman Lachinski stated he would abstain from voting on this matter as Mr. Neilson is doing some personal work for him, and he felt there would be a conflict. Attorney Hawkins advised only a majority vote is needed on this matter. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, introduce'aResolution denying the request of Rosella Sonsteby to vacate a roadway easement in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 32, Range 24 in the City of Andover as presented by the City Clerk with the following THEREFORE added: To direct the City Engineer to install "No Parking" signs at 50-foot intervals along the easement. DISCUSSION: was on the sixth, seventh, eighth, and nineth WHEREAS in the proposed Resolution because it refers to action vacating the easement that was never actually done. Councilman Peach CHANGED MOTION: to delete the WHEREAS six, seven, eight, and nine which begin "The City Council did formally act to vacate that portion of the easement not used for ingress and egress" and concludes "the City Council is of the opinion that without such Plat the vacation is null and void"; and add WHEREAS the City Council has determined that vacation of said roadway easement is not in the best interest of the City of Andover; and decJete the last THEREFORE paragraph to install "No Parking" signs. (See Resolution Rl12-82) VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Lachinski Motion carried. MOTION uy Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Engineer be directed to install "No Parking" signs at 50-foot intervals along the easement across the Sonsteby property adjacent to the Hagen property west of County Road 9. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Lachinski Motion carried. Mr. Neilson - stated if the owner of the easement petitioned to improve that right of way, what would be the position of the City Council. Council noted a public hearing through the 429 procedure would be held as in any other improvement, although it would require buying additional property. The City probably would not allow the improvement of only a ~33-foot easement. MODIFICATION DF CONTOURS/LANDFILL Present were Bob Hutchinson, Anoka County Health Department; Ron Roth and Jerry Sunde, Waste Disposal Engineering; and residents from The Oaks and elsewhere. Mr. Hutchinson - stated the County has made no consideration for or against approval of the proposal. This was discussed at an Environmental Services Committee, but no action has been taken; nor will any action be taken by the County until the Council has a chance to consider it. The change requested is increasing the elevation of the easterly one-third of the site bringing the elevation on the south side to what is currently on the west end of it. Currently there would be a large flat area which precipitation would accumulate on and drain toward the north or northeast. Since that drawing was submitted over ten years ago, they have been finding some problems with large flat areas; and there is a continuing maintenance problem of the cover over the stepper edges of the slopes. He has come to the conclusion that some structure has to Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 16 (Modification of Contours/Landfill, Continued) be built to convey the water from the top to the low ground, not specifying the nature of that structure. He is convinced that large flat areas are not good. It hasn't started showing at this landfill as at some others, but the physical situation is very similiar. The proposal would reduce the amount of the flats on top and provide for a structure to convey the water down the steeper last step of the fill. In terms of the long-term effect of getting the water off the top, the proposal doesn't cause any problems and would tend to improve that aspect of it. Based on the current rate of matter coming in, the additional 90,000 yards would be about 11 months' worth. Mr. Roth - stated the overriding agreement with the City is to terminate in July, 1985. The tlming for the additional 11 months is dependent on the volume that can or cannot be controlled. Council questioned whether the same objective can be achieved without creating the additional expansion or with less expansion. Mr. Schrantz stated he shot the elevations of the landfill. He felt possibly a few feet could be removed from the proposal but not as much as he had originally thought. He stated the philosophy of the improvement is a good one. Mr. Roth - stated they are not proposing increasing the top of the landfill as those elevations have already been set. There is only a minimal amount of erosion at this time because some of the area has not received final cover; but once that is done, there will be a steady drain to the creek over the north slope. And unless they make an adjustment, he felt there would be an erosion problem in that area. Mr. Roth and Mr. Sunde reviewed the proposal of the construction of the ditch along the north slope to a culvert to drain the water to a lower level, explaining in detail the reasons for the fall of the ditch, and the specific elevations, grades, and slopes proposed in the various areas and the necessity of such grades. Council asked if the landfill is currently meeting all the legal requirements. Mr. Hutchinson - stated they are in terms of the day-to-day operation. The other issues are the payment of the Special Use Permit fee to the City of Andover and the leachate in the ground water. The material placed in the site in the past are impacting the chemical levels of the water. The waste put in the hazardous waste pit was put in legally. There also may be waste that was placed in other parts of the fill. The monitor does show some impact on the groundwater. Councilman Jacobson asked if in his professional opinion the landfill is a safe operation. Mr. Hutchinson replied none of the landfills within the metropolitan area are what he would conslder safe because none have a sealed leachate collection system. This operation does not have it, but that luxury was not available when the landfill began. He felt the operation has improved since the County has been involved; and the daily operation is much better than before. He pointed out the areas of the landfill that have already been capped which reduces the amonunt of precipitation entering the fill and in turn generating leachate. Councilman Jacobson asked if this fill and others are intrinsically not safe because of construction errors in the beginning, is the City then increasing the possible dangers by putting in another 90,000 yards to change the contours. Mr. Hutchinson said not really. The quantities talked about are rather small when compared wlth the rest of the landfill. Mr. Roth - stated in the last five or six years, the incoming materials are basically clean waste because of the actions that have taken place at the point of generation. Mr. Hutchinson - stated the concept of having flat areas on the sites to hold the water and keep a small amount of water going over the sloper has not worked on other sites but has caused chronic erosion. He felt the two percent slope proposed is not much on the swale. , ' , Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 17 (Modification of Contours/Landfill, Continued) Councilmembers and various residents again asked if there isn't another feasible method of engineering to accomplish the same thing other than adding more material to the landfill, offering some suggestions. Mr. Sunde - stated he wants to minimize the running of storm sewers on landfills and keep the length of the pipes to the absolute minimum because of the differential settlement. A minimum of a two percent slope is needed. The ditch and swales must be watched during the settlement period as well, and it is easier to maintain the swale than it is a slope. Corregated metal pipe is used because it will take some flexing. Mr. Hu~ - stated the elevation is so high already, it is a problem for him with debris, etc. e asked if it would be possible to doze some of it and put it where the higher elevations are desired, to change the contour without adding any more fill. It's so high he gets the blow-off of garbage, all the debris coming from the slopes, and he didn't believe going higher is going to be the solution, but would add to the problem there already. Mr. Sunde - stated the,proposal would not go beyond the maximum elevation of the site, agaln reviewing the proposal on the contour maps, noting the plan is to pick up the water just before it goes over the bank. Residents from The Oaks - stated the landfill is getting so hi9h that the noise is terrlble, waklng up the children, etc. Mr. Hutchinson was asked what provisions are in the contract for responsibility if erosion occurs following the closing. He replied it·iís the property owner or operators. If the property goes for back taxes, then it becomes the State of Minnesota. Mr. Roth also stated it is the landowner's responsibility, and they are trying to build in whatever they can to minimize the maintenance factor in the long run. Mr. Hutchinson - also stated the licensing bond relates to the violations'6fthe ordlnances during the course of the operation of the landfill. At the point of termination of the landfill, the bond would be applied to those costs if the ordinances are not met. He thought the bond was for $100,000. It would not apply to restoration of erosion after the closing was approved. Mr. Sunde - stated the eastern portion of the landfill is basically completed to the originally proposed contours; and if these modifications are not approved ,prior to this spring, the County will be insisting that the final cover be placed in that area. That would prevent making these contour modifications, and that is why they are asking for the change at this time. He also ~tated the water will still drain toward the creek. Mr. Hutchinson - stated the change in the contours will not change the volume of water reaching the creek. Mr. Roth - again noted there is little erosion at this time, but stated once the remal nlng area is capped, the water will begi n;to cascade over the s lope and start ri pping it up. Then what happens is big cuts are made in the slope, exposing rubbish, and it is purdent to take precautions now relative to the maintenance factor. Councilman Lachinski felt there must be some incentive on the part of Mr. Roth toward the City for the City to want to prolong the life of the landfill. If the 1 ife of the landfill is prolonged, he felt it would be necessary that the traffic come from Hanson Boulevard as opposed to Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Roth - felt that was an operational point which he stated could be worked out. - - Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 18 (Modification of Contours/Landfill, Continued) Resident from The Oaks - asked if it is necessary to have the machinery working at 5:45 in the morning. Mr. Hutchinson stated no equipment should be running before 6 a.m. The resident felt lt shou1ãñ't be operated before 7 a.m. Someone else protested the noise from the machinery, feeling the elevations are so high the noise carries a long ways and the smell is offensive. Discussion was then on the hazardous waste pit within the landfill, with the Council expressing concern that its contents be removed and suggesting Mr. Roth participate in that removal in some way. Mr. Roth stated he was open to discussions on anything, but stated that is a small amount of refuse compared to the entire landfill. It is a technical and legal question which he would have to refer to counsel with. Council suggested the City, the County, and Mr. Roth get together and participate in having the hazardous waste pit removed. Generally, the Council strongly felt they did not want to see the landfill last a day longer than it has to but they were willing to negotiate if it meant the removal of the hazardous waste pit, an entrance off Hanson Boulevard, and post-termination controls. Mr. Sunde - stated they still have to go to the County and the PCA to make these changes, and they would like to know prior to having to put the final cap on this spring. Acting Mayor Orttel also noted the post-termination controls become even more important if the ditch and swales are not allowed, as he would be very concerned if the slopes eroded to the point where garbage would be spilling into the creek. But he didn't know what type of trade-offs the City should be making. He went on to say the City intends to proceed with the removal of the hazardous w~ste pit post haste, and hopefully the County and Mr. Roth would help in that matter. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we note the previous meeting with the landfill operators and tonight's meeting and hold in abeyance any action by the City Council until the first regularly scheduled meeting in the month of February; and between now and that time continue discussions with the operator of the landfill and County officials as to exactly what can or cannot feasibly be done with the landfill and some of its operations to insure that the best methods of disposal of the wastes in the area are completed and other concerns of the Council as voiced this evening. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hutchinson was also made aware of all the trash along Hanson Boulevard and asked that something be done about it. APPROVAL OF LICENSES It was noted all licenses run from January 1 to December 31, 1983. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve a Cigarette License and Non- Intoxicating Malt Liquor License/Off Sale for Bill's Superette. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve a Cigarette License for Downtown Deli. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Peach,Seconded by Lachinski, that we grant a license for G-Will's Liquors for Cigarette, Intoxicating Liquor and Off-Sale Liquor. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 19 (Approval of Licenses, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve application for JJ's Liquors for Cigarette and Intoxicating Liquor/Off Sale. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the licenses requested by Speedy Market for Cigarette, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor/Off-Sale. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. AMENDMENT/CABLE ORDINANCE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 59, adopted the 20th Day of April, 1982, commonly known as the Cable Communications Ordinance for the City of Andover, as presented by the City Clerk. ~10tion carried unanimous ly. ORDINANCE/FIRE CODE Fire Chief Frank Stone and Fire Marshall Tom Reichert were present. Mr. Reichert explained they are now following the 1973 Code. The State is in the process of adopting the 1982 Code, and they are proposing the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code of the National Fire Protection Agency 16 volume NFPA. Attorney Hawkins reviewed some of the problems he saw with the proposed ordinance. Sections 4, 5, and 6: He felt it would be difficult to enforce by using the language "heavily populated and congested commercial areas." There is no definition in the ordinance as to what that is. He suggested either some definitions be put in so it is clear, some ascertainable standard, or make reference to specific zoning districts within the City. Section 7: He hasn't research that to determine if amendments could be made in the Uniform Fire Code, wanting to make sure those changes were permissible under the Fire Code. Mr. Reichert stated they haven't added anything in the Uniform Fire Code, but are just adding these volumes to be adopted with them. He stated the State Fire Marshall has allowed this. Discussion was on Section 2, c, the employment of technical inspectors. Attorney Hawkins felt that provision allows the contracting of someone to come in for unusual things the Department doesn't feel competent to do. It would be an independent con- tractor relationship with the City. It was agreed to hold this item to the next regular meeting to allow the Fire Department to make the recommended changes to the ordinance. Chief Stone informed the Council of the quotes he received for the base radio, stating he would purchase from the lowest quote, Motorö.1a:for $2,557.50. He also stated the Department will be having its Christmas party at the Holiday Inn on December 18; therefore most of the fire fighteEs will be out of the City. There will be about five people on standby, and Mutual Aid has been notified. MAINTENANCE ON 149TH AVENUE (Refereece the December 3, 1982, memo from the City Clerk/A. Administrator to the Mayor and Council on the maintenance of l49th Avenue east of Round Lake Boulevard.) _. Regular City Council Meeting December 7, 1982 - Minutes Page 20 (Maintenance on l49th Avenue, Continued) Discussion was on the background of the road acceptance and the issuance of a building permit for a house approximately 1/4 mile in from Round Lake Boulevard. The residents have asked for road maintenance at lease to their house, but were especially interested in snowplowing. Attorney Hawkins advised the level of maintenance is up to the City; and normally these types of easements are not maintained. But the permit was issued, and he felt the City was liable for maintenance at least up to the residential driveway. Council suggested minimal maintenance be done, possibly just plowing one car width wide, for the residence on that easement. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the City Engineer to mlnimally maintain and plow snow on l49th Avenue from Round Lake Boulevard to the residence situated approximately one-quarter mile off the road to the east. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, approving Checks 5996 through 6042, excluding 6033 for a total of $66,072.54. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ì~~c-c'~I~ Marc lla A. Peach Recor ing Secretary --