Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 20, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JULY 20, 1982 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4 . Discussion Items a. Hawk Ridge East/Final Plat b. Westview Industrial Park/Final Plat c. Driveway Repair-Vintage Street d. Maintenance Project-181st Avenue e. Amendment-Ordinance 8 - Sgle Family w/Apts. f. Amendment-Ordinance 8 - Zoning Criteria g. Amendment-Ordinance 6 - Manufactured Housing h. Address Modification Ordinance i. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. b. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment tlTY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, P&Z, STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADM. DATE: JULY 16, 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - JULY 20, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please table Item No. 4a to the August 3, 1982 Meeting. This request is being made by the developer and should be noted in the motion to table. Item No. 4a - Hawk Ridge East/Final Plat See Item No. 3 above. Item No. 4b - Westview Industrial Park/Final Plat Enclosed is a copy of the Final Plat of Westview Industrial Park. Attorney Hawkins is working on the Title Opinion and should have it ready by the meeting. All fees have been paid. Item No. 4c - Road Repairs/Vintage Street Attached is a memorandum from Jim Schrantz. You will note the costs are somewhat higher now due to the fact that the contracte4 originally giving us the quotation, is no longer in the area. A motion is needed to authorize the expenditure. Item No. 4d - Maintenance Project/181st Avenue The Township of Oak Grove has requested maintenance on this roadway to be done as a joint project. Attached is a memorandum from Jim Schrantz covering the estimated costs. This is a town-line road, therefore, costs and work are shared by the abutting cities. Item No. 4e - Amendment/Ordinance No. 8 - Sgle Family w/Apts This item was tabled from the July 6 Meeting. Item No. 4f - Ordinance No. 6 Amendment/Manufactured Housing. Attached is an ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. It has been reviewed with the Planning and Zoning Commission; their recommendation for approval is attached. This ordinance appears to cover all items required ~y the new legislation. Agenda Information July 20, 1982 Page 2 Item No. 4g - Amendment/Ordinance No. 8 - Zoning Requirements Attached is a proposed ordinance drafted by the ,City Attorney and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The one item not covered by either of the above was the area and lot requirements fõr the R-S District. The zoning requirements shown in the amendment do not apply to R-S Zoning, therefore, an individual could plat S,SOO square foot lots in an R-S Area to be sold to individual buyers. When the ordinance was drafted in 1971 , this could only be platted to be used as a mobile home park; however, with the new legislation this is no longer the case. My recommendation would be to allow the S,SOO square foot lot sizes if in a manufactured housing park, which would have to comply with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 6, and then have another zoning, i.e. , R-6, which would allow the platting of lots smaller than R-4 and geared to manufactured housing, with individual ownership of the lots. A 10,000 square foot minimum would allow for a 30' setback from the street and still have the 10' sideyard setback. Garages could or could not be a requirement. Ordinance No. 8 w/Amendments requires sewer and water for the R-S, so this definitely would have to be a requirement for the proposed R-6. Item No. 4h - Address Modification Ordinance Attached is the proposed Ordinance. This will be Ordinance No. 61. Notification of possible address changes was covered to all city residents in the last Newsletter. As a result of that article, we have received no more than S phone calls, only 1 of which objected to an address change. The others were simply inquiries. The majority of our neighboring cities have already adopted an ordinance similar to the one proposed and have made the necessary changes. Item 7 - Approval of Minutes June 10, June lS, July 6. ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 1982 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 20, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Chairman, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to approve the published Agenda with the following additions: Item 4i, Enterprise Fund Discussion; Item 4j, Van Purchase; and Item 4k, Snow Plow Purchase. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanlmous ly. HAWK RIDGE EAST/FINAL PLAT MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to table 4a until the August 3 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. DRIVEWAY REPAIR - VINTAGE STREET Mr. Schrantz stated he had not received an estimate for this project, noting the original quote was for,$4g0. The money would have to come from the General Fund. Discussion was on how to best solve the problem, with the Attorney advising that it is the City's responsibility to repair it, not the property owner's, because it is on the public right of way. Council noted that the contractor attempted to solve the problem by patching previously, suggesting better inspections on projects in the future to avoid these types of problems. It was also felt a better price could be obtained if this is done in conjunction with a near-by road project. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the repair of the driveway ät:1ลก93l Vintage Street NW, construction to be completed at the same time as the Municipal State Aid projects that are to be done in the City for 1982, for a maximum dollar amount of $500. Motion carried unanimously. The property owner also showed the Council pictures of the problem of standing water in the right of way. MAINTENANCE PROJECT - l81ST AVENUE Mr. Schrantz reviewed the request of the Township of Oak Grove to upgrade a portion of l8lst Avenue as a joint project. Oak Grove is proposing to do the work of adding three inches of gravel for an estimated cost of $2,500, with Andover's share being $1,250. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to enter into a joint powers agreement with the Township of Oak Grove to place gravel on l8lst Street from approximately Tulip to Aztec Street at an amount not to exceed $1,250. Motion carried unanimously. WESTVIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK/FINAL PLAT Attorney Hawkins stated that everything is satisfactory regarding the title opinion. Council discussion was on the road easement between Lots 1 and 2, noting that as shown it could be conceived as having road easement all the way around the whole property. Council agreed to approve the final plat contingent upon a clear delineation of the drainage/road/utility easement on Lot 2. Regular City Council Meeting July 20, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (Westview Industrial Park/Final Plat, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to approve the Final Plat of Westview Industrial Park and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the final plat contingent upon acleardelineation of the road, drainage, and utility easement over Lot 2 and Lot 1. (See Resolution R6S-82) Motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 8 - SINGLE FAMILY W/APARTMENTS Because there was no report from the City Staff relative to the questions on sanitary sewer size and zoning districts this would be allowed, it was agreed to table the item to August 3. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we table Ordinance 8 Amendment regarding apartments in single family homes to the August 3 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 6 - MANUFACTURED HOUSING Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the Amendment to Ordinance No.6, referred, to them by Attorney Hawkins. She has since received a memo from the City Clerk suggesting in Section c, the size be changed from 200 square feet to 320 square feet which would allow for the parking of fifth-wheel motor homes or 40x8' travel trailer. Discussion was on the Clerk's comment to increase the square footage allowed. The Building Inspector, Dave Almgren, stated he has done some checking and found travel trailers go up to 8x3S', and a fifth wheeler can be as much as 8x40'. He stated it was his recommendation to increase it to 320 square feet to allow those people owning such vehicles to park them in their yard and not be in violation of the ordinance. Mayor Windschitl was concerned with the density coverage of a lot, especially in the urban areas. Councilman Orttel didn't believe there has been a problem with the parking of these vehicles in the City, though the provision may be being violated at this time. He felt it should remain at 200 square feet until it can be distinguished between dense, urban, and rural areas. He also noted this can be reviewed again when the ordinances are being updated. Councilman Peach felt the Council should keep in mind it is another person's property and they should have maximum use of their property. He questioned whether the City should be interferring if a person wants to park a large travel trailer in his yard, especially in the large lots. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, adopting an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 6, entitled an Ordinance regulating Mobile Home Parks, adopted August 11, 1970, as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach to amend Ordinance 68 so that Section 2, c, Line 5, read "Only one travel trailer less than four percent of the gross area of the lot is permitted..." Amendment died for lack of a Second. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 8 - ZONING CRITERIA Attorney Hawkins explained the new State law states if a manufactured home meets the criteria in a zoning district, it cannot be discriminated against. This ordinance changes the definition of manufactured homes to comply with the State Statute. Section 8.23 establishes new standards for the R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 Districts that all houses have to meet in those districts. Ordinance 6 now says that the manufactured home must meet the criteria of the zoning district Or it must be located in a manu- factured home park, which is the R-S zoning. Regular City Council Meeting July 20, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Amendment - Ordinance 8 - Zoning Criteria, Continued) The Clerk stated that after talking with the Attorney, she has changed her mind on the recommendation made in the Agenda material to establish an R-6 zoning which would allow the platting of lots smaller than R-S and geared to manufactured housing with individual ownership of the lots. There was some discussion on whether or not the City's ordinances allow the ownership of individual lots in manufactured home parks. It was noted that the streets within manufactured home parks are private streets and not accepted by the City; therefore the sale of individual lots would be prohibited. Discussion was on the pros and cons of allowing the platting of individual lots in manufactured home parks, and the Attorney was directed to investigate this item further prior to the next Council meeting. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City adopt an Amendment to Ordinance a, known as Ordinance No. as, as presented with the exception of Item 2 under Section a, 8.23, that Section 2 shall be reworded to state "60 percent of a residential structure shall have a minimum width of 24 feet. Width measurement shall not take into account overhangs or other projections and such width requirements shall be in addition to the minimum area per dwelling requirements of Section 6.02 herein." Motion carried unanimous ly. ADDRESS MODIFICATION ORDINANCE Discussion was that residents were not notified of these proposed address changes except through the City newsletter, and a public hearing has not been held, although the City is not legally required to hold a public hearing. It was agreed to notify those residents affected in writing of the proposed changes. It was also suggested the street names for the road commonly known as "DeGardner Road" in the northeastern portion of the City be changed to one street name. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to authorize the City Clerk to notify all the affected residences of this address changing the numbering for properties and principal buildings and the renaming of certain existing streets, that all affected residents be notified by name and that a public hearing be held prior to adoption of the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. ENTERPRISE FUND Mr. Schrantz reviewed the proposed 1982 Water Fund Budget. The Council questioned whether the percentages of employees' time calcuated in both the water and sewer funds are accurate. Mr. Schvantz felt that the percentages used are very accurate. The salaries shown in the Enterprise Budgets are not included in the General Fund, 'as they are kept separate from one another. Item 4824.531, Water Connection, $10,000, is for an eventual water connect ion with the City of Anoka, but Mr. Schrantz felt the City should be setting some amount aside for this. Discussion was on the Water/Administration/482S.S3l, D.S. Fund Reimbursement. It was Mayor Windschitl's understanding that the Debt Service Fund Reimbursement was funds for the eventual building of a water tower. A portion of the water usage fees was to be set aside for this. The water fund was established such that a future water tower cannot be assessed to those water users already hooked up to the system. Mr. Schrantz interpreted the establishment of the fund by TKDA as first paying off the debt service and capital depreciation, then building up the fund for the water tower. Regular City Council Meeting July 20, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Enterprise Fund, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, adopting the 1982 Public Utilities Enterprise Budget for the Water Department as presented. DISCUSSION: The Clerk explained the Water Fund borrowed $60,000 from the Connection Charges· for operations because user fees have not been enough to meet expenses. That amount must be reimbursed as the Water Fund becomes self-supporting. As the discussion continued, there was confusion as to exactly what the 23 cents/100,OOO gallon usage fee is to be used for, as it appears that when TKDA originally established the Fund, the terms debt service and capital depreciation were used interchangeably. The Council felt those items should be separated, with funds directed toward debt service and the eventual building of a water tower as separate line items. It was also felt that capital depreciation means the replacement of the system. With the Water Fund now using $40,000 in Connection charges for operation, which must eventually be paid back, the Council asked at what point will the Water Fund become self-supporting. It was felt these questions should be researched further before adopting the Water Department budget. Councilmen Lachinski and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. Recess at 9:D2; reconvene at 9:16 p.m. Mayor Windschitl suggested the expenditure of Water Connection with Anoka, $10,000, be removed from the budget as that probably will not occur this year. He also asked the Clerk to do an analysis to make sure the debt is being serviced, which is the primary concern with this fund. He stated then the Council will have to look at how to handle the fund when it is not generating what it is expected to and to get a complete analysis of what should be assessed before another water project is done. Discussion was also on the issue of whether the 23cents/10D,OOO gallons water usage fee is for debt service or capital depreciation, agreeing this should be discussed further with TKDA for clarification. The Clerk also explained that at this time the money is going to the operating fund and nothing is going toward debt service. She also suggested the budget show exactly what is taking place with the Water Fund and take out the amount borrowed from Unit Connection Charges. Mayor Windschitl suggested four budgets be prepared, one for operating expenses, one for capital improvements, a sinking fund, and a debt retirement fund. Discussion was then on the Sewer Fund budget with the Council questioning the affect on the budget of the reimbursement to the 1975-1 and 1976-1 projects plus the reduction negotiated on the Metropolitan Waste Contr01 Commission Sewer Usage charges. Council also questioned whether the sewer fund isn't subsidizing the General Fund in the salaries area. Mr. Schrantz stated it is not. The Clerk explained the City is presently charging $6 per month customer usage charge, but the MWCC bills the City $5.80 per month, which leaves only 20 cents to operate. It is not known what the MWCC will be charging the City in 1983. When discussing the various figures of MWCC charges plus operating expenses, it was generally agreed that the customer usage charges clearly must be increased, but the amount of the increase was not determined until the MWCC rates are known. Mayor Windschitl questioned whether major purchases should be made from the Enterprise Funds when there is already a shortage in the funds. He felt if there are items that could be purchased next year rather than now, they should be held rather than running a larger deficit in the fund. Mr. Schrantz stated it should be realized that there may be problems in the sewer at some time, and the City does not have the equipment to work on these problems. No further action was taken on the budget, agreeing those questions brought out this evening should be researched for the next regular Council meeting. Regular City Council Meeting July 20, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 VAN PURCHASE It was suggested all equipment be purchased together under one five-year equipment bond issue so the payments from the Enterprise Funds could be evened out. Councilman Peach stated when the CIP Plan was being prepared, it was assumed the payments for all equipment bonds would be from the General Fund. Any payments from the special funds were not considered. No action was taken on the van purchase at this time. SNOWPLOW PURCHASE Because it was felt it would take up to six months to get a truck with snowplow and wing, soliciting bids for it were approved. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to solicit bids for a new truck with snowplow and wing. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Councilman Lachinski left the meeting at this time.) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Checks 5066 through 5125 with the exception of Check Number 5083 in the amount of $69,634.36. Motion car~ted on a 3-Yes (Orttel, Peach, Windschitl) vote. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 3-Yes vote. Meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Mar ella A. Peach Reco ing Secretary