Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 6, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-JULY 6, 1982 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. G. Anderson-Variance b. E. Fields - Rezoning c. L. Mills - Special Use Permit d. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment - Retail Sales in LI District e. F. padula- Special Use Permit f. G. Pal luck - Variance g. J. Snyder - Variance h. Westview Industrial Park - Final Plat i. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment - Single Family Homes w/Apts. j . Ordinance No. 28 Amendment - Insurance Requirements/ Off-Sale, On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Liquor Licenses k. Ordinance No. 10 Amendment - Subdivision Regulations l. Project 82-8 - Woodridge Acres, Shady Knoll, The Oaks, Sanitary Sewer/Streets - Order Public Hearing m. Municipal State Aid Projects - Order Advertisement/Bids n. Project 82-7 - Russell Stack Addition Streets/Order Public Hearing o. Accept Petition for Dust Control - Lund's Round Lake Estates p. Plans & Specifications - Sealcoating q. Hawk Ridge East - Final Plat r. Temforary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License ndover Lions Club 5. Non-Discussion Items a. "No Parking" Resolutions - MSA Streets b. RevoæDesignation-MSA~170th Lane NW-Designate 173rd Lane c. Van Quotations d. Truck Specifications 6. Reports of Committees, Commissions, Staff a. Fire Department Contract 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment Agenda Information July 6, 1982 Page 2 T+-"""m 1\1,-.. A~ _ n~~;~~nce N,-.. Q n",~n~",~n+-'D~+-~;l Cal~"-TT n,_+-_;_+- 'e ' s? CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF, PLANNING & ZONING CHAIRMAN FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADMINISTRATOR DATE: JUNE 30, 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - JULY 6, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please delete Item No. 4h - Westview Industrial Park/ Final Plat and in its place substitute Item No. 4q - Hawk Ridge/Final Plat. Item No. 4a - G. Anderson Variance Mr. & Mrs. Anderson are requesting a variance to allow them to leave an already placed playhouse/storage sheà approximately 20 feet in front of the principal structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and is recommending approval. A resolution will be prepared granting approval, noting P&Z comments and the fact that the structure has been built for quite a period of time and no complaints have been received from adjoining property owners. Item No. 4b - E. Fields Rezoning Mr. Fields has filed the necessary forms for Agricultural Preserve Zoning, and has requested a rezoning of his property pursuant to ordinance requirements. Planning & Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and is recommending approval of the request. A resolution will be prepared granting approval, citing P&Z comments and ordinance compliance. Item No. 4c - L. Mills Special Use Permit Mrs. Mills is requesting a SUP for the purpose of having a beauty shop in her home in the Meadowwood Addition pursænt to the requirements of Ordinance No. 8Q. The Planning and Zoning Commission has held the required Public Hearing, and even though there was considerable public opposition, is recommending approval inasmuch as all ordinance requirements have been met. The City Attorney is reviewing the covenants covering the Meadowwood Addition and will have a report for the meeting. A resolution will be prepared,~granting approval. Agenda Information July 6, 1982 Page 3 Item No. 4h - Hawk Ridge East - Final Plat Enclosed is the Final Plat of Hawk Ridge East. The park dedication fee of $9,585.00 will be paid before the meeting. Attorney Hawkins has the Abstract, however, we have not yet received the Opinion, but should have something by the meeting. Jim Schrantz has inspected the roads and the memorandum from him is enclosed. You will note a required escrow amount of $37,500, covering 1.5 times the estimated cost for the work still required to be completed. A resolution will be prepared for approval of the Final Plat. Item No. 4i - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Sgle. Family Homes w/Apts. Attached is the proposed ordinance from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This ordinance has been drawn up as a result of numerous requests from property owners and will legalize those such apartments already existing. Item No. 4j - Ordinance No. 28 Amendment-Insurance Requirements/Liquor Enclosed is a memorandum from Attorney Hawkins, requesting a change in our Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Ordinance requirements to make this ordinance in compliance with State Law. I have drafted a sample ordinance which Mr. Hawkins will review and report is comments at the meeting. Item No. 4k - Ordinance No. 10 Amendment-Subdivision Regulations Enclosed is a letter from Attorney Hawkins, as well as the new legislation covering subdivision requirements and City authority. This matter should be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and subsequent public hearings. Item No. 41 - Project No. 82-8/Sanitary Sewer, Streets (Woodridge Acres) Enclosed please find the Feasibility Report covering the improvements of sanitary sewer and bituminous streets for the Woodridge Acres Area as well as the other subdivisions and affected properties in that area. A resolution will be prepared accepting the report and calling a public hearing for the entire area. Specific sections can be dropped at any time after the public hearing; however, we cannot add any additional areas if the property owners do not receive the notice, SO it is recommended that anyone who could be even remotely affected should be included for the public hearing. (after July 26) Item No. 4m - MSA Projects - Accept FPS/Order Advertisement for Bids Glenn Cook of B.R.A. will be present at the meeting to cover the Final Plans and Specifications for the M.S.A. Improvements. A resolution will be prepared accepting the FPS as presented and directing an advertisement for bids. Agenda Information July 6, 1982 Page 4 Item No. 4n- Streets/Russell-Stack Addition Enclosed is the Feasibility Report for bituminous street improvement for this area. B.R.A. and the City Engineer have met with several of the property owners in the area to discuss the inclusion of 165th Avenue in the proposed improvement. A report will be available for the meeting. A resolution is prepared accepting the report and ordering a public hearing (after July 26). Because of Chapter 429 requirements, time would not permit this job to be bid with the M.S.A. streets, however, the Contracter receiving the award for the M.S.A. streets would logically come in with a very good price on this improvement inasmuch as his equipment is already in the area. Item No. 40 - Accept Petition for Dust Control Enclosed is a petition from the residents in Lund's Round Lake Estates, requesting the City to install a dust control additive to their streets. Jim Schrantz has contacted other cities who reportedly have used this product; his memo is attached. You will note the costs are 15 times higher than acknowledged by the petitioners; and the product has not been having really¡good results. Perhaps the petitioners should simply be written a letter advising them of the findings--and include estimated costs for bituminous surfacing along with the procedure for a Chapter 429 improvement. Item No. 4p - Plans & Specifications/Sealcoating Enclosed are the Plans & Specifications for sealcoating. The 1982 Budget has an allowance of $25,000 for the work. You will recall that this figure was reduced considerable from the amount proposed for 1982 in the TKDA Report. A resolution is needed to approve the Plans & Specifications and direct advertisement for public bids. Item No. 4q - Hawk Ridge East (handled under Item No. 4h) Item No. 4r - Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License The Andover Lions Club is requesting a temporary license for their tournament on July 24. The fee for the temporary license has been $10.00. A motion is needed for approval. (NO complaints have ever been received by thisioffice or the Anoka County Sheriff's Office. Item No. 5a - No Parking" Resolutions - MSA Streets Attached are three (3) resolutions to be adopted and sent to the S.A. people with the Final Plans and Specifications. Item No. 5b - Revoke MSA Designation - 170th Lane Attached is a resolution revoking the MSA Designations for 170th Lane. Also attached is a resolution to move such designation to 173rd Lane. These resolutions will be included with the Final Plans & Specifications being sent to the S.A. people for review. Agenda Information July 6, 1982 Page 5 Item No. 5c - Van Quotations Enclosed are quotations and a memo from Jim Schrantz covering the purchase. Although the Enterprise Budgets have not been officially approved for 1982, this item is included; therefore, the motion for purchase should also include a statement that funding will be from the Enterprise Funds. Item No. 5d - Truck Quotations Jim Schrantz has been working on these, but as of 7/1 has a few additions to make. This truck would be purchased through Equipment Bonds as was done with the 1980 Truck. The first payment on the bonds would not be due until mid to late 1983. A resolution is prepared. Item NO. 6a - Fire Department Contract This is basically the same Contract approved two years ago. Some of the wording has been changed to reduce the length of the document, as has the manner of signatures. The previous Contract required the signatures of the Mayor and Clerk of all municipalities involved on the same document. This alone, constituted approximately 5 pages. The Contract has been forwarded to Mr. Hawkins for his review. He will comment at the meeting. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes June 10, June 15, 1982 .----- ~. ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 6, 1982 MH.U I ES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 7, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None A lso present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Mr. Mucciacciaro, 15931 Vintage - asked why the City would not fix the end of his drlveway approach which was requested by the City Engineer. He stated the part of the driveway which belongs to the City has sunk down 2\ inches, which creates a big puddle of water there most of the time and does not drain off. The Engineer was there, took pictures, has seen the water, and recommended to the Council that it be repaired. The assessment has been paid, and he felt his problem should,be fixed. It was patched over a year ago, but that did not solve the problem. He fe 1t the standing water is going to ruin the end of his driveway, and he didn't want to stand the cost of repairing it in the future. He was also bothered that the people up the street with two driveways had one of them with a similiar situation repaired, but he cannot get his one driveway repaired. Council discussion was that when this item was before them and prepared by the Engineer along with a list of others some time ago, it may have been turned down because the Council did not fully understand the problem. Mr. Schrantz felt the best way to solve the problem would be to cut it out and put more in there. The Engineer was directed to prepare a report on the solution of Mr. Mucciacciaro's problem and a cost estimate for repairing it for the next Council meeting. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Agenda as published with the deletion of Item 4h and Item 4q. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. G. ANDERSON - VARIANCE Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance request to leave an existing playhouse/storage shed approximately 20 feet in front of the principal structure. She also noted that their comment that a hardship created due to topography should be deleted because no such hardship is created. Ron Smith, 14942 Evergreen - couldn't understand why there is a charge of $40 for an 8xlO' little shed because there is a slab underneath it. Chairman Bosell stated this was discovered by the Building Inspector. The slab was placed there first in conjunction with the apron of the garage. The Commission wrestled with the question of why it came to them except that the building is on a concrete slab. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that Mr. Gary Anderson be refunded his $40 because this matter does not need a variance. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach felt it was a portable shed and not a permanent building; therefore no variance is needed. Council- man Orttel thought the City would encourage these portable buildings to have concrete slabs under them, as they become a mess in turbulent weather if they are not anchored. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (G. Anderson - Variance, Continued) Attorney Hawkins stated there is nothing in the definition in the ordinance that talks about whether or not the regulations apply to permanent or temporary structures. If a building permit is not required, he didn't know why a variance would be applicable. He felt the intent of the ordinance applies to permanent structures. Motion carried unanimously. E. FIELDS - REZONING Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the request of Mr. Fields for rezoning certain properties from R-l to AgP. Discussion was also on some of the parcels requested for the rezoning, clarifying their location and exactly what is included. It was also noted that the publication of the map will not take place until October and will include all rezonings to AgP at that time. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution approving a Rezoning request of Edward F. Fields to rezone from R-l to Agricultural Preserve as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution RSO-82) Motion carried unanimously. L. MILLS - SPECIAL USE PERMIT Mayor Windschitl noted concern has been expressed by residents in Meadowood over the restrictive convenant in the area and whether or not that would restrict home businesses in that development. Attorney Hawkins advised that restrictive convenants are a contractural situation between the developer and the owners of the property to which the adjacent property also derives benefit and has the authority to enforce. The City is not a party to those convenants and does not have the authority to enforce them. In reviewing the application, he felt the City can only follow the standards and criteria found in the zoning ordinance. If someone in the neighborhood feels there is a violation of the restrictive convenant, they do have the right to enforce it and get a determination through a civil suit. Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Special Use Permit for Mrs. Mills to have a one-chair beauty shop in her home at . 4471 l48th Lane NW, feeling the criteria of the Ordinance 8Q has been met. In discussion with the Council, she explained a one-chair shop means one operator. That operator can have two shampoo chairs and two or three dryer chairs, but there can only be one hydraulic chair to work on. Council expressed concern over the amount of traffic through the neighborhood that will be generated from the business, asked the number of people that would be in the shop at one time, and the number of additional cars daily there would be. Linda Mills, 4471 l48th Lane - stated she can only do two people at one time. Because there lS no reception area, the additional shampoo and dryer chairs would also be used for those customers waiting or for the person being timed during a permanent, etc. There will be only one hydraulic chair and only one operator in the shop. She estimated the traffic to be approximately two cars every 2~ hours or so, but that depends on the type of work done, and every day would be inconsistent. George Lobb, 14410 Quinn Drive - is a barber and felt the questions being asked of how many people she can do, etc., are totally unfair, though he realized the concern over . the vehicle traffic created. A one-chair business means only one operator, one person working. It is immaterial how many people are under the dryer, as long as it is just one operator. He felt the State Beauty Board would license this shop as a one-chair shop, but the operator can be doing two or three different services at the same time. He didn't feel there would be that much vehicle traffic there. Even though he was on the Commission when this was set up and he is opposed to it, he felt the questions asked of Mrs. Mills are infringing on her privacy. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (L. Mills - Special Use Permit, Continued) Ron Alto, 14832 County Road 7 - has the largest parcel in Meadowood Addition and would be affected most by any traffic as one of their driveways is just before Mrs. Mi 11' s. With the amount of traffic and the good highway going by, his wife and he are both in favor of this request.as long as it meets all the ordinances ana codes. And apparently that is so. There is adequate off-street parking, and they see no problem with traffic. Plus traffic will be during the day when there is very little other traffic through the area,and the shop will only be open three days a week. Kathleen Meier, 4480 l48th Lane NW - is directly across the street from Linda Mills, and she and her husband have-n~jections to her opening this beauty shop. They don't feel it will add any more traffic. There are no houses between Seventh Avenue and her on that side of the road, and they would leave via Seventh Avenue as well. So they do not feel there would be any disruption of day-to-day living. Councilman Peach stated Doug Anderson, 4511 l48th Lane NW, called him this evening because he is unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern with the convenant agreement, explained a problem he had with an insurance business next to his house in Anoka, was concerned about businesses moving into the neighborhood and setting a precedent, and stated the petition was from people who did not live near the Mills but as much as four and five blocks away. The Clerk stated several people called the office in the last two days expressing concern over the Special Use Permit, but they seemed satisfied knowing that the permit will be reviewed annually. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, a Resolution approving the Special Use Permit requested by Linda Mills for a home beauty shop at 4471 l48th Lane NW as presented, noting that the City Attorney has reviewed the convenant in the neighborhood and has indicated that that is an issue between the neighbors and the applicant and not an issue for the City; and at the end of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED paragraph add "and the Special Use Permit be effective only after construction of the additional capacity in the private septic system which has been inspected and approved by the City Building Official." (See Resolution R5l-82) DISCUSSION: Mr. Alto was in favor of the fact that the Special Use Permit would not be transferred to new owners if the Mills decide to sell the house. He felt that protects the neighbors as well. ~10t ion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.8 AMENDMENT - RETAIL SALES IN LI DISTRICT Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the ordinance change to allow retail sales in LI districts. Attorney Hawkins stated that if retail businesses existed prior to the zoning LI in an area, they would be grandfathered in. But if they were established following the zoning to LI, he felt they could be required to come in for a special use permit for retail sales. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, introducing an Ordinance amending Ordinance No.8, known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Andover as prsented (Amending Section 5.03, B. Criteria for Granting Special Use Permits and Section 7.03, Special Uses) Motion carried unanimously. F. PADULA - SPECIAL USE PERMIT Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the Special Use Permit of Frank Padula to sell cheese and other deli products from a building attached to the existing liquor store structure. She understands that Mr. Padula has completed the Commission's request for additional information. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (F. Padula - Special Use Permit, Continued) Frank Padula - stated he intends to blacktop the parking lot in front of the building. He does not plan to stay open on Sunday. Also, it is only a take-out operation and not for consumption on the premises, although he felt that could be a reasonable use at some time if the demand is there. Council noted that consumption on the premises would constitute a restaurant, which is not what is being dealt with this evening. Karen SChelberå' 16135 Vint~ - stated two years ago a shopping mall was turned down in the area an was concerne over this zoning, asking what more will come in. Secondly, she was concerned with the traffic, feeling it will add additional traffic to their neighborhood since they are 9/10 of a mile away from the establishment. She also felt there has been an increase in litter and traffic since JJ's Liquor Store has been open with motor bikes not stopping for the stop signs, etc. She stated there are other neighbors who are opposed to this but are not here because they feel the Council will do what it wants anyway and that they do not have a voice in the matter. Council noted the rezoning in that area several years a90 was denied in large part because of the neighborhood objections. Mr. Mucciacciaro, 15931 Vintage - has seen a decrease in traffic since the liquor store has been there, as not everybody comes down Highway 20 to go across to the Tom Thumb store. He felt such a deli would save gas because ìt will be closer, and he felt it would not increase traffic any more. He also stated it should be approved and thought it is a good thing for the community. David LaFlamme, 16001 Uplander - approximately one mile from JJ's - has not seen any increase in paper, beer cans, etc., as a result of JJ's establishment. He stated it is a savings for everybody in the neighborhood and felt the cheese and deli shop would be a good thing. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve a Special Use Permit for Frank Padula at the JJ's Bottle Boutique at 3121 l6lst Avenue NW, that the approval is with the understanding that the special use permit does not include sales for consumption on the premises; and that the approval is contingent upon completion of the parking lot as proposed. (See Resolution RS2-82) DISCUSSION: Councilman Jacobson personally felt it should be on the condition that the shop not be open on Sundays. Others on the Council felt that that would be too restrictive and that it might be a typical business that would be open on Sundays for the convenience of the people in the area. Attorney Hawkins advised that some basis should be established for making such a condition, such as the traffic conflicting with other traffic, etc. No further action was taken to restrict operation on Sundays. Motion carried unanimously. G. PALLUCK - VARIANCE Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of a variance request by Gerald Palluck, 17127 Tulip Street NW to build a pole storage building closer to the property line than the house. She also noted that the recommendation noted it is on a "non-accepted public road", and that should read either non-public road or road easement. The building will be constructed in direct line with the existing garage, so it will not be closer to Tulip than that garage. The reason they want to put the building in that location is to have the buildings in a uniform alignment rather than zig-zagging. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, enter a Resolution approving a variance request for Gerald Pal luck to construct a pole building nearer to the front lot line than allowed by Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05 on a parcel of land not having frontage on a public road; change last line of the first WHEREAS to read "such parcel having frontage on a road easement." (See Resolution R53-82) VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 J. SNYDER - VARIANCE Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance request of Mr. Snyder to construct a 46' x 75' pole barn closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. She noted the building is nearly completely constructed. It is on a 20-acre parcel with 660 feet of road frontage. There is a home with attached garage, an accessory building, which is another garage, and this would be attached to the existing accessory building. Jerry Snyder - stated he has three horses and did have four cows but did not have space for them. He also had a lean-to which he has also removed. He is putting this building up for stalls, storage for hay, and other miscellaneous equipment. He also explained the drawing presented as to the location of the barn. He has gotten a building permit for the structure. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution approving the variance request of Jerry Snyder to construct a metal horse barn closer to the front lot line than the principal structure at 4915 l59th Avenue, Plat 65986, Parcel 7200, as presented. (See Resolution RS4-82) Motion carried unanimously. Council discussion was again on the justification of the ordinance requirement of not allowing construction of accessory buildings closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, especially in the R-l area. Several on the Council expressed a willingness to have the Planning Commission review that matter again, feeling such restriction on the large lots in the R-l zoning may not be necessary. Councilman Lachinski also questioned whether those requests for this µarticular variance that have been denied in the past should be reviewed again. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to refer the matter of accessory buildings being built closer to the front lot line back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration for at least in the R-l zoning and Agriculture use property. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 8 AMENDMENT~~NGLE FAMILY HOMES W/APARTMENTS Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt an amendment to Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03 to allow for single family homes with apartments in R-3 and R-4 districts. She stated this type of thing is already occurring in the community, and it is felt it is a housing trend at this time. So rather than not allowing them, it was felt some criteria should be established to be sure when such conversions occur, there is safety. The change requires a separate ingress/egress be provided and the principal structure must be occupied by the owner. Council discussion was why it should be limited to the urban area but rather expanded to include R-l areas as well. Chairman Bosell felt it could be made applicable to the R-l area, but the septic system would have to comply with Ordinance 37. Frank Stone, Public Works, stated usually two stubs are required for such homes, and that to convert it would mean tearing up what is there and installing an additional stub. Councilman Peach stated the reason for two stubs is if there is a problem, the liability can be fixed. If the building is owner-occupied, the owner would assume the liability for any problem with the sewer system. Mr. Stone felt the service line would also have to be increased. Councilman Orttel stated the problem also exists in the rural area, noting he knows of a community that requires the lot to meet two times the minimum livability area required. He didn't know if that would be reasonable or not, but that should also be watched closely. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 (Ordinance No.8 Amendment - Single Family Homes W/Apartments, Continued) Mayor Windschitl questioned if this is something that can be practically done in the City and felt a proposal must be presented as to how the sewer problem will be contro lled. Councilman Jacobson took issue with the Planning Commission's comment that the reason for the amendment is to fall in line with the current housing trends to provide affordable temporary housing. He felt the City needs to be looking into the future, and the City will be nothing but junk if houses are allowed to be smaller, cheaper, smaller lots, etc. And are a lot of dual rental units wanted in the City twenty years from now. He felt if there is a problem, the existing ordinance covers it, that is a single-family home with an apartment is not allowed. He felt this problem is a short-term thing. He is generally against the amendment. Councilman Lachinski felt that the fact that the building must be owner-occupied would be significant for general acceptance by the neighborhood. Councilman Orttel didn't believe this is a temporary trend because the family unit is changing. Also, as the City gets older, tne average age wi 11 increase where people do not have children in the home any more, resulting in one- and two-person households. And because Andover requires larger houses than other cities, it makes the problem that much more ridiculous, as it creates one or two people living in a l200-foot house instead of a smaller one. Council agreed to table the matter and to have the City staff make a proposal as to how the sanitary sewer issue can be controlled. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we table the matter of Ordinance No.8, Sectlons 5.03 and 7.03 amendments to the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow the City staff to provide review and comments on the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE ND. 28 AMENDMENT - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS/OFF-SALE, ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, introducing an Ordinance amending Ordinance 28, an ordinance licensing and regulating the sale and consumption of non-intoxicating malt liquor and providing penalty for the violation thereof as presented by the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 10 AMENDMENT - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we refer the matter of new legislation covering subdivision requirements and city authority to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. Motion carried unanimously. Rß~ess at 9:00; reconvene at 9:12 p.m. PROJECT 82-7 - RUSSELL/STACK ADDITION STREETS/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Schrantz explained the feasibility report looks at graveling and blacktopping l6Sth plus the entire Stack Addition. The lots within Stack Addition are approximately 200 feet in width. They estimated 14 lots could be developed along l6Sth Avenue with an average frontage of 300 feet. This results in an estimated 90 units which would be assessed at a rate or $2,820 per unit. The width of the typical street within Stack Addition would be approximately 22 feet, which is less than the City's standard. Construction on l65th would be the normal 32-foot street section with two inches of bituminous. The proposal would be to construct a two-foot bituminous driveway apron and allow the individual property owner to decide if they want additional work to the property line at an additional cost. Mr. Schrantz estimated the driveway would add $400 to $500 to the assessment depending on its width. The reason it is proposed in this Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 (Project 82-7 - Russell/Stack Addition Streets/Order Public Hearing, Continued) fashion is because of the varying number of driveway widths and the varying degrees of completion of driveways within the development. This also provides a flexibility of width to the property owner. Mr. Schrantz also noted some determination must be made on the buildability of some of the lots. Councilman Orttel expressed concern at the large assessment against the Russell property along l65th, as that is quite a burden and the only way to recover it is to sell the property. So in a sense the City is forcing development in there. Mary Russell - asked who bought the matter up. She stated someone went around with a petitlon and misrepresented it, citing several methods used to get people to sign in favor. She stated they put gravel on the road and paid for it years ago. She stated they do not intend to sell the farm to pay for the road, and they do not want to have to put a lien against it just for the road. She also stated they have absolutely no intention of developing the property. She felt the City is doing it backwards by doing all the checking and feasibility before the public hearings. She also stated Andover should use the tax money to maintain the road as nothing has been done since they graveled it. Mayor Windschitl explained the public hearing procedure and the petition brought before the Council. Councilman Lachinski noted the City has tried to keep City taxes low but does not pay for road improvements either, assessing such projects 100 percent. John Autenstrier, 5230 l63rd Lane - the first time the petition came around it was Just with the ldea of looking at the cost. He personally felt that with the high interest rates today, the road is paid for time and time again before the assessment is finally paid off. He asked how the engineers arrived at 300-foot lots along l6Sth. (Mr. Schrantz explained that is the typical frontage on 2~-acre lots. Because the lots are smaller in Stacks Addition, they are somewhat subsidizing l6Sth.) Mr. Autenstrier - stated with today's economy and high interest rates, it wouldn't take long before the interest alone on a $53,000 assessment along l6Sth would become more than the land itself is worth. He stated the City should be trying to preserve the farm land in the community. Mr. Autenstrier asked several questions relating to the maintenance of l65th, and generally felt it should be graded on a more regular basis. With better maintenance, l6Sth would not be a problem and would not need to be improved. He also felt some costs should be presented in that respect. He stated it is a poor time to be doing such a project. (Mr. Schrantz guessed l6Sth had been bladed five to six times this year but that blading is only effective after a rain. All primary roads are bladed after a rain.) Bob Andrews, 16360 Zuni - stated he signed the petition, being told it was to find out how much lt would cost to improve the road. He stated his main concern is that he has spent a lot of money on his vehicles because of the bumps in the road. He explained the figures he had heard previously of $50,000 to upgrade l6Sth would mean approximately $2,000 per house in the development. And that is more than he would want to spend. This evening he learned this was being discussed at this meeting, expressed frustration of not knowing what has been going on, and that a minority of people in the neighborhood can get something accepted that personally affects him financially. (Mayor Windschitl explained the public hearing procedure, noting residents will have an opportunity to express their opinions, bring in additional petitions, etc., at a public hearing if it is ordered.) Mr. Andrews - noted there are a lot of young children in the neighborhood. He has no intention nor would he like to see blacktop within the neighborhood itself. As long as the roads are graded, there is no problem. Traffic moves quick enough now through the area. He felt l6Sth is going to become a drag strip as the kids grow up. He also Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 8 (Project 82-7 - Russell/Stack Addition Streets/Order Public Hearing, Continued) expressed opposition to inflicting such a large assessment against a man who has lived there for years (referring to Mr. Russell). He felt if anything is going to be done to l6Sth, everyone in the neighborhood should share equally in the improvement. Jim Sturgeon, 16555 Yakima - stated he was asked to take around the petition to a certain area, but it doesn't mean he is for or against the road. He's interested in looKing into it. He didn't think they misrepresented themselves for the petition, saying it was to look into the improvement and that they would have a voice later. He thought most of the people felt it was time to look into it again because there is more traffic in the area now because of more cars per household in the neighborhood. If the cost is too high, he can't afford it either. Attached to the petition was a diagram of what the road would look like, which has since been changed to conform to the existing roadway. The biggest problem is l6Sth. He stated he would have no objection to helping pay for it providing if someday the land was developed those lots would then pick up some of the cost. (Councilman Lachinski felt the proposal is the most logical method of paying for the road but it is not the only possibility. If the neighborhood would have other ideas and could reach some agreement, the Council would be willing to hear it.) Mr. Autenstrier - felt the costs for various alternatives could also be broken out for the publlC hearing such as .what it would cost for oil, class 5, and maintenance on l6Sth on a higher priority. He also asked if it could be assessed on a usage basis rather than unit basis, such as by the number of vehicles or drivers in a family. Mrs. Russell - again stated she does not want a lien against the land and that they have no intention of subdiving the land because it is farmland. Discussion was on alternative methods of paying for l6Sth, with some of the Council generally feeling the assessment for l6Sth against the one property owner is excessive. A suggestion was to have those lots in Stack Addition pay for the assessment equally and do l6Sth only, which would amount to approximately $),000 per lot. Or if the lots in Stack Addition would pay for doing l6Sth plus their Addition and not assess anything against the Russell property, the unit cost would be approximately $3,180. The Attorney advised that the standard is the assessment against a lot must not exceed the increased market value of the lot. Council discussion was on whether or not a public hearing should be ordered at this time, noting petitions both for and against the project can be presented at the time of a public hearing. Councilman Peach felt with the opposition of the 14 units of Russell's, less than 50 percent of the residents are in favor of the project and that no public hearing be set at this time unless the residents present alternatives agreed upon by the majority. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting the feasibility report and setting the public hearing for the improvement of Project 82-7 as presented with the public hearing date being set for 7:30 p.m., the first regularly scheduled meeting day of the City Council in the month of August. (See Resolution RSS-82) DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski suggested the engineers specify costs for the two alternatives for assessing the project, that is if the lots in Stack Addition would incur the costs of l6Sth and the other if they would incur the costs for l6Sth only and not construct blacktop within the Addition itself. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 9 PROJECT 82-8 - WOODRIDGE ACRES, SHADY KNOLL, THE OAKS/SANITARY SEWER AND STREETS - ORDER PUBLIC HEARING (Because Mayor Windschitl is directly affected by the project, he stepped down to the audience at this time. Acting Mayor Orttel conducted this portion of the meeting.) Council noted the petition received from the Shady Knoll area. Mayor Windschitl - stated the signature on the petition is that of his wife and it represents all the property he owns within the proposed project area. Mr. Schumacher of TKDA reviewed the feasibility report. Because of the late date, he asked that any change or information desired by the Council be brought out this evening so it can be incorporated at the public hearing. Should additional hearings be required, it would i,n all probability delay the construction of the project to next year. He reviewed the proposal based on total gravity service plus the other options of lift stations. Because of the operation costs of lift stations, the cost for the trunk installation for that option becomes higher than for the total gravity service. Relative to the installation of the laterals, Alternative A for gravity service is the highest at $23/foot because it has the deepest lines. Alternate B is $20/foot for laterals, and Alternate C is estimated at $22/foot for laterals. They have based their feasibility report on total gravity service. Mr. Schumacher also stated that the time schedule on this project is being really stretched and there is no guarantee it will be completed this year. However, he felt project costs may be better if it is bid as soon as possible. Discussion was on the potential service area of the total gravity service and the lift station options. It was noted that the total cost for the trunk is estimated to be $344,070, but only approximately $96,000 will be assessed as determined by the acreage in the service area times $670 per area, which is the established trunk sewer assessment. Mr. Schumacher explained the total trunk costs can be reduced by staying out of the county road as much as possible and by cutting back the ultimate service area and reducing the size of the trunk in this project. Council expressed concern over the large difference between actual trunk cost and the amount that would be recovered by assessment in the project, as the City would then have to carry the difference which is a considerable burden to the City. There was then a lengthy discussion over establishing an ultimate service area to reduce the trunk size and to lower the trunk costs of the project. The buildability of the open property between Crosstown Boulevard and the landfill was questioned, feeling the PCA or other regulatory agencies may require some buffering between the landfill and any development. It was questioned whether or not wells would be allowed in that area; however, it was also stated that deep wells have not been affected by leachate from the landfill. Mr. Schumacher noted that particular parcel is in green acres and consists of 44 acres and that area will not affect the lateral costs. Mayor Windschitl noted it would be possible to not assess it at this time but do so at the tlme it would be developed. Because the per-acre trunk assessment is indexed annually, the City would eventually collect that money. However, it would mean the City would have to carry that amount until it is assessed. Mr. Schumacher recommended assessing anything within the boundary that is assessable. They can take off a buffer area adjacent to the land- fill from the assessment. George Lobb - advised that there are some very serious problems with septic systems in his area, that it is important that this project be done, and that something be worked out to bring the trunk extension costs down to a satisfactory figure. He also felt it would be acceptable to blacktop next year if the sanitary sewer is put in this fall. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 10 (Project 82-8, Continued) After further discussion the Council agreed to proceed but directed the engineers to estimate the extension of the trunk line cost with as much as possible done outside of the county road, to provide a buffer area adjacent to the landfill which would then not be assessable, and to reduce the ultimate service area down to the project area only which in turn would mean a reduction in the size of the trunk line and re- duction in trunk costs. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to accept the feasibility report for ProJect 82-8A which includes Woodridge Acres, Shady Knoll and the Oaks Additions as presented, and set a public hearing on the project for Wednesday, the 28th of July, and we authorize the firm of TKDA to look at the feasibility report again and come up with the figures as to the cost for the trunk to service only the area indicated within the boundaries of what they call Alternate A or Map 1 on the feasibility report. (See Resolution RS6-82) DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski stated he is also looking for a cost per serviceable unit or how much will it really cost the City for the trunk, and how mpny acres could the line potentially serve in the future as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. (Mayor Windschitl chaired the remainder of the meeting.) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTRACT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, introducing a Resolution authorizing joint and cooperate agreement for use of fire personnel and equipment -- North Suburban Regional Mutual Aid Association as presented by the Fire Chief and direct the Mayor and Clerk to sign whatever documents are necessary. (See Resolution RS7-82) Motion carried unanimous ly. Fire Chief Frank Stone stated the fire fighters have been playing waterball with other Departments and asked permission to set up the wire and poles in the City Hall parking lot. Council generally had no problem with it but felt the poles should either be placed outside the tar or some type of removable pole be used. The Chief was asked to bring back a more specific proposal for Council consideration. Chief Stone also informed the Council that LeRoy Walkner is the new EMS coordinator for the rescue unit. MUNICIPAL STATI-AlQ PROJECTS - ORDER ADVERTISEMENT/BIDS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by jacobson, a Resolution approving final plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Project No. MSA 82-3, 4, 5, bituminous streets for lS7th Avenue between Prairie Road and Holly Street, l73rd Lane between Tulip Street and CSAH No.9, and Prairie Road between Andover Boulevard and the Bridge Approach as prepared. (See Resolution RS8-82) Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT PETITION FOR DUST CONTROL - LUND'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES ___4 Discussion was on the July 2, 1982, memo from Mr. Schrantz relative to the petition for dust control in Lund's Round Lake Estates. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to accept the petition for dust control in Lund's Round Lake Estates and direct the City Engineer to respond to the people in Lund's Round Lake Estates with the costs for upgrading their streets as proposed and also providing the residents with information as to the cost for blacktop and with the limits and benefits of each. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting July 6, 1982 - Minutes Page 11 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - SEALCOATING - - MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City approve a temporary on-sale non- lntoxlcating malt liquor license to the Andover Lions Club for their tournament on July 24 for a fee of $10. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. "NO PARKING" RESOLUTIONS - MSA STREETS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing Resolutions approving an agreement relating to parking restrictions on Prairie Road from l43rd Avenue NW to Andover Boulevard, lS7th Avenue from Prairie Road to· Holly Street, and l73rd Lane NW from Round Lake Boulevard to Tulip Street as presented in three Resolutions by the City Clerk. (See Resolutions R60-82, R6l-82, and R62-82) Motion carried unanimously. REVOKE DESIGNATION - MSA - l70TH LANE NW/DESIGNATE l73RD LANE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, enter a Resolution revoking Municipal State Aid Street l70th Lane NW from Tulip Street to CSAH 9 as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R63-82) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution establishing Municipal State Ald Street of l73rd Lane NW from Tulip Street to CSAH 9 as presented by the City Clerk. (See Resolution R64-82) Motion carried unanimously. VAN QUOTATIONS/TRUNK SPECIFICATIONS Because the source of funding for the van was questioned and because the enterprise budget has not yet been approved by the Council, it was agreed to discuss the item at the next special council meeting on July 14 following the Junkyard public hearing. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we continue Items Sc and Sd, trunk quotations/van quotations to the special meeting scheduled for the date of July 14, and also the Minutes. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS ------ MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, approval of Checks Numbers SD27 through 5065 excluaing Check 5029 for a total of $319,349.79. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobsnn, Seconded by Lachinski, approval of Check 5029 to the Andover tlrëTTghters Relief Association for $4,500. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Peach Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , :Y-;;;J..",- ~-:;:;; I Mar e11a A. Peach Reco ing Secretary ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 6, 1982 MINUTES - CORRECTION Page 11: The following was inadvertly left out of the submitted copy of the July 6, 1982, Minutes and should be added to the top of Page 11 following the title, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - SEALCOATING: -.- - MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids for the completion of the sealcoating project in 1982 as presented in his report dated 7-2-82. (See Resolution R59-82) Motion carried unanimously. TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE/ANDOVER LIONS CLUB (Minutes to continue with First Motion on Page 11 as submitted.) Respectfully submitted, ~~ Marce la A. Peach Recordlng Secretary