Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 16, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-MARCH 16, 1982 AGENDA 1 . Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Advanced Enterprises Preliminary Plat b. J. Eveland Rezoning c. Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit d. B. VanDenBoom Special Use Permit e. L. Reiman Rezoning f. Municipal State Aid Highway System g. City Street System h. Proposed Sanitary Landfill Report i. Public Works Position j. Load Limits Ordinance k. Preliminary Plans-Senior Citizen Center l. m. 5. Non-Discussion Items * a. County Resolutions/Hanson Boulevard b. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of claims 9. Adjournment _ _~ ----->0<----- _ - CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 11, 1982 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - MARCH 16, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please delete Item No. 4a - Advanced Enterprises Preliminary Plat, Item No. 4e - Reiman Rezoning. These two items were continued by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please add Item No. Sa - County Resolutions/Hanson Boulevard. Item No. 4b - Eveland Rezoning Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of those lands lying outside the Urban Service Area, owned by Janett Eveland, from Residential 1 to Agricultural Preserve, excepting out those areas not now eligible for such zoning classification. A resolution will be prepared approving such rezoning request. Item No. 4c - Good Value Homes Special Use Permit Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the request of Good Value Homes, Inc. to construct a style of home not approved with the original Special Use Permit issued as part of the P.U.D. at time of platting. This differs from the style requested in January in that it does have a partial basement and is approximately 40 square feet larger than the "slab on grade" style requested previously. A resolution will be prepared granting approval of the amended Special Use Permit. You will note that some of the residents signing the petition as being opposed to this Special Use Permit have indicated they would not feel as strongly about it if the Amended Use Permit for the ·Sierra-slab on grade" home was rescinded. Item No. 4d - Bruce VandenBoom Special Use Permit Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for declaring the request of Mr. VandenBoom to obtain a Special Use Permit to make legal the existing use of his residence as a two- f amil y home. Mr. VandenBoom was originally advised (my letter of February 1) that he could obtain such a permit inasmuch as the structure had been used as a two-family dwelling prior to the City's ordinance change prohibiting such use. Since that time Mr. Hawkins has changed his opinion and now advises thatthe City is unable to issue the permit because ordinance no longer allows it. The City was not made aware of the two-family use until .. ~~ Agenda Information March 16, 1982 Page 2 Item No. 4d - B. VandenBoom Special Use Permit (continued) I received a telephone call on January 25 from a neighbor stating that the home had been used as a two-family dwelling for approximately one year, however, they now objected to such use inasmuch as Mr. VandenBoom was intending to move into another home across the street and would be using the dwelling as a total rental unit. Please refer to the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of March 9 for specific information. Item No. 4f- Municipal State Aid Highway System The Road Committee will be meeting on March 11, and should have a report ready for the Council. They were directed, at the February 16 Meeting to review the proposal and present their recommendations. Item No. 4g - City Street Systems This item is continued from the February 16 Meeting and will be a part of the Road Committee Report. Item NO. 4h - Proposed Sanitary Landfill Report The Coon Rapids City Manager and City Engineer brought this matter before their City Council on March 9, however, there was not a full Council, therefore, action was delayed. They are requesting background information on those persons from T.K.D.A. responsible for the report as well as presenting testimony to Metropolitan Council. The general feeling of the majority of Coon Rapids Councilmembers in attendance at that meeting was that they would be willing to contribute $5,000 toward completion of this report. T.K.D.A. is not preparing resumes and background information to be presented to the Coon Rapids Council at their March 23rd Meeting. Item No. 4i - Public Works Position You have received a copy of the proposed Job Description as prepared by the City Engineer/PW Director. Authorization is needed to permit advertisement for applicants. A salary range should also be established. Item No. 4j - Load Limits Ordinance Attached is a proposed ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. This proposed ordinance will enable us to enforce the restrictions as set out by resolution. Item No. 4k - Preliminary Plans-Senior Citizen Center The Council is meeting on March 11 with the architect and the Senior Citizen Committee to review the recommended changes in the Plan presented on March 2. The revised draft should be available for the meeting at which time a resolution is needed to approve the Preliminary Plans and direct the Architect to prepare Final Plans and Specifications. . . M, ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 16, 1982 MINUTES Th'" Re~ular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was calleo to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on March 16, 1982, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, the approval of the Agenda as published with the deletion of 4a and 4e, and with the addition of Item 51, Resolution on Waste Control; 5b, Approval of Part-Time Help for Auditors; 5c, Replacin9 the Accountant; 5d, Road Improvement Committee Appointment; and 5e, Planning and Zoning Resignation. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. J. EVELAND REZONING Chairman Bosell noted that Ms. Eveland withdrew her request for rezoning of the property located within the MUSA area. Mayor Windschitl reported that at the last meeting of City representatives and the Metropolitan Council Staff they were able to negotiate an agreement on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Staft was willing to leave the excess land area shown on the City's pre-lg90 development map of the Urban Service Area (as shown by Mr. Schrantz at the March 2 regular Council meeting) with a stipulation in the Plan that of the extra 300 acres in the industrial area, they would provide sanitary sewer service to half of it. The City will be able to plan for whatever acres comes in for a request, which provides the City with the flexibility desired. Once the Plan is approved, the Council can address the areas within the MUSA that are requesting the AgP designation. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, approving a rezoning for Janet Eveland, whose residence is 14722 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, from the present zoning R-l to Agricultural Preserve for the following described parcels of property: northwest one-quarter of the northwest one-quarter, Section 27-32-24 consisting of approximately 40 acres; northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28-32-24 consisting of approximately 37.5 acres; and the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 28-32-24 consisting of approximately 40 acres. (See Resolution R 11-82) DISCUSSION: was on the question of requiring the Evelands to pay the fee again if or when a rezoning to AgP would be allowed on their property in the MUSA area. Chairman Bosell stated she informed the Evelands that the rezoning map would not be published until after October 1 when all such rezonings would be published on one map. There was some question as to whether the fee should be paid again, but it was generally felt that item should be dealt with at the time their request for an AgP zoning in the MUSA area could be considered. Motion carried unanimously. GOOD VALUE HOMES AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT Chairman Bosell reviewed the Commission's recommendation to approve the requested amended special use permit for Good Value Homes. She also noted a consensus of the neighborhood at the P & Z meeting for the parkwood style of twin home was wholehearted agreement with the plan. The neighborhood is also requesting that the approval for the Sierra slab-on-grade home be withdrawn because of the negative impact they feel it will have on the neighborhood. - -.......~~- - - Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit, Continued) John Peterson, Good Value Homes - stated a decision has not yet been made whether or not to bUlld the slngle Sierra twin-home, as the company is aware of the negative reaction of that type of home both from the neighborhood and from the Council. He stated there is a good chance that that home might never be built. Their intention with the amended special use permit is to be able to build either a Chippewa or Parkwood home on any of the twin-home lots, plus the one Sierra previously approved. It is their opinion that the Sierra home would have no negative impact on the neighborhood. They would like to leave the option open for building the one Sierra, though Mr. Peterson stated he didn't think i twould ever be built. They have three proposed elevations of the Parkwood home for a variation. This same style is being built in NorthGlen now as a single family home. Council discussion was on the different styles of homes proposed, especially on the Sierra. Attorney Hawkins stated that if the character of the neighborhood is changing, the Council can consider what they have approved before and how it relates to this request; but the Council would have to approve or deny this request based on what was done previously. He didn't think the Council would be able to withdraw its approval on the previous amended special use permit. Mr. Peterson - explained that the current selling price of a Chippewa home is $55,900, and the Parkwood would be $2,000 less. When the original special use permit was applied for, the company had not built any other type of twin home. But by adding the Parkwood style, it will provide a variety to the neighborhood, and the $2,000 makes a difference for qualifying buyers. Their policy on single-family homes has been not to build the same style side by side. When this PUD was originally approved, the idea was to have alj 16 units the same. They would prefer to build the twin homes in any mix they wanted to, and they would not put the same front style side by side. But they would prefer to have the flexibility to mix the styles as they saw fit. Don Nast, 3436 l39th Avenue NW - referred to the petition of the 29 families in the nelghborhood expressing opposition to the Sierra home being built and to have the approval of the Sierra rescinded. Mr. Nast felt that there are many advantages to the Parkwood style, including the inclusion of a basement, larger garage, less likely an owner would rent it out, etc. With Good Value planning future development west of County Road 9, he felt that would be the place to propose the Sierra style home, rather than adding it to an existing neighborhood. He felt with a slab home, the surrounding property values will go down and the appearance and upkeep may not be as good. The homes presently there are of a higher value than the Sierra. I f Good Value would rescind the Sierra and build a Parkwood, it would be a definite improvement in his opinion. Rick Rule, 3421 l38th Lane - stated most of them at the meeting last week have no objections to the new plan, but they do not want to see the Sierra. If the approval is going to stand on the one Sierra, he hoped Good Value would not get approval to construct any more if they ask for it because of the marketing conditions. Jack Evans, 3465 l39th Avenue NW - his opinion is with the petition he signed. He couldn't follow the logic of allowing only one Sierra, because if it isn't going to be used as a model to show to build others, what purpose would it serve by itself. And what purpose would it serve to have one slab home among all the others that have basements. And what would be the value to Good Value Homes to have one cheaper home among the others. He is against the Sierra home, feeling basements are needed for protection against tornadoes and that it will have a negative impact in the neighbor- hood. . . ~, Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit, Continued) Mr. Peterson - thought it could be shown that one house with a value of $5,000 less than the nelghboring homes would not depreciate the property values in the neighbor- hood. They now have homes in the NorthGlen development worth $85,000 as well as those that are worth $55,000, which is a $30,000 spread in homes. Their proposal for a Sierra is for $5,000 difference. John Sather, 3516 l39th Lane NW - felt the proposal for the Parkwood is a good one, but he lS concerned with the original Sierra model still being allowed in their ne i ghborhood . MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, the approval of the Amended Special Use Permit to Good Value Homes to construct the Parkwood home on Lots 1 through 16, Block 2; Lots 36 through 39, Block 6; lots 27 through 3D, Block 6; Lots 3 through 6, Block 6 in the NorthGlen Addition; Parkwood as defined as design number 3032 as presented to the Council; this does not preclude the use of the Chippewa on those lots as presented in the previous Special Use Permit. (See Resolution R12-82) Motion carried unanimously. B. VanDenBOOM SPECIAL USE PERMIT Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation that, according to the City Attorney, the request not even be considered and his money refunded because it was not a proper use in 1980 when it started. Therefore, considering the special use request was not a legal procedure. Attorney Hawkins also explained that the City Clerk informed him the use was in existence in 1980 and that it is now prohibited by a change in the City ordinance. But he must have misunderstood her to mean the use was in the zone validly in 1980 and he advised that it was the proper subject for a special use permit application. He subsequently found out that in fact Mr. VanDenBQOffi did not have a special use permit for a two-family home in that area in 1980, and it was in violation of the ordinance by not having that permit. His opinion, based on that information, is that an individual cannot claim he is grandfathered in by virtue of the fact that he operated a use contrary to the ordinance prior to a change. Had it been a valid use with a special use permit in 1980, he felt the request could now be cons i dered. But that permit was not issued, the use was there improperly, and he didn't believe the use is grandfathered in. Bruce VanDenBoom, 2205 l40th Lane, introduced his attorney, Robert Munns. Mr. Munns - has talked with Mr. VanDenBoom and with Mr. Hawkins. In 1980 Mr. VanDenBoom made the decision to do the remodeling and spend some money to make it available for additional rental units. He contacted the nei ghbors at that time and none had any objectionstothe situation. Based upon that, Mr. VanDenBoom spent a fair amount of money remodelin9' He wasn't aware of the need for a special use permit at that time. Subsequently the ordinance was changed making it impossible for him to achieve a special use permit. At that point Mr. VanDenBoom also decided to purchase a new home, staying in the same area. Mr. VanDenBoom has spent a con- siderable amount of time and money in an attempt to get this special use permit. Mr. Munns also presented copies of notes from neighbors who had no objections to Mr. VanDenBoom's proposal (those notes were from Marlys Scherbel, 2230 l40th Lane; Dwight Grayse, 14035 Raven Street; and Dale Spaf, 14015 Raven). Mr. Munns went on to say the area contains a number of multiple dwellings. The house is only one lot away from a row of a number of double bungalo\ls, rlus there are double bungalows almost across the street. . .. Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (B. VanDenBoom Special Use Permit, Continued) Mr. VanDenBoom - presented some pictures of the neighborhood, neighboring houses, etc., and presented the Council with a copy of the major points he wished to make in support of his request: he didn't realize he needed a special permit when he first remodeled; the appearance of the house is the same as the others in the area; each of the levels of the house is at least as large as the main level of the houses on either side of him; the yard is considerably larger than the others in the neighborhood (he presented a copy of the layout of the neighborhood to the Council); the home he purchased is two houses away on Raven; he has never allowed more than a total of six people to live in the house; and parking has not been a problem with him renting half of the garage and insisting their car be kept in the garage. He stated the immediate neighbors were all present during a discussion of his plans to remodel the house originally, and he purchased the property three days after that discussion. Tom Cherney, 14049 Raven - explained Mr. VanDenBoom's property is right behind his. He did discuss the proposal with Mr. VanDenBoom before the property was purchased and remodeled. Everyone else's houses were there; and as it was being built, it was obvious what Mr. VanDenBoom was going to do. And there was no reaction at that point. From his point of view, it is fine as Mr. VanDenBoom takes good care of the place. He didn't have any objection then, and he doesn't have any now. Roger Butorac, 2195 l40th Lane NW - is Mr. VanDenBoom's immediate neighbor. He stated he was not approached that Mr. VanDenBoom was building the house as a double-family dwelling. When it was mentioned, it was only the plans to finish off the basement and rent it out, which he saw no problems with as long as r1r. VanDenBoom lived upstairs. He has no problem with a landlord renting out the lower portion of his home as long as he is there. Mr. Butorac stated they are not the only ones opposed to this, as there are 23 other people, 12 homes up Quinn living in this area for several years that have had a lot of problems with the area of the double bungalows. And those people were never approached as to Mr.VanDenBoom's plans. (Mr. Butorac presented the Council with a petition opposing Mr. VanDenBoom's request.) Mr. Butorac stated he still doesn't have any problems with renting the lower portion of the home as long as the owner lives in the remaining portion or of renting the entire house to one family. He also pointed out there is the possibility that Mr. VanDenBoom might not always live two houses away from this unit, or that he might rent out the new house as well. The concern of those signing the petition is if it happens in one house, what is to prevent it from happening all the way down the block, which would decrease the value of the neighborhood. If Mr. VanDenBoom rents the home requested, Mr. Butorac's house would be between double-family homes, and he felt that would decrease his property value. Eileen Hanson, 2215 l40th Lane - lives on the other side of Mr. VanDenBoom, and her objections are the same as Mr. Budorac's. She felt the amendment has passed, Mr. VanDenBoom didn't have the required permit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. She has no problem if Mr. VanDenBoom wants to live there and rent out the lower portion or to rent it to one family. Her objection is when there would be two families, and Mr. VanDenBoom would not be one of them. Council discussion was on the reasons for the change in the ordinance to prohibit rental units in an R-4 area, but there appears to be support from the surrounding neighborhood to the extent that the owner of the building would occupy a portion of it as well. The suggestion was discussed of allowing multiple-family uses in an R-4 area but placing certain contingencies on the use such as requiring the owner to live in the building, limiting the number of people, cars, etc., per rental unit, etc., noting the needs and trends of the housing market today may dictate the allowance of such uses. ~ , . Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 (B. VanDenBoom Special Use Permit, Continued) Mr. VanDenBoom - explained the home was built in 1979, and it was his intention to rent out the lower portion of the house at that time, although the basement was not finished until after he was already living in the house. Council discussion also noted that based on the Attorney's opinion, this request cannot be considered, although the suggestion of amending the ordinance to al'low such uses with certian contingencies was discussed further. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we refer the matter of multiple- residential use in R-4 district back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider possible special use for multiple-family in an R-4 based on such factors as requiring the owner to live there, based on a limited number of people in the residence, based on the number of vehicles that can be parked at the residence or owned by the two families of the residence, etc. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; No-Jacobson, Windschitl Motion carried. Chairman Bosell explained some of the questions raised by the Commission were what is to be done about the sanitary sewer facilities when the building has only one sewer stub, or when there is only one well for the building, or how does the 7,000 square feet per land area per dwelling unit required in the ordinance for multiple- family units relate; and once this is started, how can it be stopped. Councilman Lachinski felt this is a more reasonable approach to allowing a two-family home under single ownership. Mr. VanDenBoom - stated he would live in the house if that is what would be required. Mr. Cherney - stated Mr. VanDenBoom indicated to him a desire to get this worked out and Mr. VanDenBoom has already purchased the other house with the intention of moving in. Mr. Cherney understood if Mr. VanDenBoom had to stay in this house, he would have to rent out the house he just purchased. Mr.VanDenBoom - stated that is basically true. He must do something, as he owns two homes and has to have a certain amount of income to pay for them. He felt he checked all the avenues and didn't realize he needed a special use permit when he built the house. The plans for the house shows all the plumbing for the kitchen, bathroom, partition walls, etc., downstairs. He was also under the impression if he would sell the home, he would loose the special use permit. And he was also under the impression the special use permit would be reviewed every year. Mr. Sather - stated the reason he stayed for this portion of the meeting is through hlS bringing around the petition, he came across three neighbors who are planning to make their homes into a double home and rent it in the Good Value area, and they were planning to vacate the property within the next two or three years. There is one specific place that has already done that. His concern is the decision made here will affect their neighborhood as well. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we deny the special use permit to Mr. Bruce VanDenBoom at 2205 l40th Lane because City Councl is advised by legal counsel the special use permit, there never was a special use permit issued prior to 1980 and there has not been one since that time and that no special use permit be issued to Mr. VanDenBoom and his money be refunded because he was given erroneous information as to the possibility a special use permit could be issued, which it could not be. Motion carried unanimously. - .. Agenda Information March 16, 1982 Page 3 I-tern No. Sa - County Resolutions/Hanson Boulevard Attached are resolutions covering the Hanson Boulevard Bridge Construction. The County must have City adoption of these resolutions for submission to the State of Minnesota. Jim Schrantz and TKDA will review the plans and have a report available at the meeting. Item No. No. 6 - Reports None Received. h Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes ,~ j' February 2, 16; March 2 ' ~/, /} '" ..~. ,- / . .; . . ~ , Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL REPORT Councilman Jacobson stated he talked with a City Council member from Coon Rapids, who indicated they will be meeting Thursday, and it sounds as though they may be supporting the City in this matter. After discussion, the Council directed Mr. Schrantz to inform TKDA that the meeting date for this item has been scheduled for April 13, 7 p.m. Roosevelt Junior High School. It was also felt the Council should receive the written documentation prepared by TKDA supporting the City's position prior to that meeting. PUBLIC WORKS POSITION Discussion noted that in an attempt to solve the State's fiscal problems, the Legislators may vote to reduce State Aid to the cities by $30 million, which could affect the City's revenues. It was generally felt more on this should be known by the next regular Council meeting, but the public works position would be one of the areas that could be cut back if this were necessary. It was agreed to discuss the public works position when more is known about the City's State Aid. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to table the item of Public Works Employee to the next regular scheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously. LOAD LIMITS ORDINANCE MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing Ordinance 53, an Ordinance imposlng seasonal weight restrictions upon the use of streets and highways within the City of Andover, Minnesota, and imposing penalties for violations as presented by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLANS - SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER Council reviewed the preliminary plans as agreed to at the March 11 Special Meeting and prepared by the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the preliminary floor plans of the Senior Citizen Center as presented by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates, and note that the exception being to eliminate the easterly door in the warming house and the southeast door in the police office (easterly office). Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE BILL/RESOLUTION Councilman Jacobson stated he would abstain from voting because there may be a conflict of interest with his place of employment and the City's position. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution requesting approval of the legislation providing for clean-up of hazardous wastes in the State of Minnesota as presented by the City Clerk with the following changes: in the second to the 1 ast 1 ine under NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the word before "bill" be changed from "the" to "a"; and the word "responsibility" changed to "responsible". (See Resolution R13-82) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte 1, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson on the grounds of possible conflict of interest. r10tion carried. Recess at 9:07; reconvene at 9:15 p.m. MUNICIPAL STATE AID HIGHWAY SYSTEM/CITY STREET SYSTEM Mr. Schrantz stated he and Mr. Cook from BRA are looking for direction as to what to do on the Municipal State Aid Highway Program. The plan is almost finished except for assessments. .. , Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 (MSAH System/City Street System, Continued) There was general agreement that the first project should be the east-west route in the area of l6lst between Round Lake Boulevard and Highway 58, and the discussion was on how to proceed. It was suggested both TKDA and BRA provide proposals on the project. It was also felt some field exploration would be needed to determine the best route and that that should be part of the feasibility report. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Anderlik be authorized to complete a feasibility report for the construction of an east-west corridor somewhere between l6lst and l70th Avenue in the northwestern part of the City, up to $3,000. DISCUSSION: If additional funds are needed, they can come back for further authorization. It was also felt the report should be ready for the next regular Council meeting. Assessments for MSA roads is also to be placed on the April 6 Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY RESOLUTIONS/HANSON BOULEVARD Paul Ruud, County Engineer, presented two sets of plans -- one for the construction of Hanson Boulevard Extension between Bunker Lake Boulevard and Andover Boulevard and the other for the construction of the bridge across Coon Creek. He explained the road plan was prepared by the County engineering staff and the bridge plans were prepared by TKDA. The road is designed as a 9-ton road,S inches of blacktop, being graded to a 52-foot top so there is room for four lanes in the future, but 24 feet is being paved at this time with gravel shoulders. A portion of Hanson Boulevard south of Bunker Lake Boulevard will have to be shifted eastward to line up with the northern portion going past the substation. They opened bids on the bridge last Tues- day and it is expected construction will begin wtihin six weeks. As soon as the plans for the roadway are approved by the State, they will proceed with the bidding process. There was some discussion on the City's desire to install the sanitary sewer trunk line up Hanson as it is being constructed and on the time constraints placed upon the City with its construction this year. Mr. Schrantz was directed to determine how feasible it would be to install the sanitary sewer trunk line up to the creek during the construction of the road. Mr. Ruud also noted the section of Hanson from Andover up to County Road 20 is scheduled within the next two or three years in their capital improvement program. Council agreed the City should begin the process of acquiring the necessary right of way. Mr. Ruud agreed to review the agreement between the City and the County on the Hanson Boulevard extension and to provide the necessary descriptions for Mr. Hawkins to begin acquisition of the right of way. Mr. Hawkins also advised if the City is wanting to assess the adjoining properties to recover the right-of-way acquisition costs, it is going to have to be done in conjunction with the time the construction is being done so that as soon as the construction is completed, the normal assessment hearings. can be held. The normal public hearing process would need to be followed as well, notifying those affected residents of the proposed assessment. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson,entering a Resolution approving plans for ProJect No. S.A.P. 02-678-02 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross- sections for the construction and improvement of County State-Aid Highway No. 78. (See Resolution R14-82) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, a Rësolution for plans for Project S.A.P. 02-678-03 Bridge No. 02539 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades and cross- sections for the construction, reconstruction or improvement of County State-Aid Highway No. 78 as presented. (See Resolution R1S-82) Motion carried unanimously. . , . Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 8 APPROVAL OF PART-TIME HELP FOR AUDITORS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council approve temporary help at an amount not to exceed $13 an hour to assist with the City's audit for a period of time not to exceed one work week. Motion carried unanimously. HIRING REPLACEMENT/BOOKKEEPER Mayor Windschitl explained out of all the resumes received, only one has had any prior municipal experience, and the Clerk has done some reference checks on her. He suggested allowing the City Clerk to interview the applicant and offer her the . position, given the need for additional help in the office as soon as possible. Discussion was on whether the position is full- or part-time and on a beginning salary. Ms. Lindquist explained the accounting position will be full time in the beginning, and then probably cut down to three or four days a week. However, if the individual can do other office work as well, there would be enough work for a full-time position. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by ûrttel, that the City Clerk be authorized to interview 'and offer the position of bookkeeper to Shirley Clinton at a base pay of $6.25 an hour with a si~-month probationary period. Motion carried unanimously. ROAD IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we appoint Paul Houle to the Road Comml ttee. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESIGNATION Chairman Bosell explained Ms. Volk called her yesterday that George Lobb came to the office and turned in all of his Commission material, stating he was resigning. He has also missed more than three successive Commission meetings. Council agreed to take no action at this time pending a written resignation from Mr. Lobb. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 1982: Correct as written. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Minutes of February 16 as written. Motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL DISCUSSION Because the public hearings on the proposed sanitary landfill site in Andover and Coon Rapids has been moved up to April 13, it was agreed that TKDA be given further authorization to prepare as much of the documentation and testimony as they can for those public hearings supporting the City's opposition to the proposal. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, the authorization for the preparation for the publlC hearing on the landfill site "Q" that TKDA be increased to $5,000. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted that this is the City's share of the financing; and if more can be received from other sources, that would provide TKDA with that increased authorization as well. LEAGUE CONVENTION MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the deposit for rooms for the League of Minnesota Municipalities convention in Rochester in June, 1982, for as many people from the City Council who wish to attend. Motion carried unanimously. , .. Regular City Council Meeting March 16, 1982 - Minutes Page 9 (League Convention, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Clerk, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Engineer be authorized room and board for the convention. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that we pay Checks 4773 through 4805, excluding 4802 which is void, for a total of $14,993.10. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~~'~CC4 Mar lla A. Peach Recor ing Secretary -..'