Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 4, 1982 ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-NOVEMBER 4, 1982 Agenda 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3 . Agenda Approval 4. Canvass City Election 5. Discussion Items a. Amendment Ordinance 8/Sg1e Family w/Apts b. Auditor's Billing c. Landfill-Modification of Contours d. Final Payment-Sealcoating e. 1983 Enterprise Budget f. Final Acceptance/1982-2 g. h. 6 . Non-Discussion Items a. Renewal/Bingo License-Andover Alano Society b. MCFOA Workshop-City Clerk c. 7. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 8. Approval of Minutes 9 . Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: Mayor and Council COPIES TO: Engineer, Attorney, Staff FROM: City Clerk/A.Administrator DATE: November 3. 1982 REFERENCE: Agenda Information - November 4, 1982 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please delete Item No. 6b. See memo Item No.4. Canvass City Election Enclosed are the results by precinct along with other pertinent data covering the City Election and Special Election. The Chief Judges for all precincts will be present to answer any questions you may have. A resolution declaring the results will be prepared. Item No. Sa. Amendment Ordinance 8/Single Family w/Apartments This item is continued from previous meetings. We are still receiving calls from residents requesting a decision on this proposed amendment. Item No. 5b. Auditor's Billing Attorney Hawkins has advised that the contract does not tie the auditor into the estimated $6,100 for the 1981 audit. Does the Council still wish to meet with Mr. Murphy? Item No. Sc. Landfill-Modification of Contours Jim Schrantz Item No. Sd. Final Payment - Sealcoating Attached is a recommendation for final payment. A resolution will be prepared. Item No. 5e. Enterprise Budgets-1983 Enclosed are the 1983 proposed Enterprise Funds Budgets. I did not have the opportunity to review my recommended revisions with Jim Schrantz or the Utility Department. Item. No. Sf. Final Acceptance/1982-2 Attached is a recommendation from Jim Schrantz for final approval of the project. This is the Smith's Addition street improvement. Agenda Information Meeting - November 4, 1982 Page 2 Item No. 6a. Renewal/Bingo License-Andover Alano Society Andover Alano Society, located in the old St. Patrick's Church building, has applied for renewal of their Bingo License. No complaints have been received. Item No.8. Approval of Minutes September 21, October 5, October 19, October 13. ~ o¿ ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 4, 1982 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 4, 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; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella Sosnteby, 4151 l4ls1-Avenue NW - presented the Council with ideas relative to the easement problem she has, hoping to resolve it before the Council hears the vacation of the easement request. She was before the Planning and Zoning Commission about that request on October 26, 1982. She then read a statement to the Council which said she cannot peacefully enjoy her lot on the north side of the easement because of the number of large vehicles parked on the easement, which is a violation of the ordinance. The trucks block her from getting to her lot, or small children are playing in the easement. She stated the police will not tag the vehicles and the City Council has done nothing to solve the proble~. Since the Hagens don't want to purchase the lot and 33-foot easement, and the City Council, which is responsible for this problem by allowing the garage to be built ten feet from the easement, has done nothing to correct this problem, she proposed that the City of Andover pay the assessments for the easement since she cannot build on it. Or the City should remove the easement or pay the cost of moving the Hagen's garage to face Round Lake Boulevard. She stated otherwise she has no alternative but to take the City of Andover to court to resolve the problem. Ms. Sonsteby then showed pictures of various vehicles parked in the easement, etc., taken within the last two months. There was a brief Council discussion as to what had taken place previously, the Council not wanting to go into any detail at this time since it will be on a future Council Agenda. It was noted there is a substantial number of documents relating to this particular easement, with the Council asking the Clerk to provide the information relating to the last resolution of the problem following the court decisions. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Agenda be approved as presented and publlshed with the deletion of Sc, Landfill - Modification of Contours; 6b, MCFOA Workshop - City Clerk; the change of Se to the end of the Agenda; the addition of Sg, Salary Level ~ Staff and Fire Department; and the addition of Sh, Group W Discussion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimously. CANVASS CITY ELECTION The Clerk explained in the Resolution before the Council, the votes include the absentee ballots; however, the percentages shown do not include absentee ballots. On the final summary sheet of the Resolution, she noted the following changes under the total number of ballots cast: Precinct 1, change 1403 to 1424; Precinct 2, change 478 to 490; Precinct 3, 1370 to 1388; and Precinct 4, change the 497 to 451. The Clerk also explained overall the election ran very smoothly with only one incident. The problem that occurred was with the County at the court house, as it took anywhere from three to five hours to get the ballots counted. The computer lost the ballots at one Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (Canvass City Election, Continued) point, and they couldn't get a printout at another precinct. It eventually came out okay, but they didn't leave the court house until after 5 a.m. Councilman Jacobson suggested in the future more careful instruction be given on how to write in on the ballot. Sharon Rzeszutek - explained a problem with one gentleman coming in who wanted to register buf<IlO not have the proper identification needed. The gentleman put up a fuss at first, but eventually did leave without any further disturbance. Peg Wick - stated there were approximately 30 to 35 people who came to Crooked Lake School to vote who had to be sent over to Grace Lutheran Church. Otherwise, she felt everything went well. She stated, however, that more booths are needed. The longest wait for people to vote was 33 minutes. Discussion returned to the problem with the County, as this is not the first time there have been problems on that end. Ms. Lindquist stated the Anoka County Clerk's Association will be writing to the County on their own letterhead, because it wasn't just Andover but the other cities as well. The Council directed the Clerk to prepare a Resolution for Council action at the next meeting relative to the City's concerns about the problems occurring at the County in tallying the election results. Ms. Wick - stated in talking with other election judges while at the court house, she stated the Council should be very proud of Ms. Lindquist for doing such an excellent jOb of organizing the election, as everything went perfectly. Ms. Lindquist stated that all the judges did a very good job. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approving a Resolution canvassing the returns of a municipal election held on the Second Day of November, 1982, in the City of Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota, as presented by the City Clerk with the corrections as noted on the third page of the tally sheet. (See Resolution R97-82) Motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 8/SINGLE FAMILY w/APARTMENTS There was a lengthy discussion on the propsed change as to whether or not single family homes with apartments should be allowed at all, should be allowed only in the sewered portion of the City, and on possible effects of allowing the change. Mayor Windschitl questioned what the Council wants to do as this proposal goes considerably beyond the mother-in-law apartment. This, in effect, makes every single-family dwelling in the urban area divisible into an apartment, thereby creating a density problem which affects traffjc,'parks, etc. He also questioned who will police this and how will the City know when such a house is sold. Councilman Jacobson stated he personally is not in favor of the amendment. He felt the reason it was first considered is because of the poor economic conditions and people looking for ways to make more income, having families move in, etc., for a short period of time. But if this is instituted, the provisions will not be cut off in the future. What this really does is put more people in a given area and circumvents the z~Ring regulations. People buy into that area thinking it's a single-family residential areal at can basically turn into a duplex area defacto through this amendment. The City has zoning areas for that type of housing. Councilman Lachinski felt if the provisions of this ordinance could be met, especially it being owner-occupied, parking on property, etc., he didn't see a problem with it. He stated the Special Use Permit had been allowed previously until the Council made the change to not allow the construction of duplexes in single-family residential areas. And that created a problem that this proposes to resolve. He felt the fact that the building would be owner-occupied would reduce many of the problems that could be created Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Amendment Ordinance 8/Single Family w/Apartments, Continued) and is a good compromise in this situation. This provides some criteria to monitor them, and the special use permit can be revoked if the requirements are not adhered to. Councilman Lachinski questioned whether the City could require any requirements to be met if this type of thing is being done for family members only. Councilman Orttel took issue with Councilman Jacobson's statement that this would be for a short-term gain, thinking the housing trend patterns are very definite and people are starting to live together more and longer. He felt there were a lot of people in Andover that have already done this, and the change the Council made a while back made outlaws out of those people. Councilman Peach felt that few homes could meet these requirements to be converted with an apartment, that this provides people with greater freedom over the use of their property, and that the fear of whole neighborhoods becoming saturated with this type of housing is unwarranted. Attorney Hawkins was not aware of any cities allowing this type of activity, as most cities take the same position as Andover's ordinance. Unless the area is zoned for a duplex, it is not allowed. , MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing an ordinance amending Ordinance No.8, an Ordinance No. 8M, known as the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Andover as presented on 11-5 with the following change: 2a shall say a lot area shall not be less than 13,000 square feet. , AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to strike the portion on Residentlal District, Section 7.03 which would have added single family homes with apartments in R-3 and R-4 Districts only; and change 2h, property shall be served by public sanitary sewer or shall require a minimum of 39,000 square feet for each residential unit with private septic systems. DISCUSSION: A lengthy debate continued on the pros and cons of this amendment. Discussion was also on the possibility of limiting the number of apartments in single family homes within a neighborhood, though no specific suggestions were agreed to because of the problems of determining what that limit should be, defining the area, etc. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Windschitl Amendment carried. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NO-Jacobson, Windschitl Motion carried; however, because a change to the zoning ordinance requires a 4/5 vote, the Amendment to Ordinance No.8 failed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to refer the question of zoning ordinance, the question of two-unit homes to the P&Z for further discussion with respect to the density in a given area. Motion carried unanimously. Council discussion was to have the P & Z look at limiting the number of conversions allowed in a neighborhood and to limit the conversions to one apartment per single-family unit. AUDITOR'S BILLING Attorney Hawkins stated in reviewing the matter, he didn't believe the letter with the auditors clearly indicates what the contract amount is, as it states they "estimate the cost of the audit..."; but it doesn't specify an exact amount. Based on the City's acceptance of that language, he felt it would be difficult to hold the auditor to the $6,100 fí gure. He underwood the work done was extra work not normally done for an audit, and advised further negotiation with the firm if the Council so desires. It is a question of whether or not the charges for that audit were reasonable. Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Auditor's Billing, Continued) After further discussion, the Council generally agreed the $4,500 figure negotiated with the auditor should be paid this time. It was suggested that more specific language be put in contracts in the future to prevent this type of thing from happening again. Or at least provide a provision that if extra work needs to be don~ that the firm approach the Council with an estimate prior to the work being done. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we pay the George M. Hanson Company, Public Accountants, an additional sum of $4,500 as final payment for the 1981 City of Andover audit, such payment will constitute the final payment the City has to the accounting firm for that period. Motion carried unanimously. FINAL PAYMENT - SEALCOATIN~ MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting the work of Allied Blacktop Company and authorize payment in the amount of $16,855.90 for the sealcoating City streets, and noting that $14,807.25 has already been paid. (See Resolution R98-82) Motion carried unanimously. FINAL ACCEPTANCELl981~2 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting the improvement project No. 1981-2B, Smith's Rolling Oaks as prepared, accepting the work of NDH, Inc., of Anoka, and authorizing the City Clerk and Mayor to issue a proper order for final payment of such contract. (See Resolution R99~82) DISCUSSION: was on the drainage question on l46th. Councilman Jacobson stated he has been through that area; and even with the rains this fall, there doesn't appear to be a problem. Motion carried unanimously. GROUP W DISCUSSION Jim Commers, Director of Governmental and Community Relations for Group W Cable. Their present address is 3725 Dunlap Avenue N in Arden Hills, but they are very close to signing a lease for the headquarters of their Quad Cities operation at 737 East River Road in Anoka. Mr. Schrantz stated Mr. eommers has just met with the Park and Recreation Commission, and their first choice is not to have the hub center on City property. Their second and third choices were to place the hub in the southeast corner of the City Hall site or in the area between the City Hall and Public Services Building close to the road. Steve Nichols, Park Commissioner - stated their first choice is not to have the hub center on City property at all feeling pd.va1e'enterprise does not belong on public property. I Attorney Hawkins noted if Group W were to lease a portion of the City Hall site to house their tower and building, that property would lose its tax exempt status. He had not discussed any amount with Mr. Commers relative to compensation for the property. Mr. Commers - stated they have done the microwave profiles on the location, although it lS reasonable to assurrethere wouldn't be a problem if it were located in other areas as well. The main desire for using the City Hall location is because it is so centrally located. Their signals travel only so far along the cable. Council discussion with various Park Board members and with Mr. Commers was on pros and cons of having the hub located on the City Hall site. Those on the Park Board stated they were unaware of the compensation factor involved, but felt that such a facility would be a permanent one and did not belong in a public park. Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 (Group W Discussion, Continued) After some discussion, Council was generally opposed to having the site located in the front portion of the City Hall site in either the southeastern corner or between the buildings. They also did not want the hub placed to restrict expansion of the public works facilities. It was generally felt if the tower could be a self-supporting one so the guy wires would not be needed, which takes up most of the room, it would be easier to find an area within the City Hall site to place it. Mr. Schrantz suggested then it could be tucked in the southeastern corner of the tennis court and the City's radio tower could then piggyback onto it. Mr. Commers stated he would have to consult his engineers to determine if a self-supporting tower would be feasible, but he felt that would be a possibility. Councilman Lachinski was also concerned with the amount of revenues involved, wondering if the amount would justify the hassle involved. Councilman Peach felt the nuisance value would be minimal and that it would be an advantage to have the facility close to City Hall ana city facilities. Councilman Jacboson also felt that a 10Q-foot self- supporting tower would not be obtrusive and the dish on top is not that big. Jack (7) - questioned the safety factor of putting a tower in a park. He felt a fence around it would not keep the kids out and that such a facility does not belong in a park. Councilman Jacobson stated he would agree if it were a lattice steel structure, but he didn't think a self-supporting tubular tower could be climbed. Mr. Commers - stated they are about to sign a lease agreement to place a tower in ~plin on city property at their municipal hall; and they are looking at using private property in Ramsey and Anoka. The agreement with Champlin is based on market value, but he didn't know the amount. He guessed it would be $2,OOD to $2,500 a year. After further discussion, it was then suggested Mr. Commers' firm look to place the hub on private property. Recess at 9:10; reconvene at 9:19 p.m. There was another short discussion on the possibility of placing the Group W tower on the City Hall site, noting that the City's radio tower will have to be moved somewhere on the site, but that no provisions have been made for that. It was suggested Mr. Schrantz look at this matter again, possibly allowing the Group W tower wherever the City puts its radio tower. SALARIES/STAFF AND flRE DEPARTMENT Ms. Lindquist stated in talking with the employees, all agreed to a straight 7 percent increase with no merit increases for anyone. Mr. Schrantz concurred, noting with the small staff, anyone receiving a merit increase over another causes problems. Council discussion was on the proposal, with some feeling some merit raises should be provided for. Councilman Lachinski suggested 5 percent be given across-the-board with the other two percent being used for those who are not at the top of their range; or because of how smoothly things have been run in the City this past year that the supervisors, specifically Ms. Lindquist and Mr. Schrantz, be given one or two percent merit and the other staff members be given a 5 percent across-the-board increase. Mr. Schrantz noted because of the salary differences, the proposal would cause a disproportionate increase for the supervisors, again feeling it would cause some dissension among the staff. Councilman Jacobson suggested giving everyone a 6 percent increase and dividing the other one percent on a dollar basis among the employees deserving a merit increase. Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 6 ~alaries/Staff and Fire Department, Continued) Councilman Peach suggested because of the large inequity between wages in the public works area, take 6 percent of the four salaries and divide it by four for each employee. It would mean those earning less would receive a larger dollar increase percentage-wise, and those now earning more would receive a slightly less increase. After discussing other suggestions, the Council requested the City Clerk to provide a list of the present salaries of all staff members, plus the ranges determined a year or two ago. It was agreed to discuss this matter plus the 1983 Enterprise Budget at a special meeting. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we hold a Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 23, for purposes of salaries and Enterprise Budgets. Motion carried unanimously. RENEWAL/BINGO~ICENSE - ANDOVER ALAND SOCIETY MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we renew the Bingo License for the Andover Alano Society at the old St. Patrick's Church building for the year 1983. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; ABSTAIN-Jacobson Motion carried. SENIOR CITIZEN BUILDING DISCUSSION Mayor Windschitl expressed frustration over the fact that nothing is being done, and the contractor is now being pickettedforan item having to do with another project done by the contractor. Attorney Hawkins stated he spoke with the engineer and wrote him a letter that the City intends to enforce the provisions of the contract; and the engineer has been in contact with the bonding company at least once. The Clerk stated in talking with Bonestroo, the contractor is saying they will complete the project by the deadline, December 23; and the steel will be here around the first week in December. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize the City Attorney to contact the bonding firm that holds the bond for Allstate Builders and explain the problem and tell them we intend to enforce it and ask them to encourage the contractor to resume work. Motion carried unanimously. PARK AND RECREATlQNj&EPORT/KELSEY PARK (Mayor Windschitl stepped down to the audience; Acting Mayor Orttel conducted this portion of the meeting.) Chairman Bill LeFebvre reviewed the options available to the· City relative to the grant application and City's responsibilities for the Kelsey Park purchase, asking the Council which option they feel should be taken. Mr. Hawkins advised that until the contracts are signed, the State has a specific procedure that has to be followed any time their funding is used. The City cannot just begin talking with the landowners about price. Before the acquisition process can begin, the State and Federal contracts must be signed. After they are signed by all appropriate people, the City will receive the checklist of the appropriate procedure to be followed as part of the LawCon grant process. Discussion noted the State grant portion is for approximately $43,550, and the Federal grant portion is approximately $6,900. After some discussion, Council generally felt the City should be attempting to purchase the entire Kelsey Park area, which had been estimated at approximately $107,000. The possibility of the City's share being Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 1982 - Minutes Page 7 (Park and Recreation Report/Kelsey Park, Continued) spread over a three- to five-year period was also discussed. It was also understood the City could go with a reduced project if an acceptable purchase price or terms could not be negotiated. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to authorize the Acting Mayor and City Clerk to sign the grant applications for Kelsey Park. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach; NOT VOTING-Windschitl as he is directly affected by the project. Motion carried. (Mayor Windschitl returned to chair the remainder of the meeting.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 5, October 13, and October 19, 1982: Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we accept the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of October 5 as presented. VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschitl; PRESENT-Lachinski, Orttel Moti on carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Minutes of October 13 and October 19 as written. Motion carried unanimously. (Councilman Lachinski left the meeting at this time; 10:12 p.m.) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Claims 5836 through 5926, notlng that 5841 is void, for a total amount of $67,431.18. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Lachinski) vote. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1- Absent (Lachinski) vote. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ (~uL~ C'- ~,~ L Marc lla A. Peach Recording Secretary