Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 11, 1982 - . ~ o¿ ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COU~CIL ME~TING - MARCH 11, 1982 ~1I NUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on March 11, 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 Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; Park and Recreation Commission Chairman, Bill LeFebvre; Senior Citizen Committee members Helen Franz and Steve Nemeth; BRA Engineer, Bradley Lindberg; and Road Committee member Paul Houle PRELIMINARY PLAN/SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER The Clerk prepared a sketch combining ideas suggested by the Council at the March 2 meeting. Discussion was on the two concerns of the Council of the location of the entryway and the location of the garage, as well as the uses of the space, the desire to finish the office area to have usable space immediately, and the desire to provide a small office and parking for the police to report to work in the City. Mr. Lindberg then redrew the sketch of what was a9reed to, that is placing the additional office space area next to the existing offices, having the garage to the north of that area with a nine-foot door, then the reception area reduced two feet from the Clerk's sketch with a double entry, and finally the warming house with the doors moved to the north side. There was no change to the Senior Citizen area of the building. Discussion returned to this item after the sketch was redrawn. REIMBURSEMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Discussion was on the claim made by d'Arcy Bosell, Planning Commission Chairman, to be paid for a meeting she attended with representatives of Good Value Homes. It was noted that the policy has been to reimburse the Planning Commission Chair- man for attending meetings relating to City business such as with the Metropolitan Council Staff, etc.; however, this meeting was requested by Good Value Homes, a developer in the City. It was generally felt that if the Chairman were paid for this meeting, that the amount should be charged to the Good Value escrow account; however, there was no consensus as to whether the City should be paying for this type of meeting at all. It was agreed to pay this claim, charge Good Value Homes for it, and then have the Personnel Committee recommend a policy for reimbursement on these types of meetings. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the question of reimbursement of the Commission members be referred to the Personnel Committee. ~10tion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the approval of check for d'Arcy Bosell, Check Number 4184 for $135. Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAN/SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER, CONTINUED Discussion was on the rough sketch just prepared by Mr. Lindberg. There was general agreement to the plans with the change in the location of the outside door to the proposed police department office coming from the garage side, that the police office should be approximately 10x14 feet, and that the adjacent office would have a flexible landscaping divider between the office and the hallway area from the garage to the existing building. Special City Council Meeting March 11, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 (Preliminary Plan/Senior Citizen Center, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the Council approve the plans as corrected for the Senior Citizen facility, accepting these as preliminary plans and specs and authorize Bonestroo, Rosene, and Anderlik to prepare the final plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. PURCHASE OF COPIER The Clerk stated the agreement for the Cannon copier guarantees their maintenance prices not to increase over 5 percent per year. The other companies give no guarantee on maintenance cost. And the response time is guaranteed three to five hours. If the machine cannot be repaired on a service call, a new machine will be delivered the next day. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Clerk be authorized to purchase a Cannon 400F copier on a five-year lease-purchase as requested by the City Clerk at a purchase price of $10,115. Motion carried unanimously. ROAD COMMITTEE/REVISIONS TO ORDINANCES 8 AND 10 Discussion began with the proposed changes under Ordinance 10, Section 4, Definitions: The changes of Frontage Road and Roadbed definitions were agreeable. There was a question as to the desirability of encouraging trail development in the City, noting the County has advised against it. Mr. Schrantz noted the definition is being added to correspond with the Comprehensive Plan and Park System Master Plan. Council generally agreed to remove the Trails definition from the amendment. Discussion was then on Section 9.03, Streets: Mr. Schrantz stated the only streets in the City that would be designated arterial are those that the County have asked to have that definition, those being Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake relocation. The County has asked for'those to be 150 feet wide. Council concern was on the width of the right of way being proposed, questioning if it may not be excessive. Mayor Windschitl noted the County has used the approach of requiring 50 feet of dedicated right of way and 25 feet of utility and drainage easement, and the Metro Council's approach has been to make the streets narrower. Mr. Schrantz stated the concern is with the setbacks from the right-of-way line, which is the reason the amendments were proposed. Council then reviewed the classifications map as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, especially the roads classified as minor arterial roads. There was some question as to the accuracy of the map, that some of the roads shown as collectors are actually minor arterial such as Round Lake Boulevard. It was suggested Round Lake Boulevard be a minor arterial road with l20-foot right of way. It was also suggested the map be corrected and the Plan amended. Council agreed that the minor street with 50-foot right-of-way designation not be deleted from the classifications. Discussion was then on a right-of-way width sufficient for all utilities, etc., within a residential area, feeling 66 feet is too much but not reaching a consensus as to whether it should be 50 or 60 feet. Mr. Schrantz also explained the difference in the collector street types and the reasons for the proposed right-of-way widths, that the key to the noise level is the distance the house is set back from the roadbed. He also stated this gives the Planning Commission a tool to work with and they will know what the street will look like. · Special City Council Meeting March 11, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 (Road Committee/Revisions to Ordinances 8 and 10, Continued) Council discussion noted that parking is not allowed in the City. Therefore, the only two street types should be municipal rural and municipal urban with no parking, which is the same as minor local streets and which would simplify right of ways to 100 feet for municipal rural or the minimum width necessary and 50 or 60 feet for minor streets, the desire being to take as little land as possible to construct the road. The City Engineer was directed to revise the proposed amendment to Ordinance 10. Discussion was then on the amendment to Ordinance No.8, 3.02, Definitions and 4.15, Setbacks Along Thoroughfares, questiong whether it is realistic to require a 100- foot setback from the centerline on collector streets. It was agreed the minimum setback from designated streets for all buildings shall be 50 feet from the planned right-of-way line, those designated streets to include arterial, minor arterial, collector, and MSA streets. ROAD COMMITTEE/ASSESSMENTS ON MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS A majority of the Council indicated a desire to establish some assessment policy on Municipal State Aid streets, and there was then a lengthy discussion as to suggestions on various policies, what should and should not be assessed, the type of assessment, the amount of the assessment, etc. Some specific points brought out in the discussion were: * through a residential area the assessment should amount to what the rate would be for a regular city street through the subdivision, that is local street benefit; * that Blaine has used a road connection charge charged at the time of the building permit in lieu of an assessment, with those funds then being placed in the MSA account; * that an MSA urban street through a residential area would have the same appearance as the other city streets through an urban residential area with concrete curb and gutter; * that the construction of an MSA street past residential property does increase its value but also creates the disadvantage of increased traffic, noise, and right- of way width past the property as well; * that creating an MSA road through undeveloped property opens up that land for future development, increases its value and marketability, and it should be helping in the cost of the road construction; * that going through industrial and commercial areas would be of greater benefit to the property than going through a residential or rural area and could be assessed a greater proportion than residential or rural; * that it should be possible for the City to be reimbursed for all expenses in the right-of-way acquisition for the Hanson Boulevard Extension; * that an assessment for an MSA road through residential areas could be based on either what the other streets in the area would be paying, on what the average street costs were the previous year though the costs per year and per development vary considerably, or on a percentage of the project cost; * that if access is not allowed onto an MSA street (the policy of not allowing houses to front on MSA streets) it is questionable whether an assessment can be levied; - Special City Council Meeting March 11, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 (Road Committee/Assessments on Municipal State Aid Streets, Continued) * that other cities have used an area-type assessment for MSA streets which is a small charge against those interior parcels within a platted area for the use of the MSA street as an access/exit for that development; * that an MSA road through undeveloped property or farmland could be charged a street access charge if and when the property is developed and the road is used, which in essence would be a connection charge; and * that there are other than the residential users of a road such as Ward Lake Drive that would derive benefit from an MSA improvement such as the commercial businesses of the sod farmers who should also participate in the costs of the improvement. There were suggestions and questions as to how a typical local street benefit would be determined, disagreement as to whether or not houses should be allowed to front on MSA streets, disagreement and questions as to assessing interior parcels for the use of an MSA street, and questions as to the legality of assigning a connection charge for street access when property is developed off an MSA street. It was agreed to ask the Attorney whether or not a road connect i on charge is 1 awfu 1 before making any other decisions on assessments for MSA streets. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c::=~~---------:> '\~~, C, 1-;~L Ma cella A. Peach Rec r~ing Secretary