Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC January 4, 1983 · ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 4, 1983 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. - Jerry Windschitl - Mayor 2. Swearing-In Ceremony - Jim Elling, Councilmember - Mike Knight, Councilmember 3 . Resident Forum 4. Agenda Approval 5. Organizational Items a. Appoint Acting Mayor b. Designation of Legal Newspaper c. Selection of Official Depositories d. Review of Council By-Laws e. Approval of Official Bonds f. Special/Standing Committee Appointments g. Appointment of Commission Members h. Appointment of Commission Chairpersons 6. Discussion Items a. Harold Mayes/Variance b. Assessment pOlicy/MSA Improvements c. Amendment-Ordinance No. 1 1 (Planning & Zoning Commission) d. 7. Non-Discussion Items a. Junkyard License Approvals b. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 9 . Approval of Claims 10. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL / t! / CO PI ES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF .. . !'r~ ~"f,' j FROM: CITY CLERK/A. ADMINISTRATO,I1,I/ / '---.<./( DATE: DECEMBER 30. 1982 l REFERENCE: REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION - JANUARY 4. 1983 Item No. 2 - Swearing-in/Mayor and Council Elect Thè "Oath of Office" must be administered to those officials elected in 1982, and now taking office, i.e., Mayor Jerry Windschitl, Councilman Jim Elling and Councilman Mike Knight. It is preferable that this be done individually. The Oath can be administered either by Attorney Hawkins or myself. Item No. 4 - Agenda Approval Item No. Sa - Appoint Acting Mayor The Acting Mayor is to be appointed for the 1983 calendar year. Councilman Orttel has filled this position for the past 5 years. The nominations are made by motion, with a vote taken after each. Item No. 5b - Designation of Legal Newspaper As in previous years, the Anoka County Union and Shopper should be moved to be designated as our legal newspapers. Due to costs involved or publications, it is not recommended that more than one paper carry such designation. The Anoka County Shopper is used only when an item carries such impact that it is the feeling of the Council that full coverage to all homes in the City should be made. Item No. 5c - Selection of Official Depositories The majority of our deposits will continue to be at First National Bank of Anoka, however, it is recommended that a statement be included in the motion to allow temporary investments to be made at other City banks or savings institutions as determined by the Mayor and City Clerk. Item NO. 5d - Review of Council By-Laws There has been discussion to change the Order of Business to follow the format we are now using. It appears this is working out the best for council and public. An amendment is required to Ordinance No. 25 to make the required change. Agenda Information January 4, 1983 Page 2 Item No. 5e - Approval of Official Bonds A motion is needed to approve the following bonds: Clerk/Treasurer (2) $25,000.00 each (1/1/83-12/31/83) Employee Blanket $35,000.00 each ( " " Item No. Sf - Special/Standing Committees The Council By-Laws require only two Standing Committees, i.e. , Finance and Personnel. Two councilmembers are required on each committee. There may be additional residents appointed to each of the Standing Committees. All other Special Committees mayor may not include councilmembers. The Mayor shall select all committeemembers and their chairpersons, however, the Council must move to approve the appointments. Item No. 5g - Appointment of Commission Members Planning and Zoning Commission The only member who has reapplied for the Commission is D'arcy Bosell. If her re-ap is accepted; and the Council would amend Ordinance NO. 11 to establish the Commission at 5 members, only one more will be needed. Glen Rogers has informed me he has an application in the mail for a position on the Commission; and Rich Schreiner has expressed a verbal desire to serve. An ad was run in the Anoka Union and Shopper for three weeks , with no response. Park & Recreation Commission The Park Board consists of seven members. With the resignation of Jo Zillhardt, they have been running with a 6-member Commission. There are two terms expiring this year, i.e. , Steve Nichols and Glen Rogers. Steve has reapplied, therefore, two additional people are needed to fill the Commission. An application has been received from Dean Carlson (Nordeen Addition). An ad was run in the Union/ Shopper for three weeks. Item No. 5h - Appointment of Commission Chairpersons These appointments are made by the Mayor with approval by the City Council. Item No. 6a - Harold Mayes/Variance Mr. Mayes is requesting a variance to allow him to rebuild his home and construct a garage on his lot. The home was substantially destroyed by fire mid-summer, 1982. As you can see from the attached, his lot is quite long, however, very shallow. He will require the:'lariances for both the rear-yard setback of the house and the front yard setback for the garage. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval. Jim Schrantz has checked this out as far as floodplain requirements and has recommended approval. The Shoreland Zoning provisions of Ordinance No. 8 require a 75' set-back from the high-water mark on all dwelling units. Mr. Mayes drawings indicate the house to be 80' from the "marshy" area, however, inasmuch as there is nothing indicating the distance from the high water line, a variance should be considered. A resolution will be prepared for your use. Ag~nda Information January 4, 1983 Page 3 Item No. 6b - Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements This will be prepared in time for the meeting on the 4th. As a result of the heavy snowfall this week, the Council Secretary was snowbound out-of-town and was not able to get the minutes from December 21 completed in time to allow Mr. Schrantz the opportunity to prepare the policy in advance of the meeting. Item No. 6c - Amendment-Ordinance No. 1 1 (P&Z) Enclosed is a proposed amendment for Ordinance No. 11 , providing for a 5-Member Commission instead of the presently adopted 7-Members. A motion is needed for approval. Over the past few years it has become extremely difficult to obtain applications from residents for this Commission; this has resulted in the Commission functioning with 5 members more often than not. As a result, it is being suggested that the Commission be formally established at 5 Members. Item No. 7 - Junkyard Licenses Notices were forwarded to all Licensees on November 23. TO-date, we have only received renewal applications and fees from l)Anoka Auto Wrecking and 2) Bob's Auto Parts. Licenses for all the other yards, with the exception of Rite-Away (Imre) and Andover Auto Parts (Pears) were reinstated for 1982. It would be my recommendation that another letter go out giving those operators whose licenses expired 12/31/82, until January 15 to reapply, after which time, they will be given to the City Attorney for prosecution for operating without a license. ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 4, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on January 4, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others SWEARING-IN/MAYOR AND COUNCIL ELECT Attorney Hawkins administered the "Oath of Office" to the new officials: Mayor Jerry Windschitl, Councilman Jim Elling, and Councilman Mike Knight. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we adopt the Agenda as published with the addition if Item 6d, Animal Control Contract. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unanimous ly. APPOINT ACTING MAYOR MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, to appoint an experienced Acting Mayor to the pos1t1on of Acting Mayor for 1983, Ken Orttel. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Windschitl; PRESENT-Orttel Motion carried. DESIGNATION OF LEGAL NEWSPAPER MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the ABC Newspapers be appointed as official C1ty legal newspaper. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to amend the Motion to include the Shopper. Mot1on carried unanimously. SELECTION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we designate the First National Bank of Anoka as the official depository for the City of Andover and that the Mayor and City Clerk be allowed to make investments in other banks and savings and loan institutions at their discretion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL BONDS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we approve two bonds, one for 1/1/83 through 12/31/83 for Clerk/Treasurer in the amount of $25,000 and the Employee Blanket amount of $35,000. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEES Mayor Windschitl made the following recommendations: Finance Committee, Knight, Chair, and Orttel; Rules, Elling, Chair, and Knight; Capital Improvements Committee, Orttel, Chair, and Knight; Personnel, Lachinski, Chair, and Orttel; Road Committee, Windschìtl, Chair, and Lachinski; Hazardous Waste Committee, Elling and Windschitl. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we adopt the Committee appointments as proposed by the Mayor. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 REVIEW OF COUNCIL BY-LAWS It was suggested the Rules Committee meet to look at the format of the Agenda, as the Council has been using a revised Agenda for some time. Hearing the reports of Commissions, Committees, and Staff at an earlier time was also suggested. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION MEMBERS AND CHAIRPERSONS It was noted that Glen Rogers has applied for the Planning and Zoning Commission and d'Arcy Bosell has reapplied for her position. Because the Council was familiar with the applicants, it was decided not to interview them. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that d'Arcy Bosell be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a three-year term expiring December 31, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we appoint Glen Rogers to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a three-year term to expire December 31, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl suggested Ms. Bosell be reappointed as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. It was noted that Dean Carlson of Nordeen's Addition has applied for the Park and Recreation Commission and that Steve Nichols has reapplied for his ~osition. Council again decided not to interview the applicants based on theiracqua1n anceand recommenda- tion of the applicants. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that Steve Nichols be reappointed to the Park Board for a three-year term. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to appoint Dean Carlson to the Park Commission tor a three-year term. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to appoint Steve Nichols as Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion carried unanimously. HAROLD MAYES/VARIANCE Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance request of Harold Mayes to allow him to rebuild his home and construct a garage on his lot. She explained one correction that under Ordinance 8, Section 4.33 is for the construction of the house, and Section 4.05F is for the construction of the garage. The Attorney advised that the City can vary from its own shore line zoning ordinance. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, enter a Resolution approving a variance request by Harold Mayes from the provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, for the construction of garage and rebuilding of a residential structure partially destroyed by fire with the correction both in the title and the first paragraph that Section 6.02 setbacks and Section 4.33 and Section 4.05F for the construction of the garage. (See Resolution Rl-83) Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSMENT POLICY/MSA IMPROVEMENTS Council reviewed the amendment to the special assessment policy for MSA streets and county roads as presented by James Schrantz in his memo of January 3, 1983. Suggested changes to the policy were: First paragraph:Assessments upon unimproved property may be deferred until a designated future year or until the subdivision of the property or the construction of improvements thereon, either of which result in the access to the road by the said property. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Last paragraph: discussion was on the terms of the assessment when it becomes due as to whether it should be payable in full or spread out for a period of time, discussing what that time period should be. Attorney Hawkins advised this policy would provide for the assessing of the property and deferring it. The assessment is recorded with the County Recorder so anyone purchasing the property would know of the assessment. The last paragraph is for discussion purposes to determine the payment terms of the deferred assessment. Mr. Schrantz has shown it to be payable immediately, but the Statutes allow to extend it and provide for payments with or without interest up to a period not greater than 30 years from the time the property is assessed. He recommended the policy include the payment terms of the deferred assessment. Council generally agreed that an assessment could be deferred for up to 15 years without interest; and if the property hasn't been subdivided or improvements constructed thereon at that time, the assessment would be cancelled. It was suggested to change the last two paragraphs to: These assessments can be deferred for up to 15 years without interest; and if the property is not subdivided or the improvements are not constructed thereon during that time, the assessment shall be cancelled. On properties that are subdivided or on which improvements are constructed during the period which results in the access to the road by said property, the assessments will be due and payable over a period of five years from the date of the improvement or subdivision with interest at the maximum interest rate allowed by law on special assessments at that time. Discussion was also on looking at this policy as it relates to arterial streets versus collector streets and residential streets, questioning what would be assessed and when the assessment would be payable on examples such as a 10-acre parcel with one residence on it, along developments such as 173rd, or on the southern portion of Prairie Road. Percy Tomlinson, Burnsville, Santa's Tree Farm - presented a petition signed by 41 taxpayers opposing any assessment policy by the C1ty of Andover which assesses land acquisition or construction costs for county roads or City thoroughfares exclusively to abutting property owners, feeling such costs benefit the community at large and should be shared by the community at large. He stated Hanson Boulevard is a high-speed thoroughfare for the benefit of all of the community and is not much benefit, if at all, to those people who adjoin the road. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard - stated this item was mentioned at the last meet1ng to be on ton1ght's Agenda, but he asked why it wasn't published in the paper. The Clerk explained the item was called to the Anoka Union after the Agenda was sent in, but they apparently failed to publish it with the rest of the Agenda. Mr. Holasek - can't believe the City is even considering an assessment policy for roads that are thoroughfares and used by everyone in the City. The county has never assessed for right of way for county roads. It has been pointed out that most of the adjoining property owners don't want or don't need that road. He stated he doesn't want it or need it, noting the frontages he already has along his property. He felt the City should even reconsider constructing that road, that the City should not be assessing for county roads, and also stated any deferred assessment is totally unacceptable. Mayor Windschitl stated the road location and design is the county's choice. Mr. Holasek - realized the county and City need a good north/south road, but why the City would cons1der assessing the local abutting landowners to foot the bill for City or county use is beyond him. It was also his opinion that there are no landlocked parcels involved. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Mayor Windschitl stated the costs are only being asked if the landowner uses the road. He stated the Vosika property was clearly landlocked outside of an easement, and pointed out parcels that are landlocked in the stretch between Crosstown and Contance Boulevards. If the road isn't used, there is no assessment. The Mayor thought the county is clearly going to build the road and didn't feel that was an item for discussion. Mr. Holasek - stated maybe they should be before the county discussing this item, stating the majority of the landowners opposed the construction of the road and the policy to assess the right-of-way acquisition costs. Councilman Orttel explained the only people getting an assessment would be those who develop their land within the next 15 years and use that road. If the property is not developed within 15 years or is developed but the road is not used as an access, the assessment is canceled. The assessment is deferred with no interest. This deferred assessment has a termination date. Mr. Holasek - again stated that assessment is totally unacceptable. Councilman Orttel asked if it would be more acceptable if the City acquired access rights along the road so they would not be able to use that road. This policy is there would be an assessment only if the property is developed and uses that road. Otherwise there would be no assessment. Mayor Windschitl also noted any other developer in the City is required to pay 100 percent of the road costs and then dedicate those roads to the City. Mr. Holasek - stated if they are fronting on a county road, they do not pay for the use of that road. Chairman Bosell stated the City does not allow the developer to front lots onto the county road. Councilman Lachinski also reviewed the county's general unwritten policies relating to access along county roads. He felt everyone's argument is they are not getting a benefit and should not be assessed, and stated the Council is agreeing with that by deferring the assessment until such time as the property is developed and the road is used in that development. In this instance, the road is opening up some property that wouldn't otherwise be able to be subdivided. Mr. Holasek - stated assessments were not made along other county roads in the City, and it was the City's prerogative to acquire the right of way in this proejct. If the county would have purchased the right of way in this project, it would not have been assessed. Councilman Lachinski stated his position is there should be no assessment if there is no direct benefit. If the property owner takes advantage of the road and gets a direct benefit by having to construct less road when subdividing the property, then it is justified to assess that property. Mr. Holasek - didn't believe that policy was right. Walter Vosika, 1414 Bunker Lake Boulevard - did not want Hanson Boulevard and doesn't care for it. W1th the dump across from his property, he didn't feel people would want to build on his property. Secondly, his assessment of $10,933 would break him, which would be due if his property is improved, fearing the installation of sanitary sewer, which is a City decision, would trigger that assessment. Also, the trucks to and from the landfill will now be using that road, which he didn't feel would benefit him because of the slu4ge and debris that is generated. Mr. Vosika also stated the notice to acquire his land stated the road is for public use. If his land is taken as a public use, why is he being assessed for a benefit. He stated the 40 acres he is being assessed for is a big swamp which is kind of a game reserve and which he didn't think was fair. He felt the ones that really benefit from the road are the dump trucks. He stated the purchase price for the property from the landfill was considerably higher than what the rest of the people received, and also stated an individual received $18,000 for approximately four acres of land. . Mayor Windschitl aSKed Mr. Vosika if he would be willing to sign a document of non-access onto Hanson Boulevard for that property. That road opened up 1300 feet of property, asking if his preference would be never to have an access onto Hanson. The Mayor stated ·he would have no problem with eliminating the assessment if such an agreement would be sirn~d . Several in the audience argued against that suggestion citing reasons why it is un a1r. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Mr. Vosika - stated he is retired, does not have the money to pay the assessment, and would sign such an agreement, feeling whoever gets the property after him should have the option of opening it up again. Councilman Lachinski stated the policy being proposed does the same thing, that no money is payable unless the property is subdivided which results in the use of the road. The policy is not meant to apply for sanitary sewer and water improvements. Councilman Orttel noted the reason Mr. Vosika's assessment is higher is because he is industrial property. The guidelines for the special assessment calls for the exclusion of any property that is undevelopable entirely. So the chance of Mr. Vosika paying an assessment unless the property is developed is virtually nill. Attorney Hawkins noted that once the assessment is levied, the City does not have the right to go back and change the policy on that project unless there is an error or omission in the original assessment. Mr. Vosika - stated the City of Andover has an easement over his land and there is also a utility easement over it, asking why aren't they paying for the assessment; he shouldn't be assessed at all. Councilman Lachinski stated they didn't purchase the land but only the right to use it. Mayor Windschitl again explained the policy that there will be no assessment if the land remains undeveloped. If commercial lots are sold on the Vosika property, then the assessment would be due and payable. The assessment would be filed against the property with the language of the deferral which cancels at the end of 15 years if no development takes place within that time period. Bob Englekin~, partner in Santa's Tree Farm - asked the future plans of the road such as w1dening 1t to a four-lane road. Council discussion was if a frontage road is used and Hanson Boulevard is not used as an access, there would be no assessment. It was generally felt there would be no physical way to widen the road to four lanes without moving the power poles. And they do not envision any type of limited access freeway, so some accesses would still be allowed. Mr. Engleking - stated although this policy is certainly an improvement over the one or1g1nally proposed, he still felt it is missing the point. If all the property was developed, those property owners would pay the entire City's cost to purchase the right of way. He stated there is a lot more benefit going to the entire community, and the people who are benefitting are not being taxed for it. The benefit is not primarily with the landowners if they happen to develop it. The major benefit is that the City and county need that main thoroughfare for the entire population. For the Council to set a policy to tax a few wHen it is benefitting an entire City is in error. Mayor Windschitl stated the Council is in agreement with that philosophy, and that is why no constructjion costs are being assessed. Councilman Orttel stated there has been a long-standing policy in this City not to subsidize developers, and it won't in this case either, which is the bottom line of the policy. The policy is simply if someone develops the land, they pay their fair share. If Hanson Boulevard were not there, the developer would have to build that road himself, pay for it, and dedicate it to the City. All the City is charging is a fraction of the total costs of the road. The payment for the rest of the road is paid indirectly by everyone through the gasoline taxes. Mr. Engleking - didn't feel that six people on one mile of road should share the costs of the road when 10,000 people are going to benefit. Councilman Orttel stated they only share if they are developers, and then only paying six percent of what it would cost if the road were not there. Mr. Engleking - understood the State reimburses the City for a good portion of the costs for acquiring the land, stating it doesn't seem to be logical that the City is getting paid twice for the land. Council discussion was the City is reimbursed from the State for land costs only, not acquisition costs. The money the City gets from the State goes to the property owners for their land, and the assessments are to pay back part of the General Fund and part into the State Aid funds to be used for future State Aid acquisition or construction. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Bill Hupp, 1650 Andover Boulevard - stated nothing was known about this policy when the land was be1ng acqu1red, and there is no way to incorporate this into future costs and what their land may be worth. To him the key is who benefits, and he felt the City benefits three-fold because it is an arterial roadway, noting disadvantages of having a 55-mph road next to his property. He also felt the City owes something to the adjoining property owners because it is their land. He was paid about one quarter of what the dump was paid, and he felt he was doing the City a favor by not pursuing it any further. He felt the county and State have paid their share of the costs for this road, and now the City should pay its share because it is a benefit for the City as a whole. He also reviewed the inequities he saw as to what was paid to and what is proposed as an assessment for the landfill area. The road benefits others because they will be able to get home 15 to 20 minutes faster. He also expressed frustration over the valuations placed on the properties, again feeling there was inequities in the procedure and feeling the City is gaining all the way around in this situation. Councilman Orttel noted at the last meeting there was discussion of adjusting Mr. Hupp's assessment because of the lowl and. The value on his property was decided by court-appointed appraisers, not the City. Mr. HUPt - explained his land was reappraised at the hearing at one-half of what it was or1gina ly appraised, stating he was unaware of the procedures at that time. Councilman Orttel stated the reason he got a lower price is because his land is low and not usable. For that same reason, there would be a lower or no assessment on that land. And if it is developed some day, it will be charged. Mr. Hupp - stated it is not swamp land, but he was given only one-fourth of what the person next door got and only one-half of what was originally assessed. Counci lman Lachinski stated this was discussed at the previous hearing, and it was agreed there are some inequities that have to be worked out. Tonight's meeting is to discuss the -policy, not the inequities in the acquisition process. Mr. Hupp has been paid for his property; and if he does not develop his property for the next 15 years, there will be no assessment. Mr. Hup~ - again argued against the policy, still feeling it is wrong based on the 1nequ1t1es in his case. He felt the tax assessment for this road should not be limited to developers. The road is being built and everyone in the City benefits. Council discussion was that the policy is to pay for the land acquisition and assess only if the land is developed. The other 95 percent of the road is paid for indirectly by everyone through gasoline tax dollars. The assessment question will be addressed at the public hearing on January 18. The question of the feasibility and need of the road was determined by the county. The council is trying to adopt a reasonable assessment policy and yet not let someone take advantage of the fact that there is a new road past their property. The policy was again explained, noting if benefit is derived, six or seven percent of the cost of the road will be assessed. Assessment policies for MSA streets of other cities were briefly reviewed. Mr. HUh~ - understood the policy and the process, but still didn't believe assessing only t ose along the road was a workable, reasonable solution. He felt the proper philosophy was to look at it from a beneficial standpoint, which the City as a whole benefits and feeling it is a detriment to those adjoining the road. He felt it would be a more via51e solution to raise the mill rate for the entire City or use the same policy as on previous MSA projects. Ed Hamilton, 6615 Highway 10, Anoka - has property adjacent to City hall and asked how much it would raise the mill rate if the entire $80,000 proposed for right-of-way acquisition for the next extension of Hanson Boulevard were put on the tax rolls. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - minutes Page 7 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Council discussion was it would raise the rate approximately two mills, which is a significant amount considering the City's total mill levy is less than 13 mills. And the reason Andover's mill levy is low is because the City's position has been to make everyone pay for their own streets and developers pay their own way. Mr. Hamilton - stated from all the input at the meetings, it appears the people do not want it. A few are being penalized, and he felt the Council should take into considera- tion the wishes of the people. Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard NW - congratulated the new Councilmen on their positions. He then stated the proposed policy is better than the original one, but he is still opposed to any assessment for thoroughfare streets. Hanson Boulevard is a thoroughfare street planned over 15 years ago. He reminded the Council that when campaigning, the promise was to listen to the people. The people are now talking, and he hoped the Council is hearing them. Wally Laptuta, 15026 Crosstown Boulevard - is agalnstwhat the Council is trying to do, not see1ng why they should pay for th1S. He felt the City is benefitting and is against it. Ann Sikora - is not affected by Hanson Boulevard, but explained for the constrution of Un1versity Extension, before they could sell a 30, they had to give the land free for right of way. Also when 58 came through, they also donated all the right of way. So she didn't understand why these people want to tax everyone for Hanson Boulevard. She didn't want to be taxed for it when she is only two mi}.es from Highway 65. Mr. Vosika - asked the Council to look into a few things for the hearing on the 18th, those be1ng why the dump is called a residential area, why his assessment is over one- fourth of the total amount for that stretch of road, and the policy of assessing lowland. He also asked if the assessment will be reduced so much each year during the assessment period. Mayor Windschitl stated it will not be reduced under the present policy, but no interest will accrue. Marcel Fisber 7 , Drake Street, Hartfiel Estates - because there seems to be a lot o peop e w 0 are unhappy w1th the part 0 Hanson oulevard already constructed, he asked what is the proper procedure to have the next extension re-examined. It was his opinion that the City's costs for the road should be assessed among all the residents of Andover. Discussion was it is the county's plan to extend the road all the way to St. Francis and that any re-examination of thatproposal would have to be brought up at the county level. Mr. Engleking - asked if the property owner will be reimbursed for the detriment factor of the road, as on their farm they know of the problems that will be incurred with the road such as stolen trees, salt on the trees from the road, etc. Council noted those factors are taken care of in the acquisition process. Mr. Hupp - stated those factors were not considered in the acquisition process of his property, but strictly on a set value basis. Mr. Holasek - stated those items may be taken care of in the acquisition process, but they may not be taken care of to the individual's satisfaction, relating his experience with loss of trees through a similiar process on Prairie Road. He also stated he would agree to limited access on the road, but preferred the road not be built at this point, noting the nuisance value of such as road as along Prairie Road. He asked if the City would be willing to pay for limited access onto the road. Mayor Windschitl stated it would be something the Council could could consider when acquiring the right of way. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) Mr. Holasek - again expressed the opinion that no costs should be assessed for county roads. He stated the question is is the City going to be fair about this or are they going to force many of the people into litigation. Recess at 9:40 p.m.; reconvene at 10:06 p.m. Council again reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Assessment Policy and the Guidelines suggested for special assessments on MSA streets and county roads and applied the policy to various situations. In discussing the situations which would trigger an assessment. Attorney Hawkins stated the Council may set specific terms in the deferral resolution levying the assessment that notifies the property owner. Something would trigger this process such as obtaining a building permit, final plat approval, lot split, or metes and bounds division. He felt there would be no problem with subdivision, as that is defined in the subdivision ordinance. He also felt the key to the policy was street access onto the MSA or county road. Once a dri veway or street accesses onto the MSA or county road, the assessment would be payable. Discussion was then on the last paragraph of the Guidelines for Special Assessments, access to State, County or City Arterial, Collector or MSA Streets. Mayor Windschitl argued the way it is written, Mr. Scherer along Hanson and Andover Boulevards would not be able to divide·hts property into 2~-acre lots which would front and would have direct access onto Hanson Boulevard. He was not necessarily in agreement with the changes proposed in that last paragraph. Councilman Orttel stated the access policy is in the ordinance and felt it should not be in the assessment policy. It was generally agreed to remove the last paragraph relating to the access onto said roads from the Guidelines. Under the paragraphs of Developable Lands, the Council questioned the inclusion of "not farmable" land in the guidelines. It was generally agreed to delete those words to state: "Property owners with lands that are unbuildab le can request that the City Council...", noting that it has been the policy not to assess sod farms because they are not buildable and because every attempt has been made to encourage farming in the City. Council reviewed the changes as proposed in the beginning of the discussion (See Pages 2 and 3 of these Minutes). It was asked if this would mean that Mr. Scherer would be assessed at this time since his driveway was changed from Andover Boulevard to Hanson Boulevard which results in the use of the road. It was generally felt the policy refers to subdivision or construction of improvements which require access to the road and would not apply to moving a driveway location. There was some discussion about defining the word "improvement", with Mr. Hawkins stating that would have to come back to the Council with terms and conditions set out in the deferral resolution with some language that the Council would determine whether or not there has been some "improvement" and when the deferral comes off. Mayor Windschitl suggested the Attorney and Engineer review this item further to clarify what would trigger the assessment and a definition of improvement as to what activity would constitute construction of improvements. For a definition of construction of improvements, Mr. Hawkins suggested the deferral come off any time an individual performs an activity on the property that requires a permit under the ordinances of the City, County, or State. Council generally agreed to that proposal. It was also suggested if a portion of a parcel is improved, only a partial assessment would become due against the portion of the parcel using the road, possibly charging for a typical lot size in that area. The Attorney suggested stating if the subdivision or Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 19S3 - Minutes Page 9 (Assessment Policy/MSA Improvements, Continued) improvement is on less than the entire parcel, the porportion of the assessment shall be based upon a typical minimum lot size for that zoning district. For a definition of construction of improvements, Mr. Hawkins suggested the deferral come off any time an individual performs an activity on the property that requires a permit under the ordinances of the City, County, or State. Council generally agreed to that proposal. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we table it to the next meeting and have Attorney Hawkins revise it and correct it as we have discussed. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl stated this item will be taken up ahead of the Public Hearings on January 18. AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 11 (Planning and Zoning Commission) Mayor Windschitl stated because a Planning Commission is supposed to try to get a diversification of views, it would be better to maintain the seven-member Commission rather than reducing it to five. Plus this Commission will be rewriting the ordinances, which will require additional work and ideas. He suggested making an additional effort to solicit Commission members at this time; and if that effort is not successful, then consider reducing the size of the Commission. Council generally agreed, noting a similiar situation exists for the Park and Recreation Commission. The Clerk was directed to place additional ads in the Union and Shopper for P & Z and Park & Recreation Commissioners, placing a larger-sized ad for both Commissions in the same ad. ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City of Andover enter into a contract with White Bear Animal Control, Inc., for the control of animals in the City and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into the contract upon review by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD LICENSE APPROVALS The Clerk explained notices were forwarded to all licensees on November 23 by first- class mail; however, only two renewal applications and fees have been received to date. Discussion was on the problem, with the Attorney suggesting another letter be sent by certified mail to those operators who have not reapplied. The Clerk was also directed to send all notices to junkyard operators by certified mail in the future. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Mayor Windschitl stated he has talked with John Peterson of Good Value Homes, who has indicated they will be proceeding with the development of Northglen II with single family residences. The Mayor stated they are willing to negotiate proposals for a park with Rosella Sonsteby for a larger park in the area and are also willing to negotiate property for the proposed fire station location on Bunker Lake Boulevard just south of Crosstown Boulevard. Chief Stone stated he would gather the information about that proposed site so those negotiations can begin immediately. GLATT - ORDINANCE IRREGULARITIES The Clerk reported the Building Inspector went to inspect the Glatt property off 177th Avenue in Section 3, but Mr. Glatt refused to allow him to inspect the property without a search warrant. She asked if the Council wanted to order the search warrant to be issued. Regular City Council Meeting January 4, 1983 - Minutes Page 10 (Glatt - Ordinance Irregularities, Continued) Discussions noted that the owners are using a chemical toilet, which is not contrary to the ordinances; but the wastewater from the sinks, etc., is apparently running onto the ground. There was a complaint from a resident about the situation but was sub- sequently withdrawn. It was suggested the Building Inspector contact the Anoka County Health Department to see what can be done and if they have any authority in such situations. ATTORNEY REPORT - SENIOR CITIZEN BUILDING/HEIDELBERGER/ROUSE PROPERTY Attorney Hawkins reported he met with the bonding company and the engineers yesterday morning, that the contract with Allstate Builders has been terminated pursuant to the provisions of the contract, that the bonding company will take over the project and has requested a set of plans and specifications, and that the engineers have provided the bonding company with three or four construction companies that would be willing to complete the Senior Citizen Building. It is expected the project could be completed in about two months. No decisions have been made on liquidated damages at this time. Attorney Hawkins also informed the Council he has met with the County Attorney on the Heidelberger/Rouse situation and on what can be done about it. They are going to be meeting with Mr. Rouse and his son to determine what is happening and to consider what courses of action can be taken. The County would like the City to join in with anything, with the County indicating they would carry the bulk of any litigation. It appears there is no more dumping out there, as Mr. Rouse got a restraining order two weeks ago. Now the question is the existing tires, blocked fire lanes, etc. They are trying to get Mr. Rouse to come up with a plan, but it appears he doesn't have enough money to do anything. Mr. Rouse is trying to interest investors to buy the machine and start shredding the tires. Mr. Hawkins explained that Cecil Heidelberger has no legal interest in the property at this point, reviewing the events that have taken place in recent months. TAe County wants the City to be named as plaintiff in any action that they would commence under their Solid Waste Management or under the tire ordinance. The problem with the situation is that Mr. Rouse does not have enough money to clean up the problem and Mr. Heidelberger has no legal right to do it. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Checks Numbered 6142 through 6157 ln the amount of $597,875.71. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m. Resepctfully submitted, , \\~~~ph2h-'\~:'~~-_. Recording Secretary -