Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 19, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 19, 1983 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Lot Split/Variance - J. Canfield b. Rezoning - G. Sonsteby c. Preliminary Plat - Good Value Homes, Inc./Northglen II d. Improvement Policy Amendment e. Musket Ranch/Tires f. Junkyards-Fencing Requirements g. Rebuilding Doubles/Red Oaks Addition h. Final Plat/Indian Meadows * . Final Plat/Good Value Homes, Inc., Northglen II, Phase L: ~. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Andover Auto/License b. Watershed District c. Ordinance 8 Amendment-Accessory Bldgs/2-Car Garages d. Kelsey Park Land Acquisition e. Emergency Ordinance f. Resolution/Formal Declaration of Emergency g. Sealcoating /Shouldering/Crack Sealing * h. Award Contract, 83-2, 83-2A, 83-3. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MAYOR AND COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, FROM: CITY CLERK/A. DATE: JULY 14, 1983 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - JULY 19 REGULAR MEETING Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 4i - (Final Plat/Northglen II, Phase I) and Item No. 5h -(Award Contracts, 83-2, 38-3) . Delete Items No. 5e (Emergency Ordinance) , and No. Sf (Disaster Declaration Resolution). Item No. 4a - Lot Split/Variance - J. Canfield Mr. Canfièld is requesting a split of a 4.935 acre parcel into two separate parcels, one of which will not be a full 2.5 acres as required by Ordinance No. 40. The width requirement is met on both parcels. A resolution will be prepared granting the lot split and also the variance on the one parcel and the requirement of the $100 park dedication fee. ($200 was paid in 1980 when the original split of the ten-acre parcel was made.) Item NO. 4b - Rezoning/Sonsteby Glen Sonsteby is requesting a rezoning from Neighborhood Business to General Business to allow him to expand his vehicle repair business. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the matter and recommended it be handled on a Special Use Permit. This situation is similar to the Baker & Sons rezoning in 1980, and based on the attorney's opinion at that time, must be handled as a rezoning w/Agreement to only have the one business as now exists (see attached). There are ~ provisions in rdinance No. 8 - Special Uses, to allow for such a permit in a Neighborhood Business zoning. The business now conducted by Mr. Sonsteby has been in operation for 15 or more years and we have never received a complaint on it from area residents. A resolution will be prepared approving the rezoning contingent upon entering into an Agreement regarding the existing operation. Item No. 4c - Preliminary Plat- Good Value Homes, Inc., Northglen II-2 Action on this pþase of the Plat was delayed until this meeting at the request of the Developer, in an effort to resolve the location question on the Co. Rd. 116 Extension. Several meetings have been had with Anoka County, City of Andover and the Developer. Based on the outcome of these meetings, a decision will have to made by the Council on the 19th, pursuant to Ordinance requirements. The County Board is recommending acquisition of Out Lot B with additional ROW, and Good Value is removing SOme lots to compensate for that. Agenda Comments July 19, 1983 Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4d - Improvement Policy Amendment Attached is a letter from Rosella Sonsteby relative to requirements in our Improvement Policy. Also attached is a copy of the Policy for your reference. The City of St. Francis has a policy very similar to the City of Andover, and this same problem was presented to them by a Developer; they did amend their policy to include a "2-year" provision on the Contracts for Deed. Attorney Hawkins will cover this with you at the Meeting. Item No. 4e - Musket Ranch/Tires Ray Slaback of Schriptek, Inc. has made application for a Special Use Permit and a Junkyard License. It was my feeling that the need for a Special Use Permit would apply, inasmuch as the original yard was "grandfathered-in", thereby not requiring such a permit; and the yard was not licensed for four years because of litigation during two of those years and failure of the property owner/operator to secure the license for the other periods. The "non-conforming" operation of conducting a junkyard has continued through-out this period, however, it was not a legal operation insofar as City Ordinance No. 44; as a license was not issued to make it legal. The Special Use Permit will appear on the Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda for July 26, so any action or consensus by the City Council at this meeting would be that of a "conceptual" nature to give guidance to the Commission on the handling of this request. Item No. 4f - Junkyards/Fencing Requirements We have received several calls from Junkyard Licensees inquiring as to the time-frame established by the City for the reconstruction of their fences blown down in the July 3 storm. Inasmuch as this item is not covered in Ordinance 44, I requested that they present the matter to the City Council for a determination. Item No. 4q - Rebuilding Doubles/Red Oaks Addition Pursuant to the Council's request of July 13, the City Attorney and I will be gathering information on precedents set by other Cities in similar situations and will have it available for the July 19 Meeting. Item No. 4h - Final Plat/Indian Meadows aka Andover West, Phase II Attached is the Pinal Plat of Indian Meadows. The improvements have been completed and the engineer will have his recommendation for a Maintenance Bond requirement, following his inspection. The resolution for approval will also include a statement acknowledging the name change of the Plat from Andover West, Phase II to Indian Meadows. To-date we have not received Title Opinion. Item No. 4i - Final Plat/Good Value Homes, Northqlen II, Phase I Attached is the Final Plat of Northglen II, Phase I, as receiving Council Preliminary Plat approval on June 7. A motion is needed for approval in order that Contracts can be awarded under Item No. 5h. Agenda Comments July 19, 1983 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 4i - Final Plat, Northglen II, Phase I (continued) The Abstract has been delivered to the Attorney and he should have the Title Opinion ready for the meeting. The land dedicated for Park will be shown on this Phase I. Item No. Sa - Andover Auto License Because.of the time· problems with the July 3 storm, a memo was not sent to Mr. Pears establishing time limits for completion of the requirements for the license. I would recommend the license be approved subject to revocation on August 15 if the work is not entirely completed to comply with Ordinance No. 44. As far as ordinance requirements, he just has a few more trees to plant. The yard is fenced on the side, however, he is replacing the metal with board and that is not completely done on the south side. Item No. 5b - Watershed District Mayor Windschitl was requested to discuss this matter with the City of Anoka Mayor to determine the position of their City. He will have a report for you at the meeting. Item No. 5c - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment/Accessory Buildinqs This amendment is in response to several complaints over the past few years on the construction of out-buildings much larger than the house, with the complaints being that of aesthetics, using the structures for business purposes, depreciation of surrounding properties, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission also addressed the question of a requirement of a double-car garage. It is their recommendation that it remain a "single-car" requirement only. Item No. 5d - Kelsey Park Land Acquisition The Park & Recreation Commission was requested to review the property in Lakeside Estates to determine whether they still wanted this to be included in the Kelsey Park; and in particular to address the strip of land going north from the area in question to 152nd Lane. A representative from the Park & Recreation Commission will be present to review their discussions. Item No. 5e - Emergency Ordinance (delete) Item No. Sf - Declaration of Emergency Resolution (delete) Because of the urgency, both Item 5e and Sf were handled at the July 13 Special Meeting. Item No. 5g- Sealcoating, Shoulderinq, Crack Sealing Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering this item. Agenda Comments July 19, 1983 Regular Meeting Page 4 Item No. Sh - Award Contracts, 83-2, 83-2a, 83-3 Bids will be opened today at 10:00 a.m. for the improvements in Rosella's Addition, Shirley's Estates and Northglen II, Phase I. A resolution will be prepared to award these contracts. Item No. 6 - Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff Planning and Zoning Commission The Commission Chairman would like to get the Council's feelings on the requirement of having developers show a future re-subdivision plan on their Plat; and in particular those plats in the rural area of the City. Coon Creek Watershed District is assessing a per-lot charge on all new Plats and if the future plan is used, the cost gets unreasonable, particularly because that re-subdivision cannot occur until sanitary sewer is available; in some areas that could be 30-40 years. The most recent case has been that of Rolling Forest, in which an assessment of $27,000 is being made on a plat of 137 acres/44-2.5 acre lots. volunteer Fire Department The Fire Chief will have information for you on the purchase of a new rescue van. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes May 3, 5, 17, June 7, 21, July 5. Attachments ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 19, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on July 19, 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; TKOA Engineer, John Davidson; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning chairperson, ù'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk/A. Adminis- trator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM David Given, 606 109th, Coon Ra~ids - applied for a permit for a party at the Industr1al Park, and it was denled. He plans to have an Industrial Park party this Saturday with all companies in the park. He has obtained slgnatures from the people living behind the park and from the companies who will be participating in the event indicating their approval of the party. He asked the Council to grant that permit. Council noted if the item is added to the Agenda, it will be discussed further; if not, the item would stand as is. Carroll Abbott, 2917 142nd Lane NW - commended the people from the Andover City Council and rire Department for a job well done during the July 3 storm. He also noted since the two stop signs have been installed on Crocus, it seems the kids are either being restrained and are staying off the street or the parents have vacated the area. AGENDA APPROVAL Council suggestions were to delete Items 5e, Emergency Ordinance, and 4f, Resolution/ Formal Declaration of Emergency, from the Agenda, and to add Items 4i, Final Plat/ Good Value Homes, Northglen II, Phase I; 5h, Award Contracts, 83-2, 83-2A, 83-3; 4j, Acceptance of Feasibility/Kadalac Addition; 4k, Party Permit/Given; 5c, Ordinance 8 Amendment - Accessory Buildings/Two-Car Garages; and 5i, No Parking Resolution on Prairie Road. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to amend the Agenda as suggested. Motion carrled unanimously. Mayor Windschitl asked for a motion to suspend the rules. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - J. CANFIELD Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the lot split request of Mr. Canfield with a variance for lot size since both parcels will not be a full 2.5 acres as required by Ordinance No. 40. Council discussion noted that without the road right of way, the parcels are closer to two acres in size and that the road, constructed to standard at the time, has been accepted and is being maintained by the City. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution approving a Lot Split/Variance as requested by J. Canfield for Parcel No. 7850, Plat 65913, as presented but with the deletion of Phrase 3 in the second paragraph. (See Resolution R068-83) Motion carried unanimously. - - Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 REZONING - G. SONSTEBY Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow the rezoning of two acres on Seventh Avenue from Neighborhood Business to General Business to allow Glen Sonsteby to expand his vehicle repair business contingent upon entering into an agreement limiting the use to what is presently there. Mr. Sonsteby wants to increase the size of his building. Attorney Hawkins felt the contract zoning would be uphela and could be done if the Council feels the rezoning is in conformance with the compre- hensive plan. Glen Sonsteby - stated he had no problem with entering into an agreement regarding the use of the property. Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue - understood when she had the property rezoned 1nitially it was supposed to have been zoned commercial as General Business. In re- viewing the Minutes on this item, she didn't know how it became a Neighborhood Business zone. Council did not know the history of the rezoning of that parcel of property but generally had no problem with Mr. Sonsteby's request. It was agreed to delete the paragraph in the prepared resolution stating "whereas the City t;ouncil was also informed that the City of Andover did issue a building permit in 1982 for an addition to the existing building." MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we introduce a Resolution to approve the rezoning request of Glen Sonsteby from Neighborhood Business to General Business on Parcel 8422, Plat 65930. (See Resolution R069-83) Motion carried unanimously. NOTE the exhibit is to be included with the Resolution. PRELIMINARY PLAT - GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC., NORTHGLEN II, PHASE II John Peterson, Good Value Homes - stated the County Board has recommended that the route for the new County Road 116 be Outlot B as shown on their plat with an additional 50 feet of width, for a total corridor of 200 feet; and they have agreed. They have also agreed to withdraw the request for the plat as submitted, but hoped the Council would act on the plat before the minor revisions are made. The revisions mean a loss of four lots to Good Value, and Mr. Peterson showed a hand-drawn exhibit of the proposed revisions to the plat to the Council. He showed the four lots that were removed, sliding the entire plat to the east 80 feet, then adding 30 feet to the depth of the most westerly lots that will abut County 116, and with 50 feet added to the width of Outlot B. They have not changed any of the lots on the plat with the exception of the loss of four lots. Council discussion noted that unless Mr. Peterson waives the time requirements for this plat until the preliminary can be revised with those changes, the t;ouncil must legally act on the plat tonight. Attorney Hawkins advised the Council does have the authority to approve the preliminary of Phase II this evening with those modifications suggested. Discussion noted the lot numbers will have to be modified because of the removal of those four lots. The hand-drawn exhibit version of the plat was shown to several members of the audience from the city of Anoka, and Mayor Windschitl reviewed the events that took place in recent weeks that lead to the County's 5-2 decision to accept Outlot B with the additional 50 feet for the realignment of County 116. He stated the County Board also voted 7-0 to construct the road in the 1984-85 construc- ti on year. It is telt that they may be able to save some of the trees behind the homes of the Anoka residents. A resident from Anoka stated all parties worked hard on this solution and they will have to acc~pt what is being proposed. Mayor Windschitl felt that~-ll parties involved should work together to minimize the impact of the residents on either of the road. An Anoka resident stated he would like to work on that issue if they have that opportunity. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Preliminary Plat, Northglen II, Phase II, Continued) Mr. Peterson - thanked the many people who worked many hours on this problem, espec1ally Mayor Windschitl, Natalie Haas, Dan Erhart, and others. compromises were made by everyone, and he felt it was a successful solution to the problem. Discussion then returned to the plat itself. Mr. Peterson stated they preferred not to waive the time requirement but to have approval at th1S time because they are thinking they would like to develop additional lots in this subdivision beyond Phase I. It is their understanding they could increase the size of the contract for improvements by 25 percent with a change order, which would allow more lots for them. They are making those decisions at this time. It was their opinion that the changes in the plat were not substantial enough to require drawing of the entire plat. They felt the exhibit shown would be satisfactory. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the Preliminary PlaUof Northglen II, Phase II, as presented in Exhibit A by the developer contingent upon the developer providing the City with a revised drafting Of the preliminary plat showing the correct lot numbers and any dimensions which may be changed, and also contingent upon the developer sho~ing the 200-foot wide Outlot B. (See Resolution R070-83) Motion carried unanimously. IMPROVEMENT POLICY AMENDMENT Discussion was on the City's Improvement Policy where a sale of a lot on contract for deed requires the improvement to be paid in full at the time of the sale, and on whether or not that policy should be changed. The portion of the policy governing this item is on Page 4 of the Improvement Policy, "upon the transfer of legal or equitable title." It was felt that if the assessments are not required to be paid in full for sales on a contract for deed, which transfers equitable title, then some mechanism would be needed to trigger the accelerated payment of the assessment on the property. Attorney Hawkins noted the idea was the City didn't want to carry the financing on new developments using the City's bonding authority when there was a conveyance, mortgage, or cash exchanging hands which could be used to pay those assessments. Viscussion also noted tha t often times the deve lope r or bui lder does not have the funds to pay the assessment until after the closing. Viscussion continued on the existing policy and possible changes that would still protect the City. Mr. Peterson stated in most other cities, they pay the assessment at the time the occupancy permit is issued. The City of Blaine allows assessments on commercial property to be assumed when it is sold. He also noted that the l5-year pay-off is not that much of a benefit to them because they typically have all their homes sold within five years. After further discussion it was agreed that the sale of property by contract for deed would not automatically require the payment of the assessments against it, but that such assessments would become due When the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a home constructed ön the property or upon transfer of legaJ~title. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the City of Andover Public Improvement Flnancing Policy be amended on Page 4, instead of the words "assessment shall be paid in full when a building permit is issued or upon transfer of legal or equitable title", change to: "assessment shall be paid in full when a Certificate of Occupancy is issued or upon transfer of legal title"; and this occurs twice on Page 4. Motion carried unanimous ly. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 MUSKET RANCH/TIRES The Clerk explained Ray Slaback of Schripteck, Inc., has made application for a Special Use Permit and a Junkyard License, which will be heard by the Planning Commission at their next meeting. She felt because of the unusual circumstances surrounding this yard, the P & Z should have some direction on this matter. The tires in that area were a part of the original junkyard license issued for Cecil Heidelberger. Mom's Auto Parts junkyard license was subsequently issued on a portion of the property, but it does not include the area of the tires. Attorney Hawkins stated this business is a nonconforming use, but it is an allowed use in this zoning district. And in his opinion this business is a junkyard. The Council must deal with the issue of whether or not there was abandonment of that junkyard under the ordinance. Council discussion was the frustration of having to allow a junkyard in this zone when two attempts have been made to amend the ordinance so no more junk- yards would be allowed in the City. It was noted there is evidence that the operation never ceased over the past two years even though it wasn't licensed. The Attorney explained the junkyard license can have conditions attached to it to insure that the pile of tires dimishes, plus the county will have certain requirements that must be met by the operator and they will be asking for City input in that matter. Council generally felt that before any decisions could be made, the applicant must provide a specific written plan for the removal of the tires, etc. The Mayor suggested it would be beneficial for the Councilmen to attend that Planning Commission meeting if possible. Marc S arks aV1 1S W1 this is such an unhealthy thing. The neighbors are having problems with fences blown down, tires on their land that the owner will not remove, rats and other animals, and mosquitoes. The fire lanes are blocked. She alleged Cecil Heidelberger brings·'in three to four semi loads of tires every day, puts them on the west side of the lot and shreds them on the east side. And he;s shredding less tires than what is brought in. The neighbors want to know if this is going to be a permanent thing or will the tires be eradicated. She expressed hope the Planning Commission will work with the neighbors. She also alleged they all have contaminated wells in that area because of C. Heidelberger and it is truely a problem. And she expressed frustration that C. Heidelberger apparently does not have to obey the law, never having gone to jail for any charges brought against him. Discussion was that the tires that are on other people's property is a private matter and normally not something the City would become involved with. Mr. Hawkins also explained he has prosecuted C. Heidelberger on several occasions, fines were paid, and he did spend some time in jail for violation of this ordinance. And he is being prosecuted right now by the County Attorney for four or five complaints. He fe lt the best way to solve the entire problem is with Schripteck coming in. Council expressed frustration over the inability to stop the operation to date and again noted the Planning Commission will be hearing this matter at their next meeting. JUNKYARDS - FENCING REQUIREMENTS Mr. and Mrs. Wilber came before the Council asking that they be allowed to change their fence from wood, which was blown down in the July 3 storm, to chain link with color weave slats. They provided :pictures for the Council to view, stating the new slats will stay in. Mrs. Wilber explained that they have a decorative fence in front which is six feet high, and an eight-foot fence behind; but because of the slope, the fence in the back cannot be seen from the road. One side was blown down in the storm, which needs to be replaced; and they requested replacing it with the six-toot Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Junkyards - Fencing Requirements, Continued) chain link fence with slats. Mr. Wilber stated the fence would be more secure and more attractive than the wooden one. They also stated that the junk behind the fence would not be seen from the street with a six-foot fence. Discussion was the ordinance requires an 8-foot 'fence above the street level and that the junk shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Council generally had no problem with the 6-foot fence as long as the contents behind the fence cannot be seen from the road, realizing the ordinance would need to be changed to allow that. The Clerk was directed to draft a change in the ordinance to set a minimum of a six- foot fence above the road, up to ten feet high, based on how well it obscures the junk. It was also suggested a change be made to the ordinance dealing with the cosmetics of .the fence, possibly that Council approval of the fence be required prior to its construction. Council gave conceptual approval at this time for the Wilbers to begin the construction of the six-foot chain link fence. Recess at 9:07; reconvene at 9:18 p.m. REBUILDING DOUBLES/RED OAKS ADDITION Attorney Hawkins advised the ordinance provides that the doubles, which were a non- conforming use, cannot be reconstructed if they were damaged over 50 percent as a result of an act of God. In researching the laws, he felt based on the City's compre- hensive plan and the zone in the area that that provision is enforceable. The City can require compliance with any of the ordinance requirements and is not liable for any loss for the change of use on the property. Building Official Dave Almgren reported the structures are 24x60 or 720 square feet for each unit. The current ordinance for doubles requires 800 square feet per unit with a garage. Jim McQuay, lives in Coon Rapids and owns one of the doubles - asked if the zoning is gOlng to stay the same. Discussion with Mr. McQuay was the zoning is single family residential and the doubles were built in 1970. The zoning ordinances for the City .were enacted in 197I. Mr. McQuay - didn't understand what the City has against doubles. In this case it is a perfect place being next to the landfill. He asked where in Andover can doubles be constructed. Discussion with Mr. McQuay was that possibly he could ask for a rezoning of the area to multiples. Originally the ordinance allowed doubles in a residential district, but that has since been amended out of the zoning ordinance. Good Va lue constructed 16 buildings of double-family units in the Northglen plat, those lots being designed for doubles in the plan. Mr. McQuay - stated the ten doubles on 140th were all constructed at the same time and someone must have approved them. He asked who approved them. Mr. Hawkins recalled the old zoning ordinance allowed for residential and commercial zones, and just about any type of housing was allowed in residential areas. The new ordinance does not allow doubles in the R-4 zone, but their nonconforming use was allowed to continue because ·it existed and was grandfathered in. Those lots are the same size as the neighbors with single family homes on them. Mr. MCQua) - what is required for doubles now? Discussion was that it is 150 percent over slng e family minimum size and dimensions. And such lots are only allowed in new plats. Mr. McQuay - was concerned because the City would be deeming the property virtually worthless. The basements are in, which would no longer be good for anything. He didn't think whoever buys the property would put in a 1400-square-foot house looking across to the dump. In his opinion, the City is condemning the property, and he didn't see why they couldn't be rebuilt. Regular City Council Meeting Ju ly 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Rebuilding Doubles/Red Oaks Addition, Continued) Pat Goodwin, 8424 Shady Lane - is one of the original owners of those buildings. The buildings were there before most of the other homes were built. Bill Kemp issued those building permits, feeling he must have gotten the proper authority to do so. She feels it is unfair that by an act of God she lost her home and now the City Council is saying they cannot rebuild. And yet across the street sits five identical buildings. Council discussion pointed out a provision in the ordinance amendment, Ordinance 8M, stating two-family homes in R-4 and R-5 districts are allowed only when the lot locations are established and approved on the original plat, which was apparently done with these homes by the issuance of a building permit for doubles on those lots. Discussion was that though doubles were not specifically marked on the plat of Red Oaks Manor, it is platted as a residential development, doubles were allowed on those lots because they were allowed in residential areas at that time. So it can be interpreted that those lots were approved for multiple use by the issuance of the building permits for the doubles. LeKoy Walkner - lives in that area and felt the property would probably sit idle if they were not allowed to rebuild. He didn't feel the Council was saying they would not be allowed to rebuild but that they must go through the proper channels. He personally didn't feel anyone would want a single-family residence as close to the dump as it is. Further discussion was that the lot size for these lots doesn't comply for multiples either, and the existing basements are not large enough to meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. MCQUa{ - stated his concern if they have to go through the channels for a rezoning, as it cou d take 60 to 90 days. And what do they do if the Council does not approve the rezoning? He stated he would just put a sign up for sale; and if it doesn't sell, he would let it go for taxes. One gentleman stated it is possible to put a 2~-foot overhang on the foundation to meet the minimum 800-square-foot requirement and to add a garage onto the back if they are allowed to rebuild. Mr. McQua~ also stated they are not arguing the size requirements. Other members of the aud1ence felt no one would build a 1400-square- foot house a block away from the dump and that the cost is prohibitive if they cannot replace the doubles with doubles. Discussion was on the lot size, some Councilmen feeling they should be flexible for - the couple hundred feet difference. Rosella Sonsteby - commented that she had a good basement with 8-inch blocks but could not build on it because they had to be 12-inch blocks. Council discussion continued on whether it would be appropriate to consider a rezoning on these parcels to allow the doubles to be rebuilt or whether they could be rebuilt under the interpretation of Ordinance 8M. The Attorney stated it is an intepretation question. He felt it is possible to interpret Ordinance 8M that since the plat at the time it was approved allowed doubles on every lot, the City obviously issued building permi ts, so the location of the doubles was established and approved because it was platted into the residential district which allowed them. After 1971 a Special Use Permit was needed to do tlii's'. But prior to that the location of doubles was esta6tished and approved with the approval of the plat and they are therefore not a nonconforming use. With that interpretation, the Council has enough latitude to allow these doubles to be reconstructed with the existing ordinance requirements. And the lot size can be varied from because of the physical characteristics of the lots now existing. Councilman Lachinski felt if the homes could be rebuilt with meeting the current standards, the area will be improved, feeling the City should be flexible and allow them to be rebuilt. Otherwise there is the possibi lity e>f'having a hazardous area there for some peri od of t fne-. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 7 (Rebuilding Doubles/Red Oaks Addition, Continued) Also discussed was the alternative of rezoning those ten lots for multiple use, though the Attorney felt that may be considered spot zoning. Chairman Bosell asked what the City would do if all the neighbors were opposed to that rezoning, those doubles generally having a bad connotation. Mr. walkner felt that assessment was true, but also felt that they should be allowed to be rebui It under the current standards. He felt the positive side should be looked at, that by rebuilding, the property tax will be collected, the basements will be covered, etc. Mr. McQua¥ - inquired about the red tagging by the FHA for financing in the area and what was 1nvolved with the special well construction. Discussion was that there are no areas red tagged in Andover at this time and explained the Health Department's requirements for well drilling in the area, which increases the cost of a well to almost double. Mr. McQuay - asked what the City of Andover· could do to him if he just left everything the way 1t is now. He stated the harder the City makes it to rebuild, the better the chances are the City will get the lots back because the lots have very little value, especially if there is a basement that is worthless. He also stated his neighbor will probably sell if he can; if not, he may just let the lots go. Discussion was the Building Official has the authority to make the property safe and to assess the property. A gentleman again stated if the City would allow for a variance on the square footage of the lot, the 800 square feet and garage would not be a problem. He felt it would be better for the area to let the new build1ngs go up as opposed to letting them sit there. Robert Bell, 6050 Lieder Street, Rockford - just purchased the property a month ago. He couldn't believe he wouldn't be allowed to rebuild, feeling the same way the others do. Mr. McQuay - stated when rebuilding, they would have to look at the best option. Another gentleman stated they would probably rebuild as close to what they had as possible, basically from a cost standpoint. After further discussion, the Council agreed to grant a blanket variance for these lots from the lot size for doubles and allow them to reconstruct the buildings as double bungalows but meeting the size requirement of 800 square feet per unit and a garage. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution acknowledging that Lots 1 through 5 in Red Oaks Manor, Fourth Addition, Block 3, were built as multiple units and approved by the Township at the time and that they were approved prior to Ordinance No.8 being enacted and that they, therefore, are allowed to be rebuilt provided that they meet all other ordinance requirements and minimum standards; that the Resolution should also acknowledge that the 15,OOO-square- foot lots do not meet the ordinance requirements of 17,100 minimum square feet and that the City grant a variance from that requirement in this instance due to the fact that the multiple units were destroyed on July 3 due to high winds. DISCUSSION: was on whether or not it would be more appropr1ate to rezone the property to allow them to be rebuilt as multiple units. Attorney Hawkins advised that the other zone that allows multiples is Multiple or PUDs. Also, with an M-l zoning, there is the potential of the owners wanting to expand what is there unless the Council required a contract zoning. Councilman Elling stated he had no problem with the duplexes being rebuilt, but felt it would be more appropriate to handle it under a rezoning to be able to obtain input from the surrounding neighborhood, though he yielded to the majority of the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 FINAL PLAT/INDIAN MEADOWS Mr. Schrantz stated the lots are now in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. He also noted the title opinion is missing and. the improvements are not yet completed. Attorney Hawkins also stated a contract and bond for the rest of the improvements are needed. Plus the title opinion and deed for the parkland and abstract for everything in the plat plus parkland. L~le McLaughlin stated the only improvements not finished are the shoulders, and t ey were work1ng on those today. He asked that the final be approved subject to the final inspection by the engineering department. He has a check for the escrow fees. MOTION by Lachinski, Sêconded by Orttel, that the Final Plat for Indian Meadows, previously Andover West Phase II, be approved provided that the following items be completed within a 30-day period: that the maintenance bond and construction escrow be provided in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, and provided that the abstract be provided on the property including the property that is going to be deeded to the City for park purposes, and provided that the City Engineer submits a letter in writing approving the construction of the roads. (See Resolution R071-83) Motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT/GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC., NORTHGLEN II, PHASE I John Peterson explained the problems they have had with the plat with the torrens property, Outlot C, the deeding of the park to the City, and the problem of recording those parcels which are half torrens and half abstract property. Mr. Schrantz noted there is no easement shown for the water line between Lots 13 and 14, Block 2; 20-foot radiuses for all intersections are not shown; and the street coming from Round Lake Boulevard shown as Underclift should be l40th Lane NW. Attorney Hawkins stated he has examined everything that Good Value has provided him, but there must be a deed between Hand and another partnership on the rest of the property. They will record that and provide him the abstract within the next few days. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Final Plat of Northglen Second Addition, Phase I contingent upon the issuance of a satisfactory title opinion and provided that the developer show a atility drainage easement between Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, and provided the developer show 20-foot radiuses on all interior radiuses, and provided that a portion of Underclift be changed to 140th Lane NW as identified by the City Engineer, and provided that all these things be accomplished within 30 day·; time frame, and provided that the develper provide an escrow deposit in the amount of $96,609, and provided that the development contract be signed by the developer. (See Resolution R072~83) Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OF FEASIBILITY/KADALAC ADDITION The estimated project cost is $40,400 for an estimated cost per lot of $3,100. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the feasibility report on Kadalac Addition Street Improvement Project No. 83-7 and direct the City Clerk to advertise for the public hearing on August 2, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., at the City Hall. (See Resolution R073-83) Motion carried unanimously. PARTY PERMIT/GIVEN Dave Given - presented the signatures of all the companies who will participate and most of the people in the housing development behind the park. He is anticipating 100 to 200 people including employees from the industrial park. It will also be open to the public. He stated he was in charge of the event last year. Mayor Windschitl stated from the Sheriff's report, there must have been some difficulties last year. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 9 (Party Permit/Given, Continued) Mr. Given - stated the officer who came last year told him it was a fine party. He thought the permit was to last until 11 o'clock last year, but the officer said only until 10, so they closed down at 10 p.m. The only problem they had was with people parking on 163rd, which was someone who lived there with friends over and who were walking from 163rd to the industrial park. He stopped the fireworks. Mr. Given stated the officers were only there two times that he is aware of -- once between 7 and 8 o'clock and again at 10 o'clock to be sure the party was over. He does charge a $5 admission and plans it to be from 3 to 10 p.m. Council discussion with Mr. Given was on the Sheriff's report about last year's party, on the problems these types of parties create with motorcycles, juveniles, etc. Mr. Given stated he would have more control this year to eliminate some of the problems they had last year. Council suggested an off-duty policeman be hired to guard the entrance. Though it was felt that it would be difficult for the City to override the Sheriff Department's denial of the permit. It was then noted the ordinance states if the party is dispersed before dark that no permit is needed. Council generally agreed that the party should be dispersed before dark so no party permit is required. No further action was taken by the Council. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Tom May, LeRoy Walkner, and Chief Frank Stone were before the Council. Mr. May showed pictures on the progress being made on the new tanker, which hopefully will be completed in two weeks. Discussion was then on the purchase of a rescue vehicle. The cost of the one EMS unit talked about before was $37,500 because it was specially designed for one customer. Mr. Walkner stated he had some trouble with the 15-year unit. It is a modular van with aluminum body and chasis and is larger than what he thinks is needed. They have looked at used rigs, but 1978-79 modular units were priced at $10,500 plus $2,000 to bring the body into shape and had an excess of 200,000 miles. Mr. Walkner stated his first preference would be a Type II ambulance unit, new, for approximately $27,000. He felt it would have a useful life of five years for sure, possibly more, feeling the body would start to go after that time. He also looked at a used ambulance, 1975 model with approximately $70,000 miles on it, for $3,900; but the maintenance record indicates a substantial increase in maintenance costs after the first four years of service. Discussion was on the financing of such a vehicle, feeling five-year equipment bonds would be the most appropriate method. It was also noted that the Fire Department has $4,500 available out of this year's budget and the Fire Fighters Association has donated $2,500 that can be put toward this vehicle. Mr. Walkner also reviewed the other options. They know of a 1978 Dodge for $8,500, and a van conversion for approximately $15,000 is his third option. It wouïd not be a legal ambulance, which therefore affects the resale of the vehicle. The resale of the existing vehicle would only be between $500 to $700 because it would have to be stripped and sold on the street since it is not a legal ambulance. Discussion was on the type of vehicle that should be ordered and financing possible. A suggestion was that on a five-year equipment bond for not more than $30,000, it may not be necessary to over levy for next year's payment because of the monies available that can be put toward that payment. Members of the Fire Department stated the new rescue van is needed as the first priority because the one in use is rapidly deteriorating. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 10 (Andover Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the Fire Department prepare specifications and authorize the City Clerk to take bids on the Type II van ambulance for the rescue unit; and that we authorize the City Attorney to take quotations on Certificates of Indebtedness for the purchase of the ambulance. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone reported the Andover Fun Day is August 14 and asked if they could receive a permit to sell beer. There is going to be a waterball tournament as well. MOTION by Lachinski that we authorize the Fire Department to sell Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor at the Andover Fun Day on August 14, 1983. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Discussion was on whether the license should be issued to the Fire Department or to the Fire Fighters Association, on what insurance coverage is required, and on how to best handle the matter. Councilman Lachinski made another motion that the Fire Department be allowed to sell Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor on August 14 and direct the City Clerk to determine if there are any costs involved for dram shop insurance, but he then withdrew that motion before it was seconded. MOTION by Orttel that the City authorize the issuance of a one-day Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for the Andover Firemen's Relief Association for August 14 on city property. Motion dies for lack of a Second. It was then suggested that the Relief Association make an application for the license while the item of insurance is being investigated. Because the Andover Fun Day is growing and getting too big for the Fire Department to handle, Chief Stone suggested in the future that it become a community project involving other non-profit organizations, the City Council, etc. AWARD CONTRACT, 83-2, 83-2A, 83-3 Mr. Davidson reviewed the bids for the project recommending it be awarded to the low bidder of Orfei and Sons for a total cost of $611,128.99. Mr. Hawkins cautioned that without the filing of the final plats, the City does not have easements, and no escrow deposits have been deposited with the City. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council recognize the receipt of b1ds as shown for Projects 83-2, 83-2A, and 83-3, and note that the projects would be awarded to Orfei and Sons for $611,128.99 contingent upon the receipt of all necessary information and materials on the subject properties as required by the development agreement and the recording of the final plats. Motion carried_unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to rescind the prior motion. Motion carried unan1mously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the improvement of Project No. 83-2, 83-2A, and 83-3, as presented in the prepared Resolution which includes the return of the unsuccessful bidder's deposits, contingent upon the filing of the final plats and signing of the development contracts and posting the proper escrow amounts, awarding the bid to Orfei and Sons in the amount of $611,128.99. (See Resolution R074-83) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 11 WATERSHED DISTRICT There was a brief discussion on the newly adopted policy of the Coon Creek Watershed Board to assess for drainage in new plats, with the Counci 1 generally expressing frustration that Andover and Ham Lake apparently end up paying the greatest share of the costs, that the policy apparently was implemented without formal hearings or notice to the City, even questioning whether such an assessment is legal. Mr. Schrantz stated this item will be discussed at the Watershed Board's July 25 meeting, and it was suggested that as many City representatives as possible attend to gain first-hand information and provide testimony. The City Clerk was asked to request the Watershed Board to provide Andover with the assessment policy and all the background data. ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/TWO-CAR GARAGES Council deliberated over the various sections of the ordinance dealing with accessory buildings, Section 4.05 (B), (F), and (K). Discussion was on whether or not metal pole buildings should be allowed on lots of five acres or less and on the design and exterior finish material of such accessory buildings, and on the allowance of accessory bu Hd i ngs to be constructed c loser to the front lot 1 ine than the pri nc i pa 1 structure. Councilman Knight and Chairman Bosell argued against the five-acre or more requirement to allow metal pole barns to be put up, feeling if horses are allowed on 2\-acre lots, so should pole buildings; and that many times on three-or four-acre lots such buildings can be put up without being offensive. Others argued that metal pole buildings should not be allowed on 2~-acre lots because they are residential areas and such buildings are offensive to some people. If such buildings are to be allowed on 2~-acre lots or greater, it was felt that the front should coordinate with that of the house. After further discussion, it was generally agreed to the following amendment of Section 4.05, (K) : "No permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted building shall be allowed on parcels of less than three (3) acres. The foregoing provisions shall not apply to painted and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures." The three~¡ acre requirement was a compromise to eliminate most platted residential areas but still allow them in the more rural-type lots. Council generally agreed with the recommendations for Section 4.05 (B) as proposed by the Planning Commission. Discussion was then on the proposal for Section 4.05 (F), allowing a detached garage or accessory building to be constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. It was suggested rather than the proposal of the setback being a minimum distance from the front lot line of one-half the distance between the front lot line and the principal structure, that the normal setback plus a margin factor be used. Council then generally agreed that to simplify the matter, the minimum setback from the front lot line for an accessory building in front of the principal structure would be 60 feet. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we adopt Ordinance No. 8U, an Ordinance amend1ng Ordinance No.8, effective January 1, 1971, and Ordinance No. 8F, effective February 19, 1980, known as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Andover, and Ordinance No. 81. Include Section 4.05 (B) as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and also Section 4.05 (F) amended to read as follows: First paragraph as presented by the City Clerk; Second paragraph numbered 1 would be changed as follows: "On residential lots having a land area of one (1) acre or more, a detached garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure; however, the minimum distance it may be from the front lot line shall be 60 feet. " The next paragraph will be No.2: "All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed nearer the front lot line than the principal structure shall be similiar in design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible to the principal structure." Also, Section 4.05, Ordinance No. 81, Paragraph K amended to read as follows: "No Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 12 (Ordinance 8 Amendment - Accessory Buidlings/Two-Car Garages, Continued) permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted building shall be allowed on parcels of less than three (3) acres. The foregoing provision shall not apply to painted and and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures." Motion carried unanimously. ' Discussion was then on Section 6.02 of Ordinance 8, amending garage requirements to provide for double garages in all residential districts, suggesting a minimum size of 2Dx22 feet or 440 square feet. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council amend Ordinance 8F, Section 6.02, to state under "garage requirement" to provide for a minimum of 440-square- foot double garage in all residential districts excepting mobi le home courts and parks and in those districts zoned specifically for multiple dwellings over two units. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the amendment to Ordinance 8F, 6.02, Garage Requirement, be included with the prior Section 4.05 Ordinance 8, 8F, and 81, that the amendments be combined to form a new ordinance, Ordinance 8U. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER AUTO/LICENSE MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council direct the Attorney to notify Bob Pears of Andover Auto Parts his intent to proceed with legal action based on the fact that the property has not been brought into compliance with the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. NO PARKING RESOLUTION - PRAIRIE ROAD MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council adopt a Resolution d1sallowing parking on Prairie Road south of Andover Boulevard. (See Resolution R075-83) Motion carried unanimously. KELSEY PARK LAND ACQUISITION (Mayor Windschitl stepped down to the audience because he is directly affected by the item, and Acting Mayor Ken Orttel presided over this portion of the meeting.) Council discussion was on the acquisition of property from Mayor Windschitl adjacent to Round Lake which would become part of the proposed Kelsey Park. The ~ark, Board made no specific recommendation on the matter. Mayor Windschitl - stated the original appraisal done on the property was without the "gooseneck" leading to l52nd, and he would be opposed to selling that portion to the City. He stated he has no position on the remainder of the outlot. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize the City Attorney to start a condemnation procedure on the Windschitl property portion of Kelsey Park acquisition, excluding the access to l52nd Lane. (See Resolution R076-83) DISCUSSION: was the concern over the funding of this purchase and over what would happen to the "gooseneck". Attorney Hawkins stated the City would be creating a nonbuildable parcel. Mayor Windschitl stated he would attach that to his lot. Mr. Hawkins estimated the acquisition costs for this parcel to be around $2,500. He also noted that they are closing the deal on Thursday for the purchase of Kelsey Park land from Programmed Land on a contract for deed with $60,000 down and two $22,000 payments at g percent, payments due July 1 over the next two-year period. He also stated there is an existing contract for deed between Midland Ot,ejjtald Programmed Land that will not be satisfied; the City will not assume the payment of that contract. When the City makes the last $22,000 payment, Regular City Council Meeting July 19, 1983 - Minutes Page 13 (Kelsey Park Land Acquisition, Continued) there will have been enough that has been paid to get the release from Midland Cred it . But the City is guaranteed to get the property by the time the last payment is made. The Clerk noted there is $13,965 left of park funds. Council discussion was whether that money could be earmarked for this purchase or should be carried over to make the 1984 payment to Programmed Land. Suggested sources for the first $22,000 payment was from any potential surplus' or possibly overlevy on the equipment bonds to free up more general funds. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; NOT VOTING-Mayor Windschitl Motion carried. (Mayor Windschitl conducted the remainder of the meeting.) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, approve payment of Checks 6694 through 6812 tor a sum of $412,771.92. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, -'<1- ~"-~~-~-k~'>\ i Marc la A. Peach Record1ng Secretary