Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC June 7, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 7,1983 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Scenic River Ordinance/Department of Natural Resources b. 149th Avenue Maintenance c. Sketch Plan/L. Carlson d. Rezoning/R. Hockinson e. Lot Split/R. Hockinson f. Variance/M. Kelner g. Prelinary Plat/Northglen II h. Var iance/D. . Neimann i. Basement/Garage Requirements j. Height/Size Requirements-Accessory Bldgs. k. Resolutions Accepting Petitions l)Nordeen Addition 2)Quay Street 3)175th Street l. D. Reisburg/162nd & potowatomi m. MSA-Prairie Road n. Final Plans/Northglen II, Shirley's Estates, Rosella's Addn. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Junkyard License/Andover Auto Parts b. Acquisition Approval/Hanson Boulevard c. CETA Summer Help 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK/A. A DATE: JUNE 1 , 1983 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - JUNE 7, 1983 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 6a-Community School Report and Item No. 6b-Kelsey Park/Lakeside Estates Land Acquistion~; and Item 5c-CETA Help. Also add Item 4n-Approve Plans & Specifications/Northglen II, Rosella's & Shirler s ddn. Item No. 4a - Scenic River Ordinance-DNR Patricia Olson of the DNR Staff will be at the meeting to discuss with the Council the restrictions covered by the Scenic River Ordinance. Since the adoption of the ordinance by the City, several requests have been received for variances. The ordinance does allow for variances, however, the guidelines and criteria for the granting/denying of such variances is not completely clear. Item No. 4b - 149th Avenue Maintenance In late 1969, the Grow Township Board of Supervisors accepted the easement of 149th Avenue. At that time a request was made that it not be maintained; and inasmuch as no homes were located on the property, the request was granted. In 1980 a building permit was issued for one residence on the property, and in 1982, the City Council authorized maintenance of the street-but only to the residence. ¡~e have now received a request from adjoining property owners to maintain the road for its total length of one-half mile (this would be an additional 900 feet) . The reason for the request is to allow those property owners access to their property. A motion is need authorizing such maintenance. Item No. 4c - Sketch Plan/Lary Carlson Mr. Carlson is proposing to plat the area off Crosstown Boulevard in Section 12, formally presented to the Council under the plat name of North Birch Creek Estates. The developer, Al KIous, was given preliminary approval of the Plat in 1979, however, there were some contingencies, including a requirement of a "Memo of Understanding" relating to development of some of the lots. Enclosed is pertinent data covering the previous approval. Mr. Carlson has changed the configuration of the lots and is requesting conceptual approval from the Council. Agenda Information June 7, 1983 Page 2 Item No. 4d - Rezoning/R. Hockinson This item is continued from the May 17 Meeting in order to allow the property owner time to discuss with the Planning and Zoning Commission the possibility of only rezoning part of the property and leaving the front portion with its existing commercial zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request; their recommendation for approval is attached. In order to comply with the Lot Split Ordinance, the entire property must be rezoned to Residential-4, followed by Item NO. 4e (Lot Split) and then the front portion rezoned back to the Neighborhood Business. The Lot Split Ordinance provides for the division of Residential Lots only. I will prepare a resolution incorporating the above, and including the Lot Split and subsequent rezoning of one parcel back to Neighborhood Business. It is recommended that this item and Item No. 4e be handled together. The Council conceptually approved this action at the May 17 Meeting. Item NO. 4e - Lot Split/R.Hockinson See Item No. 4d. Item NO. 4f - Variance/M. Kelner Mr. Kelner is requesting a variance from the provisions of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 (Rearyard Setback) to allow him to construct his home in an area of his property more conducive to such construction due to water table, and other topography characteristics of the property. Attached is the p&Z recommendation for approval of the request. A resolution will be prepared incorporating this recommendation. Item No. 4h - Variance/D. Neimann This item is continued from the May 17 Meeting to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission time to discuss again the variance request. The original figures used by the Planning and Zoning Commission in their review were not correct. The P&Z has again reviewed the request based on the correct figures. Their comments are attached. Also attached is the original resolution adopted by the City Council. If the Council does concur with the Commission and feels the variance should stand approved, this resolution can be amended to change the contingency provision to "a distance of 84 feet". Item No. 4i - Basement/Garage Requirements The P&Z have reviewed the matter of requiring a basement/2-car garage, as requested by the City Council. Council concern was based on that of lack of storage space and storm shelters. The Planning and Zoning Commission has indicated they do not feel change is necessary, so the ordinance would stay as written, i.e., no basement requirement and a single car garage being required. Agenda Information June 7, 1983 Page 3 Item No. 4j-Height/Size Requirements-Accessory Buildings This ordinance provision has come up several times over the past years; and in those situtations where a property owner has constructed a garage of a larger size (square footage-ground cover), complaints from neighbors have resulted in 75% of the cases. For example: Ordinance 8 will allow someone to construct a 960 sq.ft. home and also a 4,000 sq.ft. storage building. If this is done on a 1 acre to 5 acre parcel; and especially if the parcel is a non-wooded parcel, the accessory building actually dwarfs the house and generally depreciates the rest of the neighborhood. Ordinance No. 8 does prohbit an accessory building from exceeding the height of the principal structure, however, no mention is made of size (land cover). On parcels over 5 acres, the agricultural provision take effect, so essentially, it is just on parcels of 5 acres or less where the size requirement is needed. Attached is a memo outlining several possible size requirements. This matter will have to be referred to P&Z for a public hearing, etc. Item No. 4k - Resolutions Acceptinq Petitions Petitions have been received requesting bituminous street improvement for l)Nordeen Addition, 2)Quay Street, and 3)175th Avenue. Resolutions will be prepared to accept the petitions, declare them adequate and order Feasibility Reports on each. Item No. 41 - D. Reisburg/162nd & potowatomi Street When the street improvement was done in 1979 in the Stenquist Addition in Section 18, Mr. Reisburg was left with a very deep ditch in front of his property. It was necessary to cut the road down in this location; and his lot is higher than most, so the ditch unusually deep with unusually steep sides. At the time he was told by the Council that the City would maintain the ditch, however, because of manpower shortage, City maintenance has been that of mowing ditches once a year. As a result, Mr. Reisburg has maintained the entire ditch himself. He is willing to continue to do so, however, is requesting the City purchase him a "hand" mower, inasmuch as the repairs on his own mower (attributed to the slopes of the ditch) , are making it prohibitive. The City Engineer has reviewed and area and will have a memo, along with his recommendations, for you. Item No. 4m - MSA-Prairie Road At the May 17 Meeting, the City Council directed the preparation of plans and specifications, with the feasibility report to be prepared at the same time, for the State Aid Improvement of Prairie Road south of the Coon Creek Bridge. It is not known at this time if the P&S will be ready, however, the feasibility report is completed. The City Engineer has spoken to the property owners and has not received any opposition to the improvement, however, right-of-way easements have not yet been prepared, or signed, therefore, it is not known if a public hearing is required, based on our policy of assessing ROW costs. If this is completed by the meeting, the Council can simply approve the Report and order the project/advertisement for bids. A general informational hearing could be held to inform the residents indirectly affected by the proj ect. Agenda Information June 7, 1983 Page 4 Item No. Sa - Junkyard License/Andover Auto Parts This item is continued from the May 17, 1983. The owner had notified the Council that the final items necessary for approval of the license would be completed by June 1 , therefore, the Council tabled the action on the license until the work was done. As of today, there are still some items which are not in compliance. The property will be visually inspected again on June 7; and a report will be furnished you. Item No. 5b - Easement Acquisition-Hanson Boulevard Attached is correspondence from Attorney Hawkins covering acquisition of property from NSP. A motion is need for approval and directing issuance of the check for payment. Item No. 5c - CETA Summer Help Attached is a memo from the City Engineer covering CETA Summer Help for the Public Works Department. A motion is needed for approval. Item No. 6a - Community School Report Tony Strukel will be present to give the year-end report on the Community School Program for the 1982-83 Year. Item No. 6b - Kelsey Park/Acquisition-Lakeside Estates This item is continued from the May 17 Meeting. The Park Board will be discussing whether or not they still want this property; they will be meeting tonight (June 2). Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes May 3, May 5, May 17, 1983. ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 7, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on June 7, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilman absent: Elling Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk/Acting Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Carroll Abbott, 2917 142nd Lane - apologized to the Mayor for stating there were three stop signs along Crocus when there are either two or four, depending on how it is looked at. He presented a letter to the Council submitting suggestions as to what can be done to solve the problem on Crocus, as he is opposed to the stop signs that have been placed on that street. He also related an incident of lack of courtsey by approxi- mately five young people walking down Heather as he drove down the street, generalizing the disrespect and possible violent nature of some young people today. He also thought the Council should work with the bus company to review the bus stop locations, noting the problems and hazards of students standing in the street at bus stops. Mayor Windschitl stated the City could have the bus company look at the spacing of the bus stops and do whatever can be done to improve the safety. Further discussion and comments on this item will be taken up at the June 21, 1983, regular Council meeting. Lloyd Reimann, 2813 142nd Avenue - asked the purpose of the stop signs on Crocus. Mayor Windsch1tl rev1ewed the problems of the high-speed traffic on Crocus and the concerns expressed by the residents, noting that two children have been hit on that street within the past two years. The signs were put in after a study and by a motion unanimously passed by the Council. Mr. Reimann - asked the traffic count for that road and how many of those actually speed. Mayor Windschitl stated the police ran some spot counts and it is a heavily traveled street. A woman in the audience stated in an hour's time, three cars were going over the speed limit. Mr. Reimann - felt it is the parent's responsibility to see that the children are not plaY1ng in the street, stating there are always children playing near that street. It should be realized that is a busy street, and he didn't feel stop signs should be used to control speed, that that should not set a precedent for using stop signs to control speed throughout the entire City. The speeding should be controlled through enforcement. Mrs. Les Slavik - has lived on Crocus for the past ten years. The stop signs were there when they moved in but came down when the tarred roads were put in. Also, the people in Green Acres vetoed another access to that area and so must now use Crocus. She stated the only reason for the stop signs are because of the small children. Her children do not play in the street but do cross it to visit friends. Her daughter: was one who got hit. She stated they are also going to put in a proposal for a lower speed limit, which can be done because of the park. Mayor Windschitl explained the Department of Transportation will, after a survey, give an oPin~~n of dropping a speed limit from 30 to 20 mph. The comments received, however, is thatl percent of the cases it is dropped when it is in a school zone. If the DOT gives formal approval to the drop in the speed limit, it is enforceable. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) Denis Kline, Crocus - stated when he drives to Anoka or any other city, he must obey the stop signs and the lights along the way; and there is a purpose for it. He asked why is it so hard for the people from Green Acres to stop for two signs on Crocus, when there is also a reason for it. He explained there are about 45 children in a two-block area, feeling two stop signs solve the problem. He did see someone get hit on the street, though it was the child's fault. Al Greyson, 13954 Crocus - also stated the stop signs are working for controlling the speed. The average speed has decreased considerably though there are still people breaking the speed limit and running the stop signs. He felt if either sign were taken down, the problem would return. He stated he has not seen the pOlice in the area since the signs have been put up, and he related flagrant violations of both speed and stopping for the stop signs within short periods of time. But they are willing to work with the residents of Green Acres to solve this problem. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION bv Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we amend the published Agenda as ~fõTlõws: the Addition of Item 6a, Community School report; Item no. 6b, Kelsey Park/Lakeside Estates Land Acquisition; Item 5c, CETA Help; Item 4n, Approve Plans and Specifications/Northglen II, Rosella's and Shirley's Additions; Item 5d, Appoint- ment of P & Z Member; Item 5e, Change Order; and Item 6c, Permit for Underground Utilities. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl asked for a motion to suspend the rules. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE/DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Patricia Olson and Ron Harnack from the DNR were present. Mayor Windschitl reviewed the City's concerns over the Rum River Scenic Ordinance, especially the reasoning for the l50-foot setback from the river. Ms. Olson provided a brief history of the scenic designation of the Rum River and the establishment of the advisory council to develop the management plan for the Rum River based on State regulations. The 150-foot setback is the State regulation for scenic river classifications. She explained there were three people from Andover on that advisory council, and their input was the City of Andover wanted to go with the scenic classification for the rural area because it was never going to be an urban area. Suggestions and changes could be made in the management plan during the public hearings held in the county, and Ramsey made the suggestion to change their urban transition zone to a different standard because their comprehensive plan called for water and sewer in that area. No one from Andover suggested any changes. Mr. Harnack explained the attempt is to maintain what has already gone on in the past. The area here has been basically undeveloped, and the primary objective of the manage- ment plan was to maintain the scenic value. One hundred fifty feet appeared to be a reasonable setback in order to accommodate an adequate fringe of vegetation to maintain the scenic value of the river. The only modifications they have seen in the management plan have been in administrative accommodations due to adjustments in the lot size in the second tier but with a corresponding increase in lot frontage on the front lots. When dealing with land constraints, the justification of variances becomes a pertinent issue. They look at variances based on what the law sets forth, that being what is the hardship. It is a semi-judicial procedure and they look at it critically. Mayor Windschitl asked if there is any flexibility in the last 50 feet, reviewing the situations of the two variance requests (Szyplinski and Hokinson -- See the May 3 and May 17 Council Minutes). Mr. Szyplinski also explained the bluff line on his lot Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Scenic River Ordinance/DNR Continued) is 30 to 35 feet above the water, stating if he would set the house back even 50 feet, it would not be seen from the river. He canoed the river two weeks ago and guessed 80 percent of the houses are less than 150 feet from the river. He didn't know why they now want to penalize the rest of those who want to build on the river. Ms. Olson - stated it is not a penalty. The setback has been followed since the adoption of the ordinance. She also stated they do not have the flexibility to vary from the 150- foot setback, as they have to abide by the regulations. The only way it can be changed is to amend the rule. To do that the City must petition to the Commissioner and justify why that rule needs to be amended, and then all the public hearings must be gone through. Mr. Harnack - also noted that many of the ordinances were adopted some time after the deadl1ne for adoption, and since that time people that were actively involved in the formation of the management plan have changed resulting in a lot of questions surfacing as to why some standards are used. It is now planned to establish a committee over the next year to re-evaluate the administration of the program for the Rum River, to look at what administrative problems are occurring, and to determine what kind of adjustments are appropriate to still maintain the objectives of the program. He stated the City could petition for a change independent of that process; however, based on his experience it may not be received as well as the City desires. He stated it might be a more appropriate time to address the setback question at the re-evaluation. Mr. Harnack - continued that the ability to vary from the setback is based on hardship. It 1S felt if the parcel has reasonable utilitzation, that the construction on the lot should accommodate the land to the greatest degree practical. If that means significant alterations to the land, then possibly a variance is justified to minimize those activities. In most cases they will certify the findings of the city or· county on variance requests. He met with Mr. Hokinson this evening, and the perspective that he can't build the type of house he wants on that lot, in his mind, doesn't constitute sufficient hardship to justify a variance. Councilman Lachinski stated in dealing with the issue of not being able to see the house from the river because of the bluff line regardless of where it is placed, he felt the ordinance should be amended to include some rationale for the setback. And if that reason is being adhered to, then he felt the variance should be allowed. Mr. Harnack didn't necessarily disagree but;stated the variance process is not the proper procedure to deal with that issue. He stated that issue would still not constitute a hardship as such. In fact, being closer to the river, they would still not see the river; so what is the advantage of the setback? The intent of the setback had to do with visibility and scenic value to insure that adequate screening was provided to substantially screen structures from view from the river during leaf-on periods, but those objectives cannot always be met because of the conditions of the lot. Councilman Orttel stated the opposite is true in Ramsey. Mr. Harnack stated a lot of that land is flood plain and not buildable anyway, which is a further constraint for building. Councilman Orttel took issue with a statement made that the scenic river ordinance was based on the existing zoning. Mr. Harnack stated he meant to say it is on the existing development pattern, but it is bas1cally an undeveloped stretch of river. Councilman Orttel also noted that it is not an Andover ordinance but a State of Minnesota ordinance and it was approved under threat that the State would impose the ordinance if the City would not. And that's why he questioned how much input anyone had on the criteria because they are State laws. Mr. Harnack agreed that the local units of government were to enact the regulations, and their Department had the obligation by law to adopt for the community if it did not. He also explained why the cities were involved in variance procedures and the Department's role of certification authority as set out by law. Councilman Lachinski stated what that means is just as the City was Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 (Scenic River Ordinance/DNR Continued) told to have an ordinance whether it wanted it or not, it doesn't really have any decision that can be held fast. Mr. Harnack stated in part that is true, although they do not have to certify any variances they concur with. Councilman.Lachinski asked what the DNR would do if the City approved the variance because the house could not be seen from the river at the 105-foot setback and it ·does not hurt the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Olson stated they do not have that administrative prerogative, as they have to base their decision on~at the law says in determining variances, which is hardship. Councilman Lachinski stated the only course of action in this case is to amend the ordinance. Mr. Harnack stated that amendment is currently not available to the City, and it would 1nvolve changing the Rum River rules and regulations upon which the ordinance is based. If that amendment came before them, they could not certify it because it would be inconsistent with the current rules. The rules would need to be amended, and those rules will be re-evaluated over the next year, hoping the City's comments and participation would be evident. In discussing the Hokinson variance request, Mr. - Harnack stated the type of house .structure desired by the property owner is not justi- fication for a hardship under the ordinance. Mr. Szyplinski - stated if this is the way it is, then the owner of this property should have. stated that only a certain type of house could be built. Mr. Hokinson - stated the DNR is telling them what kind of house they can build on the property, plus they cannot use 150 feet of their property. Mr. Harnack again explained their role in establishing and maintaining the standards for the wild and scenic rivers established by the Legislature. He also argued that ordinances exist and should be looked at in purchasing a parcel in any community. Councilman Orttel stated there is a conflict in this ordinance that is troublesome, which is the two measurements. Because theoretically if someone had to stay 30 feet from the bluff line, he would not be able to build on the lot at all. There are two requirements, and the DNR is using the most restrictive or both. Mr. Harnack - explained the only place one or the other is allowed is on the St. Croix on the natlOnal scenic riverway.. A setback less than that mandated can be permitted, but then a scenic easement must be dedicated for the balance of the area which doesn't allow the removal of vegetation of any kind. Councilman Orttel took issue stating the DNR has a scenic easement over these people's property whether it is declared or not because of the control they have over it. Council also expressed frustration over the lack of flexibility and over what amounts to lack of authority by the City over this matter. Mr. Szyplinski - asked who is in charge of policing and protecting the river's shore- lines. Mr. Harnack stated the 150 feet belongs to the individual landowner. Mr. Szyplinski stated last night there was a party of 10 to 15 cars, with four wheelers, beer cans and bottles going down the river, etc. He was afraid to go to his own lot. Now he is supposed to build on a lot to protect the river. He didn't understand it all. Mayor Windschitl stated for continuing Council discussion, this item will be dealt with as Item 40. SKETCH PLAN/L. CARLSON Larry Carlson stated they h~ve changed the lot configurations considerably from what was proposed by a previous owner. He stated all the land to the east is boggy and there is no hope of a street going through to that property line, reviewing the topography of the area. Mayor Windschitl stated the main question would be the length of the road and the potential for second entrances. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Sketch Plan/L. Carlson, Continued) Mr. Carlson stated the streets proposed to the south are on high land. He called to the Council's attention the one lot fronting on the County road, stating the County has indicated it is acceptable to them. He also noted the Park Board has indicated they want cash in lieu of parkland. Council generally had no problem with the sketch plan. REZONING/LOT SPLIT - R. HOCKINSON The Clerk explained her comments in the Agenda material stem from their interpretation of the ordinance that only residential lots could be split under the Lot Split Ordinance. She has since talked with the Attorney, who advised that only a portion of the lot needs to be rezoned. Mr. Hawkins felt it is not necessary to rezone all the property to residential, split the parcel, and then rezone the portion back to Neighborhood Business. By rezoning part of the lot and then split it from the other portion of the lot, he felt it would be splitting off a residential lot and would meet 1he intent of the ordinance. The end result is to create a residential lot. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution approving the Rezoning request by R. Hockinson to rezone Lot 11 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 137 from Neighborhood . Business to Residential 4... (See Resolution R040-83) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving the Lot Split of R. Hockinson to subdivide Lot 11 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 137 into two parcels as presented. (See Resolution R041-83) Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT/NORTHGLEN II A group of residents from tho> City of Anoka were present to express their opposition to the location of the proposed County 116 immediately adjacent to the Anoka-Andover city lines as proposed in the preliminary plat of Northglen II. They also presented a petition of opposition. Mayor Windschitl reviewed previous discussions with the County for the feeder road off the proposed Rum River crossing and the existing problems on No. 116 from Seventh Avenue to Round Lake Boulevard. He reviewed the original alignment that diagonally came through the Good Value property putting approximately 21 lots in a position which could not be sewered by Andover's facilities. He summarized the activities of those involved to solve the problem including contacting the City of Anoka to service those lots (their policy being not to extend services beyond their city line). The a 1 i gnment finally agreed to allows the lots to be served with Andover utilities. It also had an impact on the placement of the park. John Peterson, Good Value Homes, stated last night's meeting at the Anoka City Hall was an act1ve meeting of approximately 30 to 35 residents primarily from the part of Anoka adjacent to the westerly edge of the City of Andover. Commissioner Erhart and Commissioner Haas were there as well as the staff members of the Engineering Department. The residents asked the Anoka Council to support them with the idea of putting the right of way for 116 further into Andover to have some of the residential area in Andover serve as a buffer of 116. Good Value's position is the impact of the highway should be shared by the two municipalities that benefit. He stated it seems fair and reasonable to have Highway 116 directly between the two cities. They have proposed that with Outlot B, the right of way for the new highway be wider than standard. John Uban provided a summary of the plat with the low areas to the north and south, the proposed park location, the design of the road system so that no road goes directly through the plat to encourage shortcutting from the proposed 116 to Round Lake Boulevard, Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Preliminary Plat/Northglen II, Continued) and the overall minimum lot size meeting the ordinances with no variances required. It is a combined piece of land between Good Value and the Hand property. Mr. Uban also explained that in the event the diagonal plan for 116 is adopted, the platting process could easily be adapted in the second phase of platting. That road location will also have no effect on the proposed parkland dedication. The first phase will work under any condition. There was some discussion as to whether or not the entire area needs to be acted upon at this time or whether just the preliminary plat of Phase I can be approved. The Planning Commission recommended approval only of Phase I and a variance as all the owner·'s contiguous property is not being platted. Mr. Peterson stated in an attempt to get the highway question settled, they had intended to present the preliminary plat for Phase I only this evening. Because of the uncertainty of the location of Highway 116, it was generally agreed to consider Phase I only at this time. Mr. Peterson - clarified that Anoka County had not approved the location of Highway 116 where Outlot B is shown on the plat; however, they have met with the Engineering Department staff who has stated it is possible to construct the road on Outlot B. Discussion also noted that what was shown as Outlot B in the southwestern portion of the plat should be relabeled Outlot C, with Outlot B remaining as the 150-foot strip along the western edge of the plat, the City of Anoka/City of Andover boundary. The reason for Outlots Band C is to protect the right of way for Highway 116 rather than putting a parkland designation on it. Mr. Peterson - stated they are willing to give fee title to Outlot C. He also stated that the plat was submitted to the City of Anoka for review and comments. He also reviewed the problems with the severed lots if Highway 116 is placed at a diagonal through the area. Mr. Peterson stated at last night's meeting it was clear that the residents of Anoka did not want any interconnect from Andover into their city, though the City Council has not formally rejected the idea. Discussion continued on the location of the proposed Highway 116 with Mr. Schrantz explaining the discussion with the county engineers as to a location to meet county standards and to derive the greatest benefit to the City of Andover. The a 1 i gnment on Outlot B is a viable location for Highway 116. Mr. Schrantz also explained the proposal to birm and buffer both sides to lessen the impact on the adjoining properties. The present alignment of No. 116 services Andover quite well, but the realignment will definitely impact Andover and will help the residents in the City of Anoka. Because no final decisions have been made on the county level, the proposal has been to have the plat in two phases. Mr. Peterson - stated it is important to them in planning their grading for the entire proJect to have an idea of the location for the road. There is a lot of dirt to move on this site, and if they don't have any idea of where the road will be "located, it makes a tremendous difference as to what they do with the dirt. Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue NW - was concerned with Phase II. If the county road doesn't go through, she felt there should then be some outlet to the north to her property. Mayor Windschitl stated her point is well taken. Clay Gosswiller, 4014 10th Lane, Anoka - stated when the residents bought their property, there wasn't any 1ndication that any large road was going behind them, thinking it was a nice quiet residential area. It has upset the residents to have a large road directly behind their property. The comment from the County Engineers at last night's meeting was that Outlot B was not their preferred route, preferring the original route because it would be easier to build and cheaper for the County. Last year he was told by Mr. Peterson if the triangular piece of land were severed by Highway 116 that it Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 7 (Preliminary Plat/Northglen II, Continued) would not be buildable and would not be used. He went on to say the parkland being dedicated is all wetland or very low, thinking that triangular parcel could also be used as parkland. Council discussion was that the City requires the parkland to be above the 100-year flood plain. It was also noted the City is faced with the situation that if 21 lots are lost, it means a loss of over one and a half million dollars of tax base to the City. The City's interest is to generate at least a maximum benefit out of a given piece of property. Tony Dvoracek, 4020 10th Lane, Anoka - stated they are concerned with their property values and a large road right behind their home will decrease their property values. He also stated that a birm would be effective on approximately 8 to 10 lots for the City of Anoka, as there are quite a few lots that are low and would not be protected by birming. His lot is one that would not really be protected. He stated the County ~ngineers have told them that the location has not been set but that Outlot B is not the preferred route. It has also been explained to them that no matter which alignment the road takes, Andover's park will not be affected. Also, there is some concern over sharp 90-degree turns on 50 mph roads, which would occur using the Outlot B route. As a neighborhood, they are trying to make the City of Anoka and the City of Andover aware of their feelings and to see if a solution can be worked out for everyone's benefit. He didn't think the City of Anoka had given much thought to the new 116 until they were approached last night. In the triangular area, they have heard there could be 20 to 25 lots and tonight as few as 3 or 4 lots. But last night the City of Anoka left them with the impression that they are open to the possibility of connecting sewer and water to this area. And Mr. Nybeck, who is not here tonight, has contacted one of the city engineers who stated he was approached about connecting all 200 lots but never about just a 20-10t parcel. He realized the need for some type of cross connection, but he didn't feel it has to butt up to property they bought that at the time no expectations of a major roadway would come through there. Count¥ Commissioner Dan Erhart - stated they are interested in good highway t,ansporta- tion ln all d1rectlons, toïmTñimize the 90-degree angle corners, and to work together. He was surprised to see in the Planning Commission Minutes that the new route of 116 had been approved by the County, when to his knowledge the County had not established any specific route. He talked with the staff, and the preferred route is the diagonal, but they are willing to work with Good Value and Andover to minimize any adverse effects to the development. He talked to the City Manager of Anoka, and he was willing to talk about interconnecting utilities. He also talked to Anoka's Mayor tonight, and she would be open to discussing the matter. Commissioner Erhart went on to say he realized the effects on all parties concerned and expressed hope that some equitable solution could be worked out. He stated he will try to do everything he can to try to facilitate those agreements. Councilman Orttel asked what are the odds of the bridge across the Rum River ever being built, because the realignment of 116 depends on that. This has been going on for many years. He asked why hasn't the County ever purcahsed the land if they want it. Or at least designate an absolute route and ask to preserve it. The City can't keep the corridor open indefinitely. Commissioner Erhart stated County Road 116 needs to have some realignment and planned connective with or without the bridge. It is his understanding that the bridge will be built depending upon financing available, under- standing that 75, and hopefully 90, percent of the financing comes from the Federal Government. He also stated he was aware of the realignment of 116, but was not aware of the acuteness of the problem until last Thursday, again stating he will do every- thing he can to· speed it with the County in making that decision so that people can proceed with their plans. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 (Preliminary Plat/Northglen II, Continued) Mr. Peterson - stated the County is not anticipating 90-degree turns if the corridor shown on Outlot B is used. He also stated that forgetting the problems with utilities, etc., it would be best for the City of Andover to have to deal with only one-half of that new Highway 116. It seems fair and reasonable that the impact of the new road should be shared by the two cities. Councilman Lachinski stated in the end analysis, Good Value will be looking to get adequately compensated for whatever damages are done by the construction of that road, so does it make a difference where it is put. Mayor Windschitl stated from Andover's viewpoin~, it makes a substantial difference in the City's assessed valuation. Mr. Peterson stated if the seven-acre parcel is left, there is no question in his mi~ that they can show ¡they have been substantially damaged in terms of developability. Mr. Dvoracek - took issue with the 90-degree turn, as the highway engineer explained to them that using Outlot B would facilitate gO-degree turns. Mayor Windschitl stated there was a discussion of extending the radius north to lessen the 90-degree turn and still maintain the 50-mph speed limit. James Kriegel, 10th Lane, Anoka - stated in looking at the plan, it occurred to him that if he had the job ot max1mizing his investment, that getting the most number of lots out of the land available and having the County fill in all the swampland rather than Good Value Homes would be saving a lot of money. He thought it was a good deal for Good Value to be developing that land, thinking it is not just a coincidence. Mr. Uban - stated they would prefer the plat have no major highway through it and are not looking to the County to do anything for their benefit. Both routes are shown on the plats and they have maximum flexibility to go either way, but they would prefer not to have the road there at all. Ron Gubur, lOth Lane, Anoka - asked what the Council's position is on the County road. D1Scuss1on was that in looking at the problems with the existing 116 and at what is proposed to come with the traffic from Ramsey when the bridge is constructed, they looked at a feeder road that was not obstructed by residential lots. The realignment of 116 is not benefitting Andover at all but is an accommodation to someone else. But at the same time Andover understands· the County's obligation to provide a transportation system, and that is why it was approved by the City previously. It was also felt that no matter where it terminates, there will be a big traffic problem down the road. Discussion with residents also noted that through this parcel in some manner is the only vehicle the County has left to solve the 116 problem and the potential future traffic problems. Someone in the audience stated he felt it was more realistic to bring the road straight across to Round Lake Boulevard. Council noted it is difficult to get it through plus the potential hazard of having traffic dump onto Round Lake Boulevard north of the' ~unker Lake intersection because of the curves, the future shopping center in that area, etc. Andover prefers the termination of 116 to be as far south as possible. Council discussion returned to the plat itself. Mr. Peterson noted they are agreeable to dedicating the entire parkland with Phase I and Good Value has agreed to do the grading for one soccer field in the park. Attorney Hawkins also noted that in order to act on Phase I of the plat only, Good Value would have to waive the time requirements on Phase II until a certain date so the plat isn't automatically approved according to the ordinance. Mr. Peterson - statea in light of the problems with the alignment of 116, he thought they would try to work towards approval of the second phase almost immediately, feeling they could be back with their request for approval on the westerly portion of the parcel within 30 days. He was agreeable to waiving the timè requirements for Phase Ii. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page g (Preliminary Plat/Northglen II, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, approving Phase I of Northglen Second Addition as presented with the condition that the entire park property shown on that preliminary plat is to be dedicated at the time of the final of Phase I, and note that subject to a request by the developer that the parcel of prpperty known as Phase II and Outlot,s Band C we wi 11 table the decision on those items until the first meeting in July, 1983. (See Resolution R042-83) DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Chairperson d'Arcy ~osell noted several corrections that should be made on the preliminary plat: the property east of Round Lake Boulevard shown as NB should be corrected to SC and the type of surface on Round Lake Boulevard is not indicated. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:43; reconvene at 10:08 p.m. VARIANCE/D. NEIMANN Chairman ~osell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant the variance request of Dennis Neimann to construct the garage in line with the parking apron that is already on the property. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to reconsider the variance approval for Mr. Neimann which was approved on May 17. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to reconsider the motion regarding the Neimann var1ance that was just made. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we amend the prior motion to May 3. instead of May 17. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we reintroduce a Resolution approving the garage location for Mr. Neimann instead of specifying a distance from the right-of- way line, specify that the southern edge of the garage be no further south than the southern edge of the· existing parking apron. (See Resolution RU43-83) Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING PETITIONS Mr. Schrantz reviewed the petition received for street improvement in Nordeen's Addition. The petition did not reach everyone, but it is an adequate petition. Mayor Windschitl then reviewed the 429 procedure for road improvement projects. Chet Conger, 450 1~6th Avenue - asked that the engineers consider looking into a un1t assessment for the area because of the many corner lots. He also stated one person could not sign due to health reasons because of a car accident, asking if there is any way of postponing the assessment for someone with that handicap. Discussion was there are several special programs that the individual maybe eligible for. The unit assessment will be considered if it can be made to work. It was also noted that the City owns several lots in that area, and the object at one time was to fi 11 them and se 11 them as bui 1dab1e lots. Mr. Schrantz recommended that the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo do the feasibility study for a cost not to exceed $1,000. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution declaring adequacy of petition and direct the preparation of feasibility report for improvement of city streets, Project Number 83-4, in the Nordeen Addition area and funher request that the feasibility report be prepared by Bonestroo at a cost not to exceed $1,000 and be available for the next,regularly scheduled Council meeting. (See Resolution R044-83) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was also that the public hearing should be scheduled for the July 7, 1983, meeting. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 19S3 - Minutes Page 10 (Resolutions Accepting Petitions, Continued) Discussion was then on the ~uay Street petition. Mr. Schrantz stated there have been two petitions; the first one, when considering the lots north of 176th, is approximately 50 percent for and against. After that another petition was circulated which shows 5 for and 9 against the project. In his recommendation to the Council he suggested doing the remaining streets in the area because there are so many corner lots with large side yards, which would create a difficult assessment problem in the future for 176th Avenue and 178th Lane. The residents knew of his recommendation and circulated a petition on 176th and 178th in which there was a 100 percent no vote. But the problem he sees if just 175th or wuay are blacktopped is who will pay for the side lots when the remaining streets are eventually done. Council discussion was that there does not seem to be a clear majority for the project on Quay Street and it would cost approximately $1,000 to have the feasibility study done. It was also explained to those residents present that the State law requires the Council to act on a petition of 35 percent of the front footage, but generally the Council will not order a project unless 51 percent of the property owners are in favor of the project. Mr. Schrantz then reviewed the petit10n for 175th Lane which has 12 lots in favor and 6 lots opposed, with three lots not contacted, for a total of 57 percent in favor. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council recognize the acceptance and validation of a petition for the improvement of 175th Lane from Round Lake Boulevard to Quay Street. (See Resolution R045-83) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion returned to the Quay Street petition and on whether or not a feasibility study should be ordered for the entire area, just Quay Street, or none at all. Larr{ Pavek, Quay - asked why a feasibility report couldn't be done just to let the peop e know what it is going to cost. Discussion was again on whether or not Quay Street should be acted on alone or included with 176th and 178th. It was finally determined that the petition, which states Quay Street from 175th Lane to 178th Lane, does not have 35 percent and does not need to be acted upon. Also, the petitions for 176th and 178th do not have 35 percent in favor and do not need to be acted upon. No Council action was taken on those petitions. Council deliberated the feasibility study for 175th, questioning whether the remaining area should be included as well. The residents along Orchid or 176th Lane had not been petitioned. Palmer Johnson, 3401 175th Lane - took up the petition, stating there are 12 for, 6 against, 4 undecided, and two people he could not contact. Leo Brenny lives in Texas, but he used to live on Quay and was in favor of blacktop at that time. The lots on his side of the street are 176 feet wide and 150 feet wide across the street, plus corner lots. Councilman Lachinski was in favor of having a feasibility study done for the entire area to let the people know what the costs will be, and what has been done in the past is a project 1S cut back for those areas not in favor. lhe feasibility would also show the costs if the project was done as a whole or each street done ind1vidually. Tom Reichert, 3520 178th Lane - asked if the $1,000 is wasted by having a feasibility study done and then not proceeding with the project. He didn't want to see the City wasting money and wondered if the cost would be less just to dO 175th where the people want it. Discussion noted that often times when a project is turned down, it is petitioned for again a year or more later. Mr. Schrantz recommended ~onestroo do the feasibility study for the entire area for a cost not to exceed $l,OOU. Mr. Johnson - stated some of the people along Quay Street don't want the road unless 175th is done, suggesting the entire area be done. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 11 (Resolutions Accepting Petitions, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we prepare a feasibility report for the area between 175th Lane NW to l78th Lane NW and from Tulip Street to Round Lake Boulevard and direct Bonestroo to prepare feasibility study not to exceed $1,000. (See Resolution R046-83) DISCUSSION: typically at the public hearing if there is not 51 percent, streets are eliminated from the project; but Council noted this is not to be construed as pressure to those residents to be in favor of the project. However, it would be helpful if a petition were circulated for the people that have not been contacted in the area. Rich Larson, 3311 175th - stated it seems a lot of people would rather keep the dirt road just as when theY-moved into the area. He's on the corner of Orchid and 175th and didn't mind the dirt from a car occasionally speeding down the road. His problem is with the three-wheelers whipping donuts in the middle of the dirt road. He felt if the Sheriff's Department was out there to slow people down and the three-wheelers eliminated, which aren't licensed and are driven by 12 and 13 year olds, that would keep a lot of the dust down. Bob Shoenick from Bonestroo was not sure it would be possible to have this feasbility study done by the next Council meeting, wanting to get Nordeen Addition done first. Mayor Windschitl felt the City should have it tor that meeting to avoid any further delay and to be able to bid both projects together if possible. Mr. Schrantz also felt an assessment roll should be included in this feasibility because of the various sized lots, feeling a unit assessment would not be practical in this area. He reviewed how the lots on the various streets could affect the overall assessment on the project. One gentleman stated their street is very bad and they are having trouble with school busses. If the street is not blacktopped, can something be done? Mr. Schrantz stated the budget allowed $5,800 for maintenance on the corner of 178th and Quay. If the street is paved, he felt that $5,800 could possibly be put in the project. Motion carried unanimously. D. REISBURG/162ND AND POTOWATOMI Mayor Windschitl explained the problem of the deep ditch in front of Mr. Reisburg's lot, asking if the slope on the ditch could be lessened with fill to provide a maintainable area. Mr. Reisburg - felt that could be done. Three loads have already been brought in front of his house. He drew a diagram on the board to show the problem and felt filling in the ditch definitely would solve the problem. He stated he would be willing to maintain the ditch if that is done. He would also seed it and maintain it as long as it is filled and graded. Mr. Schrantz also reviewed pictures of the area with the Council. It was his opinion the culvert was needed, though Mr. Reisburg stated it never was needed because the water runs down the road instead. MDIION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to arrange for fill and black dirt material for the Reisburg property at 162nd and Potowatomi Street to reduce the steepness of the grade that exists on the property. Motion carried unanimously. MSA - PRAIRIE ROAD Bob Shoenick reviewed the feasibility report on Prairie Road, ~unker Lake Boulevard to gOO feet south of Andover Boulevard, MSA Street Improvement 83-4, noting the project also provides for the overlaying of the existing rural section in the event it is not presently three inches thick, for an estimated total project cost of $214,590. They have not included costs for right-of-way acquisition, hoping those easements will be donated for the project. If those easements are not donated, they are recommending Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 12 (MSA - Prairie Road, Continued) those costs be assessed back against the project. He recommended accepting the feasibility report and the plans and specifications prepared. Once they have received approval from the Minnesota Highway Department, they anticipate a bid date of August 9, completing the project by November 1. Douå Steele, 140th Lane NW - was concerned with the alignment and the curves on the roa , hoping it could be straightened out to avoid any potential hazard. After reviewing the plans and specifications, Mr. Steele was satisfied the road will not have any sharp curves. Mr. Steele - also requested, if possible, that when they do the curbing that they cont1nue the blacktop from where they would end on the corner of 140th to about five or six feet beyond his driveway, stating he would pay for that additional blacktop. Mr. Schrantz suggested he wait until the project is bid and it be brought in as a change order. Attorney Hawkins stated if the money would be received in advance, it would be considered a gift to the City, and the money would be added to that fund. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the City Council accept the feasibility report and approve plans and specifications for Prairie Road south of Coon Creek bridge to Bunker Lake Boulevard and authorize the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., to advertise for bids on the project. (See Resolution R047-83) Motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLANS/NORTHGLEN II, SHIRLEY'S E~TATES, ROSELLA'S ADDITION MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution approving final plans and specifications and ordering advertising for bids for Project No. 83-3 for sanitary sewer, municipal water, streets, storm sewers in the Northglen II Phase I area. (See Resolution R048-83) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution approving final plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Project No. 83-Z and 2a for municipal water, sanitary sewer, streets and storm sewers in Rosella's Addition and ~hirley's Estates, amending the Resolution to read city water shall not be included in Shirley's Estates. (~ee Resolution R049-83) Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/M. KELNER Mr. Kelner was not present. Discussion noted the footings are already in and inspected and a pòle building has been erected on the lot. There was a question as to the buildability of the lot and if there is 39,DOO square feet above the water table. The need for a variance was also questioned. Because Mr. Kelner was not present, Council agreed to table this item. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, to table it. Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD LICENSE/ANDOVtR AUTO PARTS Bob Pears, Andover Auto Parts - stated not all the requirements have been satisfied at this time because they ran out of material and had to wait for an excavator. He had bills to show his expenses, having expended $2,500.43 to date and estimating another $1,000 will be expended before he is finished. He estimated he could have everything finished in two weeks and reviewed pictures of what has already been done. The work remaining is on the south side. The holes are dug and black dirt is sitting, ready to plant the trees. Mr. Pears stated one problem is the ordinance requires blacktop in front of the building. They have been putting shingles down for the last two years. The blacktop ends before it gets to this property and the sand just blows, asking the procedure to get that portion blacktopped. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 13 (Junkyard License/Andover Auto Parts, continued) Council agreed to table the matter for two weeks and asked the Clerk to inspect the yard prior to the next Council meeting. Mr. Pears was told to talk to the City Engineer about the blacktopping of the road. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we table the matter of the junkyard license for Robert Pears until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY SCHOOL REPORT Tony Strukel, Community School Coordinator, presented enrollment figures for the spring community school program at Crooked Lake School and briefly reviewed the activities. Mr. Strukel also noted the summer program being offered. 149TH AVENUE MAINTENANCE Ms. Lindquist explained Mr. Fields has called her stating he was speaking on behalf of himself and of Mr. Slyzuk and asking that the rest of the road be maintained. When the Grow Township Board of Supervisors accepted the easement of 149th Avenue in 1969, it was agreed not to maintain it at the request of the property owners. Recently it was agreed to maintain the road to the driveway of the one residence on the road. Now maintaining the total length of 149th Avenue would mean maintaining an additional 900 feet of road. Also, Mr. Fields has agreed to add some fill in the low area. There was some discussion as to why this was asked for at this time. It was suggested the City Engineer talk with Mr. Fields and Mr. Slyzuk as to what they want done. It was also felt that if it is to be maintained, it should be brought up to some city standard. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council authorize the Engineer to meet w1th the affected property owners on 149th Avenue road extension to determine what type of action is necessary for minimum upgrading of the road. Motion carried unanimously. BASEMENT/GARAGE REqUIREMENTS MOTION by Drttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council direct the Planning and Zoning Comm1ssion to hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering the requirement of a two-car garage with minimum of approximately 440 square feet for garages to be built in the City. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl expressed some concern with the one type of house being built in the Good Value developments in Andover, that being the tuck-under garage. He wondered if it is the way the ordinance is being interpreted for the first floor square footage, stating that house style is not seen in many of the other cities. Discussion was that the area adjacent to the garage is technically the basement, with the main living area above it. There is also dirt pushed up to that living area level. Mayor Windschitl asked that this be reviewed further. HEIGHT/SIZE REQUIREMENTS - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Council discussion was that large accessory buildings cg~se a great deal of difficulty in residential areas, noting the City of Ham Lake does? low the construction of pole buildings on parcels under three acres in size. Regular City Council Meeting June 7, 1983 - Minutes Page 14 (Height/Size Requirements - Accessory Buildings, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to refer the matter of height and size requirements for accessory buildings to the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold . a public hearing in consideration of the comments provided by the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously. SCENIC RIVER DISCUSSION There was a brief discussion on the comments provided by the DNR representatives earlier in the meeting, generally feeling that there was little the City could do at this time. No Council action was taken. ACQUISITION APPROVAL/HANSON BOULEVARD MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council authorize an expenditure in the amount of $3,701.75 to NSP for property for Hanson Boulevard. (See Resolution R050-83) Motion carried unanimously. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMBER/COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (Reference the June 7 memo from the City Clerk on the Special North Metro Olympics Planning Committee) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we direct the Chairman of the Park Board to represent the City at the meeting for the Special North Metro Olympics Planning Committee in the City of Ramsey on June 23 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. PERMIT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, the City approve a permit to Minnesota Utilities Contract, Inc., for underground cable TV construction in the City of Andover; Minnesota Utilities Contract, Inc., is the contract working soley on behalf of Group W Cable of the Quad Cities, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. CETA SUMMER HELP MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the City of Andover participate in the summer CETA program jobs for summer youth. Motion carried unanimously. CHANGE ORDERS/SENIOR CITIZENS BUILDING The Clerk reviewed the additions and deducts from the contract for the Senior Citizens Building. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve change orders resulting in a net 1ncrease of $2,711.71 for the Senior Citizens Building. Motion carried unanimously. KELSEY PARK/LAKESIDE LAND ACQUISITION MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table Item Number 6b. Motion carried on a 3-Yes vote. (Mayor Windschitl did not vote on the Motion because he is directly affected by the matter.) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve payment of Checks 6539 through 6606 omitting 6582 through 6588 for a total amount of $217,217.85. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. ~ing adjourned at 12:37 ~.m. -::L ~~~.. Marcell A. Peach, Recording Secretary