Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 17, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ffiETING - MAY 17, 1983 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items Continued Board of Review a. Traffic/Crocus Street b. Variance/R. Hokanson c. Variance/R. Szyplinski d. Special Use Permit/D. Ahlberg e. Rezoning/R.Hockinson f. Lot Split/R.HoCkinson g. Rezoning/R. Sonsteby h. Variance/R. Sonsteby i. Preliminary Plat-Shirley's Addition/R.Sonsteby j . Variance/D. Nieman k. Sanitary Sewer Connection/A. Fulton l. Fencing-138th Avenue Pond /Park m. Assessment Abatement/J.Chutich/R.Hand n. Landfill o. MSA Improvements p. Kelsey Park Acq~isition q. Order Improvement Plans-Northglen II, Rosella's Addn. r. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. 30-Day Extension/Final Plat/Andover West II b. Kennel License/E. Bayer c. Truck/Engineering Department d. Temporary Mobile Home Permit/D. Johnson 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment .- ~ - CITY 01 ANDOVER MEMORANDUM TO: M~V()R l':..ND r(HTNr'TT, CO PI ES TO: FROM: ITY CLERK A ADMINI DATE: HAY 10. 19B, REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - MAY 17. 19B, CONTINUED BOARD OF REVIEW Item No. 3 - Aqenda Approval Please add Item No. 4(q)-Order Improvement plans-Northglen II, Rosella's Addition and Item No. 5(d)-Temporary Mobile Home Permit/D.Johnson. Item Nc. 4a - Traffic Frobl£!!t¡CF~Elìs S,!:rFct Enclosed please find a Deputy Report on the traffic situation on Crocus Street. This has been an on-going complaint from the residents· for a cons iderable per iod of time. Mayor Windschitl, as well as representatives of the Anoka County Sher:.ff· s Office met with the residenL. c\ Fr:..,;.,y, Fi1~' c., Several suggestions were made by those present. This is on the agenda for the purposE of discussing those suggestions. Also enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the possible consideration of "speed bumps", "rumble strips", dips, stop signs, etc. Item Nc. 4b :_Y~riance/R.Ho~~n This item .;.s continued frcm the Hay :: ~eetinc, to allow t::.ITre for thE applicant to contact the [iepart.r.;~:nt of Nat,,:nÜ Resources· and to allow the City to secure a copy of the City of Ramsey Scenic River Ordinance to determine why the homes on closer to the River on the Ramsey side. Clayton Berg of the City of Ramsey has informed me that the reason for the short distance to the RivEr in the Urban Area is the fact that the lots had been platted and were sold prior tc adoption of the OrdinBDcE i; -: -:;[;2; and the majority had homes constructed on them some time ago. Item No. 4c - Variance/R. Szyplinski See Item No. 4b; the same information will apply on this variance request on setbacks from the Rum River. Item No. 4d - Special Use Permit/D. Ahlberg Mr. Ahlberg is request a Special Use Permit for the purpose of mining. He will be mcving ir_ e}(CC~:'fi of 400 cubic yards of dirt from his property. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for apprcvêl of the request. A Resolution will be prepared. Agenda Information May 17, 1983 Page 2 Item No. 4e - Rezoninq/R. Hockinson Mr. Hockinson has made a request to rezone his property on 133rd Lane from Neighborhood Business to Residential-4. (He is also requesting a Lot Split of the property to allow him to construct a home on the vacant lot-see Item 4f). The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the rezoning. A resolution will be prepared granting approval, citing the Planning & Zoning recommendation. Item No. 4f - Lot Split/R. Hockinson Subject to approval of the rezoning from NB to R-4 (Item 4e) , Mr. Hockinson is requesting a split of the property into two separate parcels, each of which meet the requirements for the R-4 Zoning. There is a structure on Parcel B; and has been used as a residential dwelling. A new structure is being proposed for Parcel A. A separate sewer stub was installed on both pieces of property at the time the 1975-1 Project was done. A resolution will be prepared granting approval and subject to payment of the park dedication fee in the amount of $100.00. Item No. 4q - Rezoning/R. Sonseby Mrs. Sonsteby is presenting a Plat for the property abutting Xenia St. in Auditor's subdivision No. 82 (See Item No. 4i) . Although the sewer stubs were installed for R-4 Zoning. Aud.Sub 82 carries an R-3 zoning, however, the amendment to ordinance No. 8 allows for the lot sizes proposed by Mrs. Sonsteby. Inasmuch as this property was stubbed for R-4 size frontages, there is some question as to whether or not it should have been rezoned at the time the City did the complete rezoning of the Urban Service Area. (See my memo of March 16-enclosed). A resolution will be prepared to rezone the property from R-l to R-4. Item No. 4h - Variance/R.Sonsteby Mrs. Sonsteby is requesting approval to subdivide a 'piece òf land not meeting the requirements of city ordinance. The severed portion will be combined with an adjoining parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the request. A resolution will be prepared to that effect. Item No. 4i - Preliminary Plat/Shirley's Estates Attached is the Preliminary Plàt of Shirley's Estates as being developed by Rosella Sonsteby. Also enclosed is the the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the Plat, listing several contingencies. The majority of the changes have been made and are shown on the Plat, dated May 10. A resolution will be prepared granting approval of the request. Item No. 4j - Variance/D. Nieman This variance request was approved by the City Council on May 3, with a contingency that the garage be constructed 132' back from the front lot line. This was done based on the dimensions Mr. Nieman submitted with his request. When he re-measured the property, he Agenda Information May 17, 1983 Page 3 Item No. 4j- Variance/D.Nieman (continued) found that he had measured incorrectly the first time and submitted incorrect figures. The Building Inspector went Out to the property and has submitted the following dimensions: The existing house is 121 ' from the property line instead of the 150'. The proposed garage is for '84 feet from the property line instead of the 132' as shown on the original request. Inasmuch as the Planning Commission approved the original request based on the original drawing submitted by Mr. Nieman, and recommended the 132' setback from the property line, it will have to go back to the p&Z for their review. Item No. 4k - Sanitary Sewer Connection/A. Fulton Early last fall, Mr. Fulton discussed this problem with the City; as a result our people did go out and dig up the service to determine the cause of the problem. A new clean-out was installed, however, that has not resolved the problem. Attached is a memorandum from the City Engineer with recommendations for permanent correction. Item No. 41 - Fencing-138th Avenue Pond/Area Park Attached is a memorandum from the City Engineer indicating he has not received a commitment from the property owners whose land abuts this pond. The City Engineer has physically inspected the property for a park location and is recommending the ~-acre lot in the area zoned for NB (not developed). This is a dry flat parcel immediately adjacent to the last building nearest Crosstown Boulevard on the south side of 138th Avenue. Fencing around the park would serve to discourage the younger children from chasing balls, etc. unto Crosstown Blvd. or 138th Avenue. Jim will be contacting the property owner again and should have a report for you for the meeting. Item No. 4m - Assessment AbatementjJ. Chutich/R. Hand This has been discussed with the City Engineer and also with TKDA. Mark Schumacher did the actual distribution of assessments for the 1980-3 Project. To-date I have not received a written response from him, however, in reviewing the assessment figures, it appears the majority of the costs were for services actually being used. The area assessment amounts to $38,750, of which over half is actually being developed and the rest donated to the City for parkland. It has always been the policy of the City that the developer pays for any assessments covering land donated to the City. In his calculations, the City Engineer feels that approximately $6,500 is the amount which could be abated (if it is permissible legally to do this at this time). The original assessment was accepted by the property owner and an appeal was not filed during the required time frame pursuant to MSA, Chapter 429. Attorney Hawkins will have an opinion on this matter. Item No. 4n - Landf ill The HW Committee will be meeting with several Real Estate people this evening to discuss the impact of the landfill on sales. They Agenda Information May 17, 1983 Page 4 Item No. 4n - Landfill (continued) will have a report for you at this meeting. I have contacted Mike Kanner of the MPCA, who has been in touch and working with the FHA and VA people; information from him should be available by Tuesday. Item No. 40 - MSA Improvements Attached is correspondence from the City Engineer covering the proposed 1983 MSA Improvements. Item No. 4p - Kelsey Park Acquisition Please refer to the Park Board Minutes of May 5 enclosed. You will note only four members were in attendance and the vote was 3 in favor and 1 absention, however, one of the "for" votes was also an abstention on the first vote call. 1981 and 1982 Minutes indicate it was a unanimous decision on the part of the Park Board to acquire this area. Item NO. 4q - Order Improvement Plans-Northglen II/Rosella's Addition Attached are resolutions accepting the Feasibility study, Waiving the Public Hearing, Ordering the Project, and Directing TKDA to Prepare Final Plans and Specifications. The two areas will be done together, however, all records will keep them separated into two individual projects. Item No. Sa - 30 Day Extension/Andover West II Enclosed is a memorandum from the developer requesting a 30-day extension for filing of the Final Plat. They do not feel the Contractor will be completely finished with the street work by May 17 (the original extension expires on this day). Item No. 5b - Kennel License/E. Bayer Mr. Bayer has had a Kennel License in the City at the same address for several years. His property is right off Constance Boulevard. To my knowledge no complaints have ever been received on his operation. All his dogs are licensed pursuant to ordinance requirements. A motion is needed to apprOve a kennel license for Mr. Bayers at 1657 - 161st Ave. Item NO. 5c - Truck/Engineerinq Department Enclosed please find quotations on trucks for the Engineering Dept. $8,000 is allocated in the 1984 Budget for vehicle purchase. A motion is needed to approve the lowest responsible quotation and direct ordering of the vehicle. Item No. 5d - Temporary Mobile Home Permit/D.Johnson Mr. Johnson is requesting a temporary permit to park a 14x70 mobile home on his property while he is re-building his home which was recently destroyed by fire. A motion is needed to approve the permit through August 17, 1983, for a mobile home to be parked and used as a residence at 16193 Vintage Street Northwest. Agenda Information May 17, 1983 Page 5 Item No. 6 - Reports Andover Volunteer Fire Department - Since the closing of the landfill the Fire Department has received numerous requests from residents (primarily those living on small lots) for a place where they could bring their brush to be burned a designated times of the year. This matter was discussed some time ago, however, the feeling at that time was that the administration of such a program would be too time consuming and end up being costly to all residents of the City. The Fire Chief will be here to review this with you. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes May 3, May 5, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 17, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on May 17, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski. Seconded by Orttel, the approval of the Agenda as published with the following additions: Item 4q, Order Improvement Plans - Northglen II, Rosella's Addition and the curb and 9utter type in Northglen II Addition, and Item 5d, Temporary Mobile Home Permit/D. Johnson. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we suspend the rules. Motion carried unanlmous ly. TRAFFIC/CROCUS STREET Les Slavik, 13901 Crocus Street - stated he has lived there for ten years and there is quite a traffic problem with Crocus Street being the main artery from Green Acres out to Crosstown Boulevard. There have been ~omplaints of excessive speed over the years, but in the beginning of May he observed a school bus driving very carelessly. He can no longer tolerate the excessive speed and the potential danger to the children in the neighborhood. There are three homesin a one-block area that have 15 children from grade 5 and down, plus two other homes on the block with day-care children. The police have set up radar; but because they can be seen, it doesn't do any good. The street is a straight-away and is used mostly by the residents living in the area. There was considerable Council discussion as to possible solutions to the problem. Mayor Windschitl stated he met with several neighbors and Deputy Erickson from the Anoka County Sheriff's Department. One of the suggestions was to put a stop sign on 141st or 140th, one on 139th, and one on 138th where it comes out to Crocus. Or putting in speed bumps to slow the traffic. Councilman Lachinski suggested the City ask the Sheriff's Department to make this a priority item, to set up radar at least once a week, and to enforce the speed limit. Mayor Windschitl stated they have done that; but because it is an open area and very visible, the effectiveness is dimished. Discussion was on the pros and cons of stop signs, the best locations for stop signs, and the pros and cons of speed bumps. Al Grason, 13954 Crocus - has lived there about five years. The streets were being put in when he moved there and there was a stop sign in front of his house. He related incidents of the sign being removed and the several times he put it back up. He asked if the permanent removal of that sign was an action of the Councilor was it an action of the people living out there. Mayor Windschitl stated to his knowledge there never was any action of the Council to have that stop sign removed. He stated he'd like to see this sign put back up in a secure fashion so it cannot be taken down again. Mr. Grason - stated two children have been hit on Crocus Street over the past two years. He didn't like to see speed bumps or stop signs, but something must be done. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 (Traffic/Crocus Street, Continued) MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we direct the City Engineer to install stop signs at the corners of 139th Lane and 140th on Crocus and require the Sheriff to increase the patrol in that area. AMENDMENT To MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we anchor that in concrete and use two steeJ' posts if necessary rather than one. DISCUSSION with those present was on their question of reducing the speed limit through the area. Council noted legally they cannot do so. The road could be posted for a lower than 30-mph speed, but it could not be enforced. Council noted there would not be a problem with additional signing by the park or elsewhere if it would be effective, asking the Engineer to investigate that further and make a recommendation. VOTE ON AMENDMENT - Carried unanimously. VOTE ON MOTION - Carried unanimously. VARIANCES - R. HOKANSON/R. SZYPLINSKI The Clerk reviewed Ramsey's Scenic River Ordinance, which is basically the same as Andover's except for the 75-foot setback allowed generally south of 14Znd. Those lots were created prior to the adoption of the ordinance and the majority are built upon, and that is zoned as their urban service area in their comprehensive plan. Their ordinance was_adopted in August, 1981. Discussion was that Mr. Szyplinski's lot is directly across the river from Ramsey's rural area, which also has 150-foot setback re9uirement. Mr. Szyplinski - stated he did not talk with the DNR because they stated it is up to the City Council. Council again reviewed Mr. Szyplinski's situation, his request to build 105 feet from the river which he stated would still not be seen from the river because of the high bluff, which is the intent Of the ordinance. Discussion was if the Council chooses to grant these variances, there would be little basis for turning down any such request to vary from the setback from the r1ver. If that is what is desired, then the ordinance should be amended to reflect that. It was also noted that the one variance granted in this area was due to a steep grade at the 150-foot setback. line. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to deny the request of Mr. Szyplinski for variance from provisions of Ordinance 52, Section 10.03. . Councilmen Knight and Elling WITHDRtW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Elling, ~econded by Knight, introducing a Resolution denying variance request of R1chard Szyp1inski to construct his home nearer to the Rum River than allowed by Ordinance 52... (See Resolution K29-83) DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschitl asked if Mr. Szyplinski was being forced to set his house back 180 feet back from the river because of the setback from the river and from the bluff line. Mr. Szyplinski stated just 150 feet. Councilmen Lachinski and Orttel both argued in favor of granting the variance, reading the definition of hardship in the ordinance. Councilman Lachinski felt a hardship is created if an individual cannot place his house where he wants to and still meet the intent of the ordinance. Also, the reason for the setback from the river is to protect the view from the river, and the language should keep that intent but allow for exceptions. The exceptional circumstance on this property is the configuation of the bluff line which hides the house whether it is set back 85 feet or 150. Councilman Orttel stated the landowner looses a great deal of control over his property because of the many restrictions of the ordinance. Councilman Elling stated he did not favor the 15D-foot setback either, feeling a 100-foot setback from the river would be sufficient. Neverthless, that is the way the ordinance reads at this time and he could find nothing to justify varying from that provision in this instance. Mayor Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Variances - R. Hokanson/R. Szyplinski, Continued) Windschitl suggested asking the DNR to consider reducing the setback, in the areas where it would not be offensive, possibly even asking a representative out to a meeting to discuss this matter. Further discussion and the vote on the motion was held until after discussing the Hokanson variance request, which is similiar in nature. Mr. Hokanson - stated when the DNR representative was on his property, the representative felt the house could be placed forward toward the street. But Mr. Hokanson felt to use the land properly, the house must be moved back toward the river. To walk out of the house where the DNR wants it placed one would encounter a steep bank and the back yard would be a disaster. He wants to move the house toward the river to make a walkout and to be able to utilize the back yard. Councilman Lachinski felt in this case if the setback required constitutes a reasonable use of the land because he would not be able to build a walkout basement at the 15D-foot setback line, it may be an unnecessary hardship by making an unreasonable request of Mr. Hokanson. It isn't going to bother the site from the river one way or the other. In this case the strict enforcement of the land use controls will result in an unnecessary hardship because he won't be able to build the house he wants to build. Mayor Windschitl felt the problem with this ordinance is the distance of the setback is so great, but he questioned under what condition this variance could be granted that would have some credibility with the DNR. Chairperson Bosell stated the Planning Commission found no hardship, and it was her opinion that a walkout could be built at the 150-foot setback from the river or even closer to the road. Mr. Hokanson - stated he also wanted to put a garage under a garage, and in order to do that he would have to go along the drainage ditch to turn into it. In order to get all that in, the house will have to be moved back toward the river. He was told about the scenic river ordinance at the time he purchased the lot, but no one could give him any answers about setbacks, etc., including anyone at City Hall. He stated it was an interpretation of the ordinance which reads 30 feet from the bluff or 150 feet. Now they are told it is 30 feet and 150 feet. They had to get the DNR out-ro find out what was required. He also felt-rhat in the case where the variance was granted, the trees could have been removed and the land filled in. The Clerk also stated Ordinance 8 requires a 150-foot rear-yard setback in an R-l zoning, and a variance would also be required from Ordinance 8 should the request be approved at 105 feet. The front yard from the street is a 40-foot setback. Councilman Orttel stated the ordinance reads a variance can be granted if this ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, and to him that means one that is not needed or necessary to cause. He didn't feel that had to do with the degree of the hardship. He guessed any hardship could be considered unnecessary. If the intent of the ordinance is met, then any hardship created by moving the house back is unnecessary in his opinion. He felt the other section that applies is there is an unusual circumstance unique to the property which is not created by the landowner. Councilman Lachinski felt there was room for some latitude. In this case it is the reasonable use of the land due to the design of the house and the topography of the land. Discussion noted if the Council would approve this and it was then denied by the DNR, the DNR would then have to hold a public hearing in the City. Council also reviewed the requests and actions taken on the other two requests to vary from the setback from the river in this area. VOTE ON MOTION TO DENY THE SZYPLINSKI VARIANCE: YES-Elling, Knight, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, Orttel. Motion carried. Regular City Counci 1 Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 (Variances - R. Hokanson/R. Szyp1inski, Continued) MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we approve a Resolution denying the request of R. Hokanson for a variance from the provisions of Ordinance No. 52, Section 10.03 to construct his residence closer to the Rum River than allowed on Lot 8, Block 1, Rum River Forest... (See Resolution R30-83) VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Elling, Knight, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Orttel Motion carried. Mayor Windschitl asked for a motion requesting a representative from the DNR to come out at the next Council meeting for the purpose of talking with them to see if the setback from the river could be reduced. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hokanson stated he would like to get a permit to dredge the drainage ditch out while the equipment is there when he is constructing his house. He would then do it at his expense. Mr. Schrantz stated he had no problem with it but permits will be needed from the DNR. The only problem he had is some steep slopes will be created which will have to be maintained. The DNR will require a plan with slope grades, etc.; and if a Corps of Engineers permit is required, he will be given that directive by the DNR. There d.idn't appear to be any Council resistance' to the request. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/D. AHLBERG Chairperson Bosell reviewed the Commission's recommendation to grant the request to mine in excess of 400 yards of dirt to build a pond of 150 feet x 5 feet deep. Mr. Ahlberg owns a 10-acre parcel of property which is secluded. This will not depreciate the property values and it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Mr. Ahlberg intends to establish a wildlife habitate. Mr. Schrantz discussed the plan submitted by Mr. Ahlberg and both agreed to a 1-12 slope for the pond. Mr. Ahlberg - explained there is a natural geographic change based on the topography and contours of the area and he was not sure exactly how much peat would need to be removed from the pond. He hoped to have the project completed within one year. He has a stipulation with the contractor to have it completed this year to the extent of having the western and southern bank completed. The actual water line of the pond is approximately 50 feet from the east property line, but the slope itself will come right to the line. He is very conscious of the street that will be put through there to see that runoff will not be coming to the pond because of the wildlife. He also stated the pond will probably be fenced by time the area is developed to prevent children from coming into that area. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit for the purpose of mining as requested by Don Ahlberg for Parcel 202, Plat 65919 with the following revision on the last BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that such permit approval is contingent upon the applicant furnishing an acceptable grade plan for the property, and that the Special Use Permit be terminated by May 17, 1983. (See Resolution R31-83) Motion carried unanimously. REZONING/LOT SPLIT - R. HOCKINSON Council asked Mr. Hockinson if he wanted to rezone the entire parcel residential by choice or to leave half of it commercial and rezone the other half residential to construct a home on it. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Rezoning/Lot Split - R. Hockinson, Continued) Mr. Hockinson - stated he did not believe he could do that. Council discussion was that that would be permissible under a plat or lot split if Mr. Hockinson wanted to keep the front portion of the area as Neighborhood Business and ask for a rezoning to residential on the back portion of the lot. Mr. Hockinson - stated it would be his preference to keep the front portion Neighborhood BusinesŠ-i~ossible and asked that the matter be tabled at this time. Discussion was on the dimensions of the lot, location of the existing buildings, setbacks, etc., with agreement to send the matter back through the Planning Commission at Mr. Hockinson's request for the change in the request. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to refer the matter back to the Planning Commi ss ion. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:10; reconvene at 9:22 p.m. REZONING/VARIANCE/R. SONSTEBY Council agreed because this was a Council-initiated rezoning, Ms. Sonsteby should not have to pay the rezoning fee. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution approving a rezoning request by Rosella Sonsteby to rezone the easterly approximate 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 32, Range 24, as prepared. Motion carried unanimously. After discussion it was discovered there is an error in the prepared Resolution, which should read the approximate 400 feet. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, to reconsider the Resolution approving the rezoning request by Rosella Sonsteby. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving the rezoning request by Rosella Sonsteby to rezone the easterly approximate 400 feet of the North- west quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 32, Range 24, as prepared with the exception that the legal description as shown on the May 10, 1983, preliminary plat of Shirley's Estates be included as that area to be rezoned. (See Resolution R32-83) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving a variance request of Rosella Sonsteby to transfer a ten- (10-) foot piece of property from Parcel 5400, Plat 65929, to Parcel 1800, Plat 65929, as described and shown on the preliminary plat of May 10, 1983, of Shirley's Estates for purposes of combination with Parcel 1800, Parcel 65929. (See Resolution R33-83) Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT ~SHIRLEY'S ADDITION/R. SONSTEBY Mr. Scrhantz stated he asked for side-yard drainage on Lots 3, 4, and 5 so that the drainage would be diagonally across each others back yards. He also stated the Park Board talked about the wetland and having a walkway across the low area versus filling in the entire parcel. There was some discussion by the Council on the amount of parkland being dedicated for this plat and for Rosella's Addition and the amount which is above the flood· plain level. Ms. Sonsteb{ - stated the total amount being dedicated is more than what is required from both pats to compensate for the lowland, and she stated she is agreeable to filling in a pathway across the lowland. She felt it was outrageous to expect her to fill in the entire lowland. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Preliminary Plat - Shirley's Addition/R. Sonsteby, Continued) It was determined that the amount of high land being dedicated for parks meets the park dedication requirement for Shirley's Estates and Rosella's Addition of approxi- mately 2.4 acres, and that it would be unreasonable to expect Ms. Sonsteby to fill in all the lowland. The entire parcel being dedicated for park is 3.5 acres, noting it provides access to Round Lake. Council agreed to having a pathway filled across the lowland from one high area to the other as agreed to by Ms. Sonsteby. Discussion was also on the access to the park, with Mr. Schrantz proposing taking road easement as part of the plat or as a separate document. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she owns the property to the south of the easement but she did not know what she would do with the property yet. She stated the area that provides access to the park will be filled, graded, and graveled before the plat is finalized. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we adopt a Resolution approving the preliminary plat of Shirley's Estates. (See Resolution R34-83) Motion carried unanimously. (Later in the meeting the Council rescinded this Motion and reintroduced the Resolution as prepared by the City Clerk.) VARIANCE/D. NIEMANN Dennis Niemann - stated the discussion on his variance request at the May 3 meeting was the garage he wants to place in front of his principal structure would still be 132 feet from the road. But the actual Resolution reads 132 feet from the setback line, which is a 35-foot difference from where he measured from in the first place. He stated the initial sketch he turned in is reasonably correct, but there has been a discrepancy of where the measurements were taken from. He was measuring from the center of the road when he drew the sketch. He stated 132 feet from the right-of-way line would put the garage behind his house and no variance would be necessary. He stated his initial request was to move the garage approximately 40 feet closer to the front line than the house, but from there he backed it up 12 feet at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. So he wants to move it approximately 30 feet closer to the road than the house. The distance from the right of way to the house is 121 feet. Discussion was on determining exactly how far back Mr. Niemann wants to place the garage as there appeared to be some discrepancy between the figures talked about. Mayor Windschitl stated that the change in distance is significant enough that the ·affect on the other·'lots in the area should be addressed. He stated at least one property owner has called the City Hall objecting to the variance request. Mr. Neimann - stated the garage would still be 44 feet behind the minimum setback. If he had built his house the minimum 40 feet from the property line, how would that have affected the visibility of the neighboring lots? His point was what is the difference if there is a house or a garage setting there. Councilman Lachinski suggested this be returned to the Planning Commission since they will be addressing an ordinance change on this matter, suggesting possibly normal setbacks in an area be used as a basis for allowing structures in front of the principal structure. Mr. Neimann - stated there is no way to judge normal in this instance. The normal would be the location of his house because the adjoining lot is vacant. If his garage were setting there, one could say the normal setback is 80 feet. He couldn't under- stand the difference if there is a garage or a house in that location, as it will create the same visual obstruction. Council again reviewed the request and the changes, the Planning Commission recommendation as discussed at the May 3 meeting, and suggestions as to what action should be taken in view of the changed distance of the proposed garage from the right-of-way line. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 7 (Variance/D. Niemann, Continued) Chairman Bosell felt that the circumstances of the request have not changed, just the numbers. It was also her opinion that the ordinance revisions would not be completed before September. Mayor Windschitl felt that a change on the section dealing with the placement of buildings in front of the principal structure is critical and should be considered and a recommendation made as soon as possible. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we refer the variance of Mr. Niemann back to the P & Z for further study and possible revision to Ordinance 8 for accessory building setbacks. DISCUSSION: was to act on the matter as soon as possible and that the discussion on the ordinance revision could be at the May 31 P & Z meeting. This item could be on the June 7 Council Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION/A. FULTON Mr. Schrantz explained the fault is the way the service was put in (Reference the May 12, 1983, memo from the City Engineer for sanitary sewer service at 2643 139th Lane) . It was designed to be put in the front but during construction: it was put out the side of the garage by the people in the field. Al Fulton - stated he was the property owner at the time of the installation, and he was told where the stub was going; he did not make a request. Because it was an error in the field, the Council felt authorization should be granted to correct the problem and to ask TKDA, the engineers on the project, for reimbursement of the costs. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, authorizing to correct the sanitary sewer pr~m at 2643 139th Lane NW with TKDA directing and paying for it. Motion carried unanimous ly. FENCING ~ 138TH AVENUE POND/PARK Mr. Schrantz reported that he has talked to Mr. Jindra who stated the materials for the fence have been ordered and :it should be installed soon. The woman who purchased the house on the end has talked to her renters, who stated they would watch their chi ldren. But she is planning to fence the back yard, and Mr. Schrantz suggested she contact the neighbors so the fences can be connected. He could not contact the owner of the third house. Council expressed some impatience at the lack of progress on this project, feeling the fencing is not that expensive and discussed what measures should be taken at this time. The Attorney advised that according to State Statute, the City would have to adopt an ordinance with regulations that place the primary responsibility upon the property owners to remove or eliminate public health and safety hazards on private property. If the property owner does not do the work, the City would then have the right to do the work and assess the costs. The Clerk was advised to call the League for a sample ordinance to be discussed at the next Council meeting. The Attorney was asked to meet with the City Engineer on site to make a determination as to what legal action the City could take. The Attorney was also asked to either call or send a letter to those property owners not responding to the City's request to fence. Peggy (7) ! 6511 Second Street NE - stated the pond is considerably down from what it was at the t1me of the accident, and she didn't know if it was drained or not. So it doesn't look like as much of a hazard right now as it previously was when the water was to the back yard of the houses. Just because there are 92 children in that area under the age of 12 with no place to play makes it a hazard. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 (Fencing - 138th Avenue Pond/Park, Continued) Council discussion was then on the construction of a park in that area per Council motion to use the City's 1983 CDBG funds for the project. Mr. Schrantz stated he talked with Gilbert Menkveld, the owner of Parcel 1670, which could be used for a park in the 138th Avenue area; and Mr. Menkveld stated he would be willing to sell the parcel for $20,000, which includes the assessment. The general consensus of the Council was that the location of that parcel is not desirable because of its proximity to commercial development and to Crosstown Boulevard. Mayor Windschitl suggested two other possibilities and asked the Engineer to investigate them further. Both parcels are already owned by the City; it is a question of how much fill would be required to make a suitable park and the access. The one option off Xavis and 138th, Parcel 2285, would need fill work and fencing, but the adequacy of the easement to the parcel would need to be determined. The other option is Parcel 2290. In discussing these options with the neighbors present, they felt either one of those choices would be satisfactory because it would be away from the road. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Engineer and the Park Board to determine costs of putting in a park on either Site 29 or 28, whichever would be more appropriate. Motion carried unanimously. It was suggested the residents attend a Park Board meeting to provide input as to what they would like seen put into the park in terms of equipment, etc. The Engineer was also asked to look into installing "Children Playing" signs along 138th Avenue. ASSESSMENT ABATEMENT/J. CHUTICH/R. HAND The Clerk reported that Mark Schumacher of TKDA who did the original report on this matter requested that the item be tabled until the next meeting. Counc i 1 agreed. MSA IMPROVEMENTS (Reference the May 12, 1983, memo from the City Engineer on MSA Improvements 1983 considering project costs for Prairie Road, 157th Avenue and 161st Avenue) Mr. Schrantz stated from the people he has talked to along Prairie Road, it appears they are in favor of completing the road from the bridge south to Bunker Lake Boulevard. Discussion was that the greatest number of houses to be served at this time would be 161st though the residents do have other accesses, that the residents may be more receptive to the improvement of 161st because of the new assessment policy on MSA roads, that an attempt should be made to complete 157th Avenue in conjunction with Ham Lake's schedule for improving 157th in their City so that a realignment may be worked out to straighten out the curves, that the City Engineer should talk with the residents along Prairie Road and 161st to determine who would be the most receptive to the improvement and to provide the needed easements, and that Bonestroo should be authorized as the consulting engineering firm for the 1983 MSA projects. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Engineer to proceed with having right of way acquired for the 161st and the Prairie Road Municipal State Aid street sections and authorizing him to proceed with having plans and specifications prepared for the construction of Prairie Road for 1983 construction season, with a feasibility study done in between on both projects. (See Resolution R35-83) DISCUSSION: was if there is to be some assessment for right-of-way acquisition, the public hearing could be held even after the plans and specs are presented. It was also suggested if there are MSA funds remaining after the easement acquisition for Hanson Boulevard and the 161st and Prairie Road projects, the City should use those funds for easement acquisition for future MSA projects such as South Coon Creek Drive and the remainder of 157th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 9 ORDER IMPROVEMENT PLANS - NORTHGLEN II John Peterson of Good Value Homes stated they have received preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission for the first phase of Northglen Second Addition and stated the estimated $6,700 per lot assessment is within their parameters, so they are prepared to move ahead with the project and provide the 15 percent cash up front for the City before the plans and specifications are prepared. They have already given a waiver for both the Good Value and Hand property. Mr. Peterson - stated they have sent a letter to Mr. Schrantz requesting that they be allowed to construct a surmountable curb in the project, which is not necessarily less expensive to install but it is almost impossible in their type of subdivision to work with a B618 curb because it is not known which side the garage will be located. They don't want to have to break out a curb whenever a house is constructed. Mr. Peterson - stated on the other ·property, Joe Chuti ch, Dick Hand, and Mr. Emeri ch signed a letter asking for the feasibility study and waiving the public hearing. They were waiting for the feasibility study before entering into a final agreement, but they will be providing the $27,600 escrow for the project. Attorney Hawkins advised that all parties that have any ownership interest in the property will have to sign the development contract. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, entering a Resolution accepting the feasibility report, waiving the public hearing, ordering the improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for Project 83-3, Northglen 2nd Addition, contingent upon receipt of $27,600 in escrow for plans and specs. (See Resolution R36-83) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was then on the request to construct surmountable curbs in the project. The Council was concerned that the width of the street not be narrower than the standard with B618 curb, and after discussion the majority were agreeable to the request. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council authorize the use of a surmountable concrete curb and gutter in the Northglen 2nd Addition as presented by the City Engineer, the one recommendation by the City Engineer being that with 28-inch total width and a radius top section and note that the use of this surmountable curb with the addition of the street will result in an overall back-to-back width of 33 feet . or more for the street section. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we reconsider the Resolution approving the preliminary plat of Shirley's Estates. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution approving a Preliminary Plat of Shirley~;s . Estates.. .as presented. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARIMENT REPORT Fire Chief Frank Stone reported that with the dump closed, the residents have no place to take their brush and no place where it can be burned. Council discussion was to check into the county facilities at Bunker Hills. If they are operating a facility there, it would be better than the City trying to operate one. Chief Stone felt that if the,City Attorney would have a set of the Fire Code books, it would be much easier to confer with the Attorney by phone on any situation that may arise. Council agreed that would be helpful. Chief Stone stated the county has contracted with Prairie Restorations for some open burning, which is not allowed in Andover. He stated the Department intends to enforce the ordinance. He also reported he will be flying to Lavern to check out the new fire truck this week. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 19S3 - Minutes Page 10 COURT ISSUE/LANCE MILLIMAN Lance Milliman - stated there seems to be a dispute that he and Attorney Hawkins cannot resolve, and he presented documents to the Council on the matter. He asked the Council to appoint a special prosecutor to handle this matter because the City prosecutor will not commence a prosecution per the memorandum from the Judge. Attorney Hawkins explained Mr. Milliman and his. father have been charged by the Anoka County Sheriff's Department for assault on a deputy. Mr. Milliman contacted him regarding filing a complaint against the deputy. He has investigated the situation, and in his opinion as prosecutor there is no basis for Mr. Milliman's request. He is prosecuting Mr. Milliman and his father for assault on a deputy, believing the deputy's side after having reviewed the case. Mr. Milliman - stated the special prosecutor would be to determine the guilt or innocence of the police officer and to prosecute him. He didn't feel that Mr. Hawkins has been fair at all. The only other option he has if the City turns him down ís to go to the grand jury, to take the City Council to court, to go to the Supreme Court, or to go back to court and try it again. Council discussion with Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Milliman was that the Council had no facts about the incident on which to make a decision, questioning why the Council wouldn't wait until the outcome of Mr. Hawkins' prosecution of the case before deciding whether or not a special prosecutor should be appointed. Mr. Milliman - felt that it would be helpful in a situation such as this to have a parallel suit going against the deputy. Mr. Hawkins noted the City hired him to exercise his judgement concerning the facts in a case and to make a determination as to who are the proper parties to be charged. He has done that in this case; and after speaking with the affected parties and reviewing the case, he made an evaluation as prosecutor that there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Milliman and his father are guilty of assault on a police officer and engaged in disorderly conduct. Mr. Milliman does not agree with that decision. Mr. Milliman - stated he believes Mr. Hawkins' position on this issue is prejudicial. Mr. Hawkins stated.he is only the prosecutor and is supposed to enforce the laws. He's not the judge or jury in the matter. This matter is now in litigation. Mr. Milliman - alleged the police officer assaulted his father, and he wants the pol1ce officer prosecuted for that offense. He explained Page 3 of his documentation shows why he believes Mr. Hawkins' positj,on is prejudicial. He stated justice should go two ways and that is why a special prosecutor is needed in this instance. He felt he should have the reciprocal right to charge the deputy, feeling he was assaulted. Mr. Hawkins stated he did not believe Mr. Milliman and would not bring a criminal charge of assault against the officer. He stated Mr. Milliman has been convicted by him of this same offense in the past. Mr. Milliman was asked why he didn't go the route of a civil charge against the officer. Mr. Milliman stated he will, but he also wants to bring criminal charge which requ1res a special prosecutor if Mr. Hawkins will not handle the case. Council discussion was that Mr. Hawkins has. been the City Attorney for a number of years and there have been no complaints on his prosecutions, so there would have to be some compelling reasons why a special prosecutor would be appointed in this instance. It is difficult to make such a decision without knowing the facts, and often times those facts are not privy to the Council. It was also felt that there is no reason to appoint a special prosecutor at this time, that if Mr. Milliman wins his case in court, he is free to proceed with further civil action. Regu 1 ar City Counci 1 Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 11 (Court Issue/Lance Milliman, Continued) Mr. Milliman - just wanted it to be fair, but believed there is probable cause in this complaint and believed a conviction could be obtained on it. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we do not appoint· a special prosecutor at this time. Motion carried unanimously. ORDER IMPROVEMENT PLANS - ROSELLA'S ADDITION AN~ SHIRLEY'S ESTATES Mr. Schrantz stated the proposal is the water wi 11 go past two excepti onsi.n Ms. Sonsteby's plat. He proposed that the trunk be put in now and assessed to those people as they hook up to the system; 'otherwise an assessment hearing would need to be held now to assess those people. Council noted a voluntary assessment at this time would be cheaper than waiting to pay the assessment when they hook up, suggesting Mr. Schrantz contact the owners about the situation. Otherwise the City would carry the assessment until a building permit is applied for. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting the feasibility study, waiving the public hering, ordering the improvement, and directing the preparation of plans and specs for the improvement of sanitary sewer and municipal water, streets, and storm sewer for Shirley's Estates, No. 83-2, and Rosella's Addition, noting there would be no municipal water in Shirley's Estates. (See Resolution R37-83) Motion carried unanimously. LANDFILL Council agreed to changes in the prepared resolution: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Hazardous Waste Committee of the City of Andover to hereby express the concern of the City and request affirmative action by Anoka County to insure proper termination and closure of the Waste Disposal Engineering Landfill and respectfully request that Anoka County take immediate measures to terminate the landfill. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, introduce a Resolution supporting a Resolution adopted by the Hazardous Waste Committee of the City of Andover on the 12th Day of May, 1983, entitled a Resolution expressing concern and requesting affirmative action to insure proper closure of the Waste Disposal Enginering Landfill in the City of Andover, with the last· two paragraphs combined as previously stated. (See Resolution R38 -83) Motion carried unanimously. KELSEY PARK ACQUISITION (Because Mayor Windschitl is directly affected by the Kelsey Park project, he stepped down to the audience for this portion of the meeting. Acting Mayor Orttel presided over this portion of the meeting.) Acting Mayor Orttel noted the Park Board motion to approve the acquisition from Programmed Land (See the May 3, 1983, City Council Minutes.) The Clerk's memo shows total park fund monies available are $43,915 of which $13,500 is pledged for various projects. Therefore, there is $30,415 available plus the $43,550 from the grant, for a total of $73,975. There is still $6,900 due from the State for the grant. Discussion was there would be approximately $13,000 left from park dedication to apply toward the 1984 payment, and the $6,900 from the State could be placed toward the acquisition of the eight acres of the Mayor's property, which would also be a part of Ke 1 sey Park. The appraisal of the Mayor's property is approximately $10,000. There is also another $15,000 in the park budget that can be used for park improvements this year. Discussion also noted that of all the funds available, approximately $11,000 would need to come from the general fund for the 1984 payment and the entire $22,000 would probably have to come out of the general fund for 1985 unless there are park dedication fees coming in before then. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 12 (Kelsey Park Acquisition, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize the City Attorney to prepare the contract documents with Programmed Lands to purchase property in the amount of $104,000 with $60,000 down and $22,OOD per year plus 9 percent interest over the next two-year period. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; NOT VOTING-Windschitl Motion carried. Discussion was then on the proposal to acquire the remaining eight acres of the projecŒ owned by Mayor Windschitl, with the Attorney noting it must be acquired through condemnation. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, to enter a Resolution determining the necessity for and authorizing the acquisition of a portion of certain property by proceeding with eminent domain involving Jerry Windschitl for the purchase of Kelsey Park property. DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins stated the description noted in the resolution is the same as the exception in the Mayor's plat. Mayor Windschitl stated that is not correct, that he does not want to inc lude the "goose neck" from the road to the parce 1. In his opinion there is adequate accesses to the Kelsey Park area without that particular one. He felt if that "goose neck" becomes a city easement, it will just create many problems with snowmobiles, three-wheelers, motor cycles, etc., Deing able to race through there. And the intent is to keep that area in its natural state. If the City acquires th~ acreage to become part of Kelsey Park, it would be his intent to attach that "goose neck" to his own lot. Council reviewed the location of the area and the merits of retaining that "goose neck" as access to the park. Discussion was also on the reasons for wanting to acquire the eight acres, with the question then raised as to whether the City really wants it or not. Mayor Windschitl also stated the original purpose was to retain an area along the lake for a wild life preserve, thinking there was never any intent to do any massive park development through the area. Mayor Windschitl stated he had no strong desire to sell or not to se 11, but he wants to know what the City intends to do. He stated if the "goose neck" is to be included in the park property, there is going to be a problem. Counci 1 fe lt that the Park Board should address this again to determine what the original intent was, to review the Minutes on the matter, to decide whether or not they still wish to proceed, and whether or not the "goose neck" would be included in the condemnation proceedings. Several Councilmen also expressed an interest in viewing the property before making a final decision. Councilmen Knight and Lachinski WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. It was agreed to add the item to the June 7 Council Agenda. (Mayor Windschitl returned to conduct the remainder of the meeting.) 30-DAY EXTENSION/FINAL PLAT/ANDOVER WEST II MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution extending the time for the filing of the final plat for 30 days from today when it would normally be required for the developers of Andover West Second Addition. (See Resoltuion R39-83) Motion carried unanimously. KENNEL LICENSE/E. BAYER MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the renewal for a kennel Tìëëñše for Bayer on Constance Boulevard. Mòtion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting May 17, 1983 - Minutes Page 13 TRUCK/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Or-tte 1, acknowledging quotes for the Engineer's vehlcle between $7,000 and $7,080 and recommend award for the purchase of a S-lO Che~rolet pickup from Main Motors of Anoka in the amount of $7,000 plus whatever it costs to undercoat it. Motion carried unanimously. TEMPORARY MO~LI-HOME~ERMIT/D. JOHNSON MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve a temporary mobile home permit for 90 days for D. Johnson on Vintage Street. Motion carried unanimously. PARK BOARD/LEASE OF HAWK RIDGE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to ente rinto an agreement with Michael Genglehoff for the lease of park property at Hawk Ridge park located in Section 4, Township 32, Range 24, for the amount of $180 for 1983. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Checks numbered 6498 through 6538 for a total of $22,257.69. Motion carried unanimously. LEAGUE MEETING MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize Pat (Lindquist), Jim (Schrantz), and Jerry (Windschitl) to attend the League of Minnesota Cities convention in Bloomington on June 15 through 18 for a cost of $85 each. Motion carrie<Lunanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize any other Council member that want to go to the League meeting to go. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \ QM~~~ Marc la A. Peach Record 1 Secretary