Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 3, 1983 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-MAY 3, 1983 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Variance/A. Bloomquist b. Variance/R. Hokanson c. Variance/A. Melby d. Variance/D. Niemann e. Preliminary Plat/Rosella's Addition f. Variance/R. Szyplinski g. Rum River Watershed District h. Easements/Hanson BOulevard - 1983-1 i. Kelsey Park Acquisition j. Landfill k. l. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Junkyard Licenses l)Andover Auto Parts, Inc. 2)K&K Salvage b. Coon Creek Watershed District Committee Appointment c. Temporary Mobile Home Permit/K. Lindquist d. 6. Reports of Commissions, Co mnittees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment -- CITY 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MZ'l.V()T} ~tJD COTTNC'TT COPIES TO: ATTORNE FROM: CITY CLERK A. ADMINISTR DATE: APRIL 29 83 REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - MAY 3. 1983 Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 5c - Mobile Home Permit/K. Lindquist. Item No. 4a - Variance/Bloomquist Mr. Bloomquist is asking for a variance to allow him to construct a garage nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. His property consists of a double-frontage lot of approximately ten (10) acres. His house sits approximately 300' from Sycamore Street; he is asking the variance to allow him to build the garage 240 ' from Sycamore Street. Based on existing ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending denial of the request, noting the topography does not demand the need for a variance. There was some discussion and a Council directive to the P&Z relative to a possible change in the Ordinance to allow such construction of out-buildings in front of the principal structure on large lots; however, no amendments were presented or adopted, therefore, the existing ordinance would still apply. A resolution will be prepared based on the p&Z recommendation. Item No. 4b - Variance/R. Hokanson Mr. Hokanson is requesting a variance to allow him to construct his home closer to the Rum River than allowed in Ordinance No. 52. He would meet the "bluff line requirement", however, he would not be in compliance with the 150 . provision of no construction of at least 150' from the Rum River. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the request, however, there was some discussion on the fact that the property did not present a topographical problem if the house were constructed where designated. There is a drop in the land beyond the 150' feet, however, it is not as severe as that on the parcel granted a variance previously. Construction of the home 150 . from the River would actually put it a greater distance from the drainage ditch than if a variance were granted to allow it to be built 105 ' from the River. The aerials indicate approximately level ground at the 150' , however, a 5' drop toward the drainage easement at the 105' . The DNR indicated they would have problems Agenda Information May 3, 1983 Page 2 Item No. 4b - Variance/Hokanson (continued) approving this variance. Although the City had not adopted the Scenic River Ordinance at the time this Plat was approved, the Developer was informed by the DNR of the 150 . requirement. At this point there is some question on the information being given to prospective buyers by the Agents selling the property. A Resolution will be prepared denying the Variance Request; and setting out reasons for same. Item No. 4c - Variance/A. Melby Mr. Melby is requesting a variance from the provisions of Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.04(A). In reviewing Town Board Minutes. it appears a blanket variance was granted on these lots in 1970, therefore, it should not be necessary for Mr. Melby to secure another variance. A motion would be needed to refund the fee paid by Mr. Melby. I did check with Anoka County and the variance was not recorded, therefore, in order to give Mr. Melby a good Title on the property insofar as size, the Council could make a motion to confirm the Variance approved by the Town Board on May 14, 1970. Item No. 4d - 4d - Variance/D. Niemann Mr. Niemann is requesting a variance from the provisioru$ of Ordinance 8 to allow him to build a garage nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. The topography maps (see attached) do not indicate any considerable drop in-line or to the rear of the house; however, there are several trees that would require replacement if the garage is constructed to meet the ordinance. A resolution will be prepared denying the request based on the topography requirement of the ordinance. Item No. 4e - Prelimi nary Plat/Rosella's Addition Attached is the Preliminary Plat of Rosella's Addition. You will recall this Plat was approved through the preliminary stage approximately two years ago, however, Mrs. Sonsteby did not final it at that time. The "easementll within the Plat boundaries was vacated at that time, however, it was not recorded inasmuch as the Plat was not finaled and the approval description involved specific lots within the Plat. As soon as this Plat does receive final approval, the street vacation will be filed and go on record. You will note several variances are required. The Park Board left open the park dedication and agreed to accept either cash or land off Xenia Street. A Resolution will be prepared granting approval and showing the exceptions set out in the P&Z recommendation. Item No. 4f - Variance/R. Szyplinski Mr. Szyplinski is requesting a variance from the provisions of Ordinance 52, to allow him to construct his home 85' from the River instead of the required 150' . In checking the aerials, it appears there is not a topography problem associated with this lot. The same criteria as that for Agenda Item No. 4b, would apply. A Resolution denying the request will be prepared. Item No. 4g - Rum River Watershed District Attached is correspondence from Jim Schrantz covering the adoption of a Resolution authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement for the Development of the Rum River Water Management Organization. Agenda Information May 3, 1983 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 4h - Easements/Hanson Boulevard Attached is correspondence from the City Attorney covering the acquisition of the easements for one of the parcels for the 1983-1/Hanson Blvd. improvement. A resolution will be prepared accepting the easement and authorizing payment for same. Agenda Item No. 4i- Kelsey Park Acquisition Attached is correspondence from the City Attorney covering the purchase of the land designated as Kelsey Park. The cost figures shown are negotiated as a result of the Council discussion on AprilS. A resolution will be prepared authorizing the acquisition and payment for same. Agenda Item No. 4j - Landfill The actual Grant Application for Superfund monies from the EPA has been prepared; you have all received copies. After review it was found that some of the City "soft" match money estimates were not correct--they have been changed and increased in all cases. No additional well samples have been taken during the past two weeks. You have received the Inspection Reports from Anoka County. You will note the HW Pit still shows approximately 4.5" of liquid on the bottom. This is abbut the same as that of last fall. At this time, this could mean nothing more is leaking, or it could mean that the liquid is leaving the pit at the same rate as it was last fall. Item No. Sa - Junkyard License Renewals Attached are applications from K&K Salvage and Andover Auto Parts. All necessary insurances, bonds, etc. have been received on both. Please note the memo from Mr. Pears covering the work still needed to be completed on Andover Auto Parts. I would recommend approval of both requests, contingent upon an inspection on June 1 indicating complete compliance with the Ordinance. Item No. 5b - Coon Creek Watershed District Committee Appointment The District is asking for a City representative to serve on their Finance Commitee. If the Council wishes, I will be happy to serve in this capacity. Mr. Schrantz is serving on the Management Committee of the District. Item No. 5c - Temporary Mobile Home Permit/K. Lindquist Attached is a letter from Kurt Lindquist requesting approve to place a 45x14 mobile home on Lot 15, Block 3 of Hawk Ridge East. The building permit has been secured and the home is under construction. The well and septic system will be installed this week. A motion is needed for a temporary permit not to exceed 90 days. Agenda Information May 3, 1983 Page 4 Item No. 6 - Reports of Committees, Commissions The Fire Chief has requests for transfer of funds between accounts in the Fire Department Budget. He will be in attendance to give you a complete report. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes March 1 , 8, 15, April 5, April 19. ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - ~~Y 3, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on May 3, 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 RESIDENT FORUM Mike Wallace, 1319 Andover Boulevard - had a complaint on the firm contracted by the C1ty for animal control. Last month his dog was picked up, and the staff at City Hall did not know anything about it. They found out from the Sheriff's Department where to call. When he picked up the dog, it was in poor condition, extremely thirsty, very thin with hair coming out in mats. He stated the place where the dog was impounded had very poor conditions. Also, there was no one home on the day the dog was picked up, and he saw strange tracks in their yard, not knowing if they drove in the yard or what. Discussion was this is a new contractor, suggesting the facilities be inspected by City staff. The Clerk stated they have received several complaints about the service. One of the problems has been the contract calls for them to notify the City within 24 hours when a dog is picked up, and that has not been taking place. She stated she has a meeting with the contractor tomorrow morning. Council also questioned whether the payments can be withheld if the contractor does not notify the City of impounded dogs. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to approve the Agenda with the following mod1f1cations: Item 4k, Supplemental CDBG Funds, Item 5c, Temporary Mobile Home Permit/ K. Lindquist, and Item 6a, State Aid Roads. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, to suspend the rules. Motion carried unan ¡mous ly. VARIANCE/A. BLOOMQUIST Chairperson Bosell stated the Commission will be looking at possible changes relative to the placement of garages nearer the front lot line than the principal structure, but that hasn't been dealt with yet. She reviewed the Commission's recommendation for the variance request of Al Bloomquist to construct a garage closer to the front lot line than the primary structure on 15845 Sycamore Street. She explained the owner is planning to construct a private driveway (he is presently sharing a driveway along the property line with a neighbor) including a culvert for continuous water flow. Because of the terrain of the lot and the location of the large pine trees, Mr. Bloomquist is limited as to where the garage could be located. The motion at the Planning Commission level was to deny the request, but that motion failed on a 5-2 vote. Attorney Hawkins advised that means the matter comes to the Council with no recommendation. Al Bloomquist - explained the location of the house, trees, ponds, open areas, proposed dr1veway location and garage to the Council. The lot is 9.7 acres. He stated the trees are as tall as the house and are a windbreak as well as a privacy line. He would need to put in some fill for the driveway and less for the garage because it is low and somewhat sloped. - Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 (Variance/A. Bloomquist, Continued) Council discussion was on this request and on the ordinance itself. Councilman Lachinski felt there was a topographical reason for allowing the variance because of trees and low areas. Mayor Windschitl stated the ordinance is very specific and suggested if the Council wishes to allow the construction of garages in front of the principal structure, the ordinance should be changed to reflect that consensus and possibly set out under what conditions that would be allowed. Otherwise he feared this happening in the urban areas as well, feeling the Council would then have no way of stopping it. The Clerk stated in viewing the property, it appears it would be more detrimental to take down the trees to put the garage in the back than it would be to put the garage in the front. The garage will still be 240 feet from the street. MOTION by Orttel, ·Seconded by Lachinski, that due to the unique topographical conditions of the property at 15845 Sycamore Street, that the property is in a low-lying area with very little room to fill and the fact that the property is located in a low density rural location of 9.7 acres in size and the proposed structure will be located 200 feet from the street, that the City of Andover allow a variance to construct a 24x36- foot private garage on that property with location to be as presented in the plat, that being no closer than 240 feet from the street. (See Resolution R023-83) DISCUS~ION: Attorney Hawkins advised that the ordinance states the hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land, which could include trees. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/A. MELBY The Clerk explained there was a blanket variance granted by Grow Township. The Resolution prepared is a confirmation of that variance approval so it can be recorded. She also suggested refunding the variance fee. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, introducing a Resolution confirming approval ot a Var1ance by the Grow Township Board on the 4th Day of May, 1971, for those lots abutting Enchanted Drive (North & South) in Section 17, Township 32, Kange 24, as prepared. DISCUSSION: The Clerk explained the resolution would simplifytherecording of the variance because there are about seven sets of Minutes tracing this subject that would otherwise have to be sent to the County. This is a variance from the zoning requirement because there was no platting requirements at that time. The Council generally had no problem with refunding the money for the variance request and noted the Motion is clarifying the fact that the Variance was given previously and consolidates the Meeting Minutes where it was discussed. Mayor Windschitl was concerned that the description in the Motion covers such a large area without researching the. lots within that area. Discussion was there should be a statement dictating the Slze, as that is what the variance was for. It was agreed an additional variance was not necessary on the lot in question and that the fee should be refunded. MOTION by Orttel, ~econded by Lachinski, that we refund the monies paid for his application for variance to Bob Cook, Agent for Allen Melby on the Pin Number 173224320013. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Orttel CLARIFIED THE MOTION ON THE VARIANCE: adding in view of such blanket variance, individual variances are not required from Section 4.04A, Ordinnace 8, for any of the lots in those specific Sections, only talking about that section that pertains to the 60 percent requirement. Second Still Stands. (See Resolution R024-83) Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/D. NIEMANN Chairman Bosell reviewed the variance request of Dennis Niemann at 2421 179th Avenue NW in Hawk Ridge to build a garage nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Variance/D. Niemann, Continued) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. In talking with Mr. Neimann at the hearings, the Commission asked that the garage be moved somewhat further to the north than he was planning to prevent obstructing the view from the road, and Mr. Neimann consented to doing so. Those voting in favor of the variance considered the location of the trees planted on the lot. Chairman Bosell stated she voted against the request feeling the trees were very small and could be moved. Mr. Neimann - stated they are three-year-old trees, high-bred elms and maples, blue spruce, etc., and he showed their locations around the lot. Discussion on the location of the garage and existing features noted the house is set back quite a ways from the property line, that the new garage would still be 132 feet from the property line, that ')ne-half of the garage would be behind the house and one- . half in front of it, protruding approximately 18 feet. -Mr. Neimann - stated it would be a garage for housing cars, boat, and miscellaneous 1 tems , that there is an existing two-car attached garage, and that it will have the same siding and brick as the front of the house. It is a 2\-acre lot. He also stated the area for the garage would have to be leveled but no additional fill would need to be brought in. Mr. Neimann felt the hardship is because the location of his house is to the back of the lot and without a variance he would not be able to utilize that front portion for anything except a lawn, which is a majority of his acreage. The only adjoining property, Lot 2, is owned by his sister, who is not objecting to his building the garage in front of the house. As far as the garage creating a visual obstruction, Mr. Neimann stated there is no one else. It will still be 100 to 150 feet from the next lot and would still be 52 feet further from the road than any other house on that side of the street. Further discussion was it is a corner lot with an unusual shape; that the house already straddles the future subdivision line of the lot; that it would still have a 132-foot setback from the road where the normal setback is 40 feet; and that if the setback on the adjoining lot were between 40 and 100 feet, this garage would be behind it and would not cause any problems. Councilman Lachinski felt any devaluation to the adjoining property should be looked at and the decor of the garage should be required to match that of the house. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the variance of Dennis Neimann, 2421 179th Avenue, to allow him to build his garage ahead of the principal structure as shown on the attached sketches presented tonight with the adjustment of 132 feet from the front property line; one of the reasons for the variance is due to the unusually deep setback of the primary structure and that there was no objections by the surrounding property owners. (See Resolution R025-83) Motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT/ROSELLA'S ADDITION Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 141st Avenue NW - stated the park dedication will be in the other area. D1Scuss1on was the preliminary can be approved this evening but the final will not be approved until the easement or fee title has been provided the City for the park land, noting it would be easier if this plat and Ms. Sonsteby's other subdivison off Xenia were processed together. Chairman Bosel1 stated her other subdivision is two weeks behind this one, and it should be a simple procedure to have the parkland dedicated at one time for both areas and file the finals together. Mr. Schrantz explained in looking at the easement through the property again, the recommendation is to vacate the easement and to construct a cul de sac at the end of Woodbine for ease of maintenance. He reviewed the accesses to Ms. Sonsteby's property west of this plat, stating the proposal at this time is to construct a church on that property. He felt those accesses would be sufficient. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 (Preliminary Plat/ Rosella's Addition, Continued) Ms. Sonsteby - stated the traffic from the church on that property would be able to access onto the proposed County Highway 116 to the west. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution approving the preliminary plat of Rosella's Addition as presented by Rosella Sonsteby, striking No. 3, Variance on Lot 8 and Lot g, tllock 1, for lot size pursuant to Ordinance 8B, Section 9.06(a). (See Resolution R026-83) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schrantz explained the construction work that will be done on the plat to align the road with that in Auditor's Subdivision 82, but the roadbed will still be within the right of way. VARIANCE/R. SZYPLINSKI Chairman Bosell explained the Planning Commission spent many hours on this and on Mr. Hokanson's request to build a house closer to the river than allowed by ordinance both at meetings and at the site. They met on site with Mr. Szyplinski and Mr. Hokanson and DNR representatives and talked about the requirements of the ordinance and about what is and what is not allowed within the 150-foot setback from the river. In this case, no hardship has been demonstrated other than Mr. Szyplinski's desire to place the house closer to the river, feeling it would be a better place for the home. Chairman Bosell also noted that the Andover side of the river in this are~ consists of high bluffs. The ordinance calls for the river lots to be 4 acres in size, but these are 2~ acres because it was platted prior to the adoption of the Scenic River Ordinnace. Across the river in Ramsey it is low and flat, and Ramsey requires four acres in the rural area with 150-foot setbacks and smaller lots in the urban area with only 75- foot setbacks from the river. So when coming down the river, the homes can be seen on the Ramsey side but not on the Andover side. All four lots in this area, including those of Mr. Szyplinski and Mr. Hokanson, are on the bluff line and are less likely to be seen from the river. Chairman Bosell also noted that what was brought out at the various meetings was the misinformation about what can or cannot be done within the 150-foot setback from the river, clarifying that steps to the river and picnic tables, etc., are allowed under certain conditions. Richard SZYblinski - stated when he and Mr. Hokanson bought their lots, they thought they could uild 30 feet away from the bluff line, not 150 feet from the water. After the various meetings on the matter, they have decided theywould place their house the same distance as that of the neighbor to the north, that being 105 feet from the river, so the houses would stay in line with each other. He stated his house would be 78 feet long by 36 feet with a 72-foot garage, L-shaped, one story, super insulated. It was also his opinion that there was no hardship on the lot where a similiar variance was approved. Discussion was that there have been two variance requests to build closer to the river; one was denied and one was approved because of the large drop in the property. Mr. Sz¥plinski - stated he intends to come toward the street with his sewer and asked what d1stance is required from the street. Discussion was that that should be discussed with the Building Inspector but that he cannot go beyond the property line. The Council also referred to the April 29, 1983, letter from Patricia Olson of the DNR which stated "Upon inspection of the two sites, we could not determine a hardship as defined or exceptional circumstances which would warrant a variance. The most appropriate building sites seem to be at the 150-foot setback line in terms of topography." Council noted that for the most part their hands are tied and that the ultimate authority lies with the DNR. The Council also explained their frustration when working on the Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 5 (Variance/R. Szyplinski, Continued) ordinance at having that authority taken away from them. Also, the 150-foot setback is not a problem in the low areas, but on the high bluff line where the lots are so costly, the property owner doesn't even have a chance to see the river. .- Mr. Szyplinski, - stated they have no intention of cutting the trees and that the house would not:be seen from the river even at the l05-foot setback from the river because of the high bluff line, which is the intent of the setback. Council suggested the item be postponed until the next Council meeting to allow Mr. Szyplinski time to argue that point with the DNR. Bruce Perry - stated he goes down the river several times a year and stated as houses were constructed along the river, no matter how far back they were they eventually encroached upon the river and his enjoyment of the river because one becomes aware of civilization. The purpose of the DNR ordinance is to keep it back as far as possible, and he didn't think the City has the right to take away the use of the river for that UH. Council stated that right has been taken away from the City. Further discussion was that the City really has no control over the matter and that Mr. Szyplinski may want to attempt to convince the DNR that locating his home 105 feet from the river would not interfere with the scenic use of the river. Then the City would have no problem granting the variance request. Council took no action at this time to take up the discussion of the Hokanson variance request, which is similiar in nature. VARIANCE/R. HOKANSON Chairman Bosell reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant the variance for the same reason as the Szyplinski variance request, feeling the properties were the same. Chairman Bosell stated she, being on the dissenting side both times, commented that of the two properties, the Hokanson property had more of a hardship than the Szyplinski property because of the easement through the property. She stated in talking with the DNR about the variances, these gentlemen would have to convince them that the opening statements of the Scenic River Ordinance are met, the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Roger Hokanson, 1571 Juniper Rid1Th- stated the drainage ditch through his lot is 14 to 15 feet deep. lie disagrees W1t the DNR on the building site, because all the trees would have to be cut and there would be a steep deçline out the back of his house because of the location of the ditch. By moving the house back, he can put in a walkout and utilize the land the way it is. When the DNR representative was on site, he acknowledged·ihßtno matter where the house was located on the lot, it would be seen from the river because of the open area where the ditch and the river meet. He also stated the drainage ditch is overgrown and water is undermining some of the trees. He asked if he could remove the trees and dredge the ditch when he builds so that doesn't have to be done after he has built and landscaped. He would do that at his expense. Discussion was that it was not known for sure who has the authority to make that decision, but Mr. Schrantz should find out that information. Mr. Hokanson - also stated he would like to have the houses in a row, because otherwise those in front would be blocking the view from those in the back. He didn't feel there was any more of a hardship on the property that was granted a variance than they have. It was generally felt that if these gentlemen wanted to, the Council would table the matter for two weeks to allow them time to again talk with the DNR to try to convince them to allow a lesser setback from the river on these lots. Both Mr. Hokanson and Mr. Szyplinski agreed to the delay. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 6 (Variance/R. Hokanson, Continued) Discussion was also on Andover's ordinance versus Ramsey's regulations across the river, that the City was never told they had the option of urban and rural sections and were unaware of Ramsey's regulations. Council questioned how the different setbacks would protect the river from encroachment for those using the river and didn't understand what the purpose would be of requiring 150-foot setbacks on Andover's side of the river if 75 feet is allowed directly across the river. The Clerk was asked to research Ramsey's Scenic River Ordinance and to find out where the division is between their rural and urban section. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we direct the City Clerk to contact the ne1ghboring City of Ramsey to find out the zoning requirements that exist on their side of the Scenic Rum River, and ask for the same thing from the DNR. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hokanson asked that the Council keep in mind that this is the building season. Council stated there is no intent to hold it up and that it should be back on the agenda two weeks from tonight. It was also stated the Planning Commission may want to consider amending the ordinance relative to the setback from the river. Mr. Szyplinski stated he would be allowed to clutter up the area with steps to the river, swing sets, picnic tables, shade over the table, etc., asking what is the difference whether the area is cluttered with that kind of thing or wIth the placement of his home, in that area in the woods that can't be seen from the river anyway. He didn't understand all the regulations. Discussion returned to having the Planning Commission consider amending the ordinance, at least to having like development in Ramsey but no formal action was taken at this time. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we continue the variance request for Richard Szyplinski and Roger Hokanson to the next regular meeting of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:32; reconvene at 9:45 p.m. GARAGE SETBACK DISCUSSION Council discussion was on whether or not the ordinance should be changed to allow garages to be placed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. It was fe lt there are two considerations, those bein~ what will or will not be allowed to be constructed on 2\-acre lots, as pole buildings are being constructed in residential districts, and on the possibility of allowing garages to be built in front of the principal structure on parcels of larger acreages, possibly five acres or larger, and setting a minimum distance from the right of way to the garage. The provision may also be applied to 2\-acre lots, but it was generally felt it should not be allowed in the urban area. Suggestions were to require a minimum distance from right of way and possibly from the side lot line as well, or limiting the distance the garage could be placed in front of the house, and possibly placing a size limitation on the accessory structure, or requiring some screening -- that specific conditions be made applicable to allowing this. MDTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to Ordinance 8 regulating pertinent structures being placed in front of the principal structure on residential properties on 2\ acres or larger. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amending Ordinance No.8 to disallow pole buildings on certain-sized lots. DISCUSSION; questioned whether there could be a classification for urban agricultural purposes where pole buildings would be allowed. Suggestions were that anything in front of the house should be designed to be compatible with the front of the house and that possibly the size of the accessory buiilding should not be larger than the square footage of the hou se . Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 7 RUM RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council adopt the Resolution endorsing the development of a Joint Powers Agency to function as a Watershed Management Organization for the Rum River Watershed as presented. Motion carried unanimously. EASEMENTS/HANSON BOULEVARD ~ 1983-1 MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize payment of $1,150 to Mr. Frank W. Griswold as recommended by the City Attorney for easement in conjunction with the Hanson Boulevard Project, 1983-1. (See Resolution R027-83) Motion carried unanimously. Attorney Hawkins reported that the Commssioners for the condemnation hearings have been appointed, there was a viewing of the property, and the hearing dates have been set for May 23, 24, and 26. To date only four or five parcels have been represented, those being represented by one attorney. He has settled with five parcels and there has been no response from the others. He anticipated the award would be filed the first week of June, which would then entitle the City to take possession of the property. KELSEY PARK ACQUISITI~ (Because Mayor Windschitl is directly affected, he stepped down to the audience and Acting Mayor Orttel conducted this portion of the meeting.) Attorney Hawkins stated he went back to the representatives from Programmed Land and agreed on a three-year contract for deed. He offered 8 percent interest, and they countered with 9 percent and to lower the price by $1,000. The agreement reached is $60,000 the first year and the balance in two annual installments at 9 percent interest. Mayor Windschitl's property would have to be acquired through condemnation. Discussion noted that the 1984 payment would be approximately $26,000 and $24,OOU in 1985. If additional revenues could not be raised in those years, it would mean that the funds would have to be taken from some other item in the general fund. The Clerk stated the City would be allowed to overlevy one more mill, which would leave more in the budget for this. purpose. It was also thought any dedication money received by the Park Board may have to be put toward this purchase. Mayor Windschitl - stated the intent is to keep the area near the lake in its natural state for w1ldlife, etc., and noted the location of the clay pits, which have some historical significance for the City. He stated it has been suggested an access be opened to the clay pit area and running a kiln for educational purposes. The further away from the lake, the more active the development could be. Merl~n Prochniak, Park Board Commissioner - asked the current park dedication monies and ow much would be taken out for the purchase of Kelsey Park. The Clerk stated the budget now has approximately $85,000, which also includes the $45,000 grant. Discussion noted that of those funds, approxiamtely $6,000 is pledged for the warming house and another $6,000 to $9,OuO will be needed to finish Phase I of the City Hall site. The purchase of Kelsey Park would mean almost all the park dedication funds would be used up, and the question is how much future park dedication funds would be used for this. But this is an agreement that has been made over the years in working toward this purchase. Mr. Prochniak - didn't feel the park dedication fund should be exhausted. and he provided a list to the Council of proposed park improvements, again stating he didn't feel the money from the park dedication fund should be used for Kelsey Park acquisition. The $10,000 from the general fund for parks really doesn't go very far for park development and improvements. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 8 (Kelsey Park Acquisition, Continued) Council discussion was that this had been worked out with the Park Board previously, that the Park Board had been in favor of the acquisition of Kelsey Park and actively worked to get the grant monies, and that the park dedication fees have been pledged to this project. Mr. Prochniak - stated that had been done prior to his getting on the l;ommission, feeling some decisions must now be m~de as to what is 90in9 to be done for money for parks. He felt the City must provide adequate facilities for the leagues playing in the City. By depletin9 the park dedication funds, those parks that should be completed will not be. Acting Mayor Orttel agreed that if Andover residents are playing in these leagues, facilities should be provided. But by using the park dedication fees for those projects, this project suffers. This project has been in the works for many years, and it is the only historically significant site in the City. He expressed surprise, stating many years were spent on this to date and Park Board approval was received prior to proceeding with the grant applicaUon. Mr. Prochniak - had agreed to going forward with the Kelsey Park project, but stated he was m1slead as to where the money was coming from. He didn't think all the park dedication fees would be exhausted on this one project. There is a need for other park s tod ay. He felt the City Hall site should be completed rather than just leaving it partially done, and he asked that some crthermethod be used so that both the City Hall site and Kelsey Park project can be done. Discussion noted the only other method would be general obligation bonding, which requires a general election, the feeling being the residents would probably turn it down at this time. Mr. Prochniak - felt the voters should be asked to vote on it as the costs of those 1mprovements will only go up. He wanted to know how the Park Board would be run over the next few years without any park dedication money and only limited capital outlay. Councilman Lachinski stated an election would take the efforts of the Park Board to convince the residents of that need. Mr. Schrantz stated he didn't see any park dedication fees coming in this year because they have been taking land instead. further Council discussion w4sthat the capital outlay from the general fund has been smaller in recent years because of the large amount of park dedication funds on hand. The Council too wants to see parks developed if there is money available. Counci lman Elling stated he would be in favor of the Kelsey Park acquisition, but he wanted to see a breakdown of the Park Board funds, how it would be financed in the next two years, and what projects the Park Board has planned for 1983-84. Mayor Windschitl also asked that the completion of the Phase II at the City Hall site be addressed and that the program be planned to complete it if that is what is felt to be the next logical project. He felt by far the greatest participation per dollar spent was on the develop- ment of ball fields. Further Council discussion was that the cost breakdowns should be provided the Council and the Park Board and that some recommendation from the Park Board on this project should be received prior to any further Council action on it. It was noted the Park Board meets this Thursday and could andress the issue at that time. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table the Kelsey Park issue until the next regular meeting. Motion carried on a 4-Yes vote, Mayor Windschitl not voting on the matter. (Mayor Windschitl returned to preside over the remainder of the meeting.) Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page g LANDFILL DISCUSSION Mayor Windschitl reported the Hazardous Waste Committee passed a motion asking Anoka County for a time frame as to when the landfill will be terminated. He has set a meeting of the Committee for May 12 and has invited several professional real estate people who work in Andover to that meeting to give their view as to what is happening to the market in Andover. In talking with the Assessor's oft ice , they are saying they have found no evidence to date of devaluation taking place as a result of the landfill issues. Discussionwab on the subject of FHA financing in the City, with the Mayor stating he is still trying to get something in writing from that Agency as to what the policy is for home financing in Andover. The impression the Mayor received from the Agency is that they would use the Health Department boundaries as guidelines for not granting loans, but the question is whether that applies to both new and resale homes. Councilman Elling also reported last week the PCA passed the first Cooperative Agreement on the southern site and the Mayor reported that the House and Senate conference committee has reached an agreement on a State superfund bill. SUPPLEMENTAL FUND OF CDBG Ms. Linquist reported she attended a meeting of all the cities in the county last Tuesday. The county has been allocated $53/,000 as part of the jobs bill, and the county had decided to allocate the money in the same manner as the other CDBG funds were allocated. Andover's share would be approximately ~16,OOO. Because of the regulations as to how this money could be used, it was determined that most of the cities would not received enough money to do anything. So the proposal was to use the entire county allocation on a county-wide basis either· in an economic development program to intice some large industry to move into Anoka County or to expand on an existing industry. The feeling was that indirectly all the cities would benefit from that because if it is a large enough industry, local residents will find jobs. The other possibility was to use the funds on a county-wide basis for rehab low-income housing. She went on to explain the money must be used for low-income people, must be used within six months, and it has to be on a continuing program. She stated it could not be used for the race-track promotion. Council generally agreed with the suggestion of using the funds for economic develoment, feeling the program should be in the geographic center of the county to draw jobs from allover the county. JUNKYARD LICENSES - ANDOVER AUIO PARTS ANU K & K SALVAGE - ----- Mr. Hawkins stated both yards have been served with 'pleadings to close them down because they did not make application for a license. K & K was in compliance but just had not made application for a license, which he has now done. For Andover Auto Parts the problem WqS with the trees, and the owner had indicated they would have it done by May 1. Mr. Pears' attorney called him several times this last week indicating the Pears are out of town until May 15 and asked for an extension until June-l, and Mr. Hawkins indicated that was acceptable. The Clerk stated almost everything that is needed to bring Andover Auto Parts into compliance has been ordered; it is just a matter of getting it done. Apparently Bob Pears is the owner of this business but it is leased to someone else. Mr. Pears left most of this up to the leasee, but it was not getting done. Now Mr. Pears is in the process of selling Bob's Auto Parts and will be taking full responsibility for Andover Auto Parts. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 10 (Junkyard Licneses - Andover Auto Parts and K & K Salvage, Continued) Discussion was on the smelting of aluminum operation at K & K Salvage. Mayor Windschitl asked that the appropriàte authorities measure the air quality in that area. Attorney Hawkins noted that if the State did find that. K & K Salvage was in violation of the air quality standard, not only could the State stop the operation, but the City could pull the junkyard license. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve renewal of the junkyard 11cense of K & K Salvage based on the fact that they are found to be currently in compliance with the provisions of the Junkyard License in the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we table the matter of Robert Pears' Junkyard License for Andover Auto Parts until the first meeting after June 1, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEtR FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT ---.--- Fire Chief Frank Stone reported the new fire truck has been received and at the end of this week it will be taken to Lavern for the tank. Chief Stone also asked that $350 be used from the capital improvement budget for the antenna for the base radio. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, authorizing expenditure by the Fire Department of $350 for an antenna for the Fire Station building, funds to come out of the Capital Dut I ay fund. Motion carried unanimously. Chief Stone reported on the house fire at 4:02 a.m. several weeks ago located at 4710 147th Lane. He stated four or five men were injured and were taken to Mercy Hospital for treatment and released. He explained he insists a fire fighter be taken to Mercy any time they are hurt on a fire for their own safety. He stated the response time was good, the house was secured for two days, and it was determined by the State Fire Marshall that it was started by a spark from a basement fireplace. The insurance company has told him they would reimburse the Department for the number of hours spent out there. Chief Stone reminded the Counci I of the pancake breakfast on Sunday morning and of the raffle tickets on sale by the Department. Chief Stone also reported he has received approximately six calls this week about the tires blocking the driveway on the Heidelberger property on Bunker Lake Boulevard. He has talked with Mr. Hawkins and with the county attorney. He stated something has to be done about fire lanes in this area and asked for any help the Council can give. Discussion was the county had informed the City that tires were not being brought in there any more, but Chief Stone alleged that they still are. He stated the police do get calls on the trucks coming in with tires, but nothing is done about it. He has called in with license numbers at least two or three times. Attorney Hawkins stated the area must be patrolled and trucks tagged. Chief Stone stated he would get a copy of the new fire ordinance to the Attorney to review as to what authority the City has to clear the fire lane through that area and on the stacking of tires. Mayor Windschitl stated he would talk with Buster Talbot about the problem. Chief Stone also informed the Council that the cities: of the Mutual Aid System are starting a swat team for hazardous materials. They are asking for three people from each Department, and he is volunteering as one of those three. It is expect to be set up so if anything happens within the northern suburbs, that team would be called. The Clerk also reported that she has just learned the county licensed a demolition landfill behind Bob Pears' business two years ago to fill in a low area. Mr. Pears has not reòewed that license and fill is now being brought into that area. Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 11 COON CREEK WATERSHEU DISTRICT COMMITIEE APPOINTMENT MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that Pat Lindquist be appointed the City of Andover representative for the Finance Subcommittee of the Coon Creek Watershed District. Motion carried unanimously. TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT/K. LINUQUIST MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve a temporary mobile home permIt not to exceed 90 days for K. Lindquist on Lot 15, Block 3, of Hawk Ridge East, on the condition that they be connected to private well and septic system. Motion carried unanimously. STATE AID ROADS Council discussion was on priority road improvements in the State Aid system for this year. It was noted there is approximately $255,000 in State Aid funds less whatever is necessary for the right-of-way acquisition for Hanson Boulevard. It was felt that consideration should be given to completing 157th Avenue to the border because Ham Lake has committed to improving their portion of 157th to University Avenue within the next two to three years. It was also felt that the curve from the border westerly could be straighted. It was also felt that the residents along the southern portion of Prairie Road may be receptive to completing the road. Ray Sowada stated that on the blacktopped portion of Prairie Road, the traffic count is approximately 900 cars per day. Discussion was also that some restoration of curves along South Coon Creek Drive should be investigated. At this time it was felt the priority projects should be Prairie Road, curves on South Coon Creek Drive, and 157th Avenue, though it was asked that traffic counts be done on those roads plus on 161st and the item to be discussed again at the next regular Council meeting. The Engineer was also asked to provide cost estimates in these three areas. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 1, 1983, Regular Meeting: Page 5, third paragraph from bottom, delete "aruging just" and change to: "...that the City of Andover was anxious to see..." March 1, Closed Meeting, March 8, Special Meeting, March 15, Regular Meeting, March 29, Spec1al MeetIng, April 5, Regular Meeting, and April 19, Regular Meeting: Correct as written. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, to approve both sets of Minutes on March 1, one for the Regular Meeting and one for the Special Meeting, and March 8, March 29, and Apri 1 5. Motion carried unanimously, with Mayor Windschitl voting yes except for the portions of the March 1 and April 5 meetings that he was in the audience for the Kelsey Park discussion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve the Minutes of April 19 meeting. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Minutes of the March 15 meeting. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Windschitl; PRESENT-Orttel Motion carried. - Regular City Council Meeting May 3, 1983 - Minutes Page 12. APPRuVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, to approve Checks Numbers b462 through 6497 for an amount of $76,6~1.57. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 'i\ ~~~~ Ma ella A. Peach Reco ing Secretary