Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout CC October 2, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-OCTOBER 2, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Public Hearing - Assessments/IP84-6 (South Coon Creek Drive- Sanitary Sewer/Water) 5. Public Hearing - Assessments/IP84-7 (Kadlec Addition) 6. Discussions Items a. Water Service Request/Good Value Homes, Inc. b. Rezone South Coon Creek Drive/Central Section c. Coon Creek Watershed policies d. 1985 Council Salaries e. Ivywood Estates-Accept Streets f. Ordinance No. 8 and Ordinance No. 10 Amendments/Setbacks g. Street Sections/Subdivisions h. i. j. 7. Non-Discussion Items a. Accept Petitions - Street Improvements 1 ) Cedar River Hills Area 2) Tulip Street/MSA b. c. Certifications/Unpaid Utilities d. e. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Fire Department - Suspensions b. Engineer - Park Development 9. Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of Claims 11 . Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: COPIES TO: ATTORNEY FROM: CITY CLERK DA TE: SEPTEMBER 26. 1984 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - OCTOBER 2. 1984 MEETTNG Item No. 3 - Aqenda Approval Item No. 4 - Assessment Hearinq/IP84-6(South Coon Creek Drive) This is for the improvement of sanitary sewer and municipal water. The estimated cost per unit is approximately $200.00 less than the amount given to the property owners at the Public Hearing. The Engineer has several recommended changes based on lot size, etc. He will have a memo to you on this. A resolution is prepared adopting the roll at an interest rate of 10% for 15 years. The bonds for this project have not been sold, however, the estimated interest rate is approximately 9%. Item No. 5 - Assessment Hearing/IP84-8(Kadlec Addition) This covers all improvements for the Kadlec Addition. It will be assessed over a period of 15 years at 10% interest. The cost per unit is less than that given at the public hearings. A resolution will be prepared adopting the roll for certification. Item No. 6a - Water Service Request/Good Value Homes, Inc. A petition was received some time ago, requesting municipal water service for approximately 160 developable acres in Section 33 and Section 34, south of Bunker Lake Boulevard. TKDA has done some preliminary work on it, however, it has not been discussed in-depth at this time. A meeting should be set with Good Value and TKDA to establish dates for service, etc. Item No. 6b - Rezone South Coon Creek Drive/Central Section All indications are at this time that the central portion of South Coon Creek Drive cannot be feasibility served by sanitary sewer or water. In view of this, perhaps consideration should be given to rezoning that area back to R-1. Because of the large lots in that area, property owners would like to pursue activities allowed only in a R-1 area. If the Council wishes to consider this, it should be referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the public hearings. Agenda Comments October 2, 1984 Regular Meeting Page 2 Item No. 6c - Coon Creek Watershed District POlicies TO-date we have not received a copy of the Watershed Assessment POlicy; or of the petition requesting Ditch No. 57 clean-up/repair. You have gotten a copy of the Attorney's opinion on the "Watershed Statute". You will note that the Statute does require City approval of the projects; therefore, this item should be discussed and a decision made prior to the Hearing for the improvement. Item No. 6d - 1985 Council Salaries Since incorporation of the City in 1974, Council salaries have only been adjusted twice, i.e. , once in 1976 and not again until 1982. In checking with neighboring cities and with the Stanton Report, it appears our salary schedule is somewhat "%" behind those of other municipalities. The Mayor is presently receiving $2700 per year and the Council is at $2400 per year. The average for cities similar in size and development as our City is $3,200 for Mayor and $2800 for Councilmen. Those figures, are for 1984. An ordinance amendment is required for a change; it will be Ordinance No. 24C. Item No. 6e - Ivywood Estates/Accept Streets Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the street construction in this Plat. An excrow amount of $75,000 in the form of a Letter of Credit to expire on December 19, 1984, is on deposit with the City. A motion is needed to release this and to require a $1,500 Escrow for Maintenance Warranty for one year from this date. Item No. 6f - Ordinance No. 8 and Ordinance No. 10 Amendments/Setbacks Per the request of the City Council the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a Public Hearing and is recommending adoption of the enclosed amendments. Item No. 6q - Street Sections/Subdivisions Enclosed is a memo and proposed street sections as prepared by the City Engineer. After discussion, a motion is needed to adopt these by resolution per Ordinance No. 10, Section 10.08. Item NO. 7a - Accept Petions/Street Improvements 1) Cedar River Hills Area - Recommendation and resolution enclosed. 2) Tulip Street/MSA - Recommendation and resolution enclosed. Item No. 7c - Certification/unpaid Utilities A motion is needed to adopt a resolution to certify the unpaid utility bills for the persons/property on the enclosed sheet. All those individuals on the list have been sent two notices advising them of certif ication. Agenda Comments October 2, 1984 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 8a - Fire Department/Suspensions The Department is meeting tonight (9/26) in an attempt to resolve the matter of the disposition of the three suspended firefighters. A report will be forthcoming. Item No. 8b - Enqineer/Park Development The City Engineer would like to discuss with the Council some proposals he has for park development; and request approval to dredge the peat from LakeRidge Park to be stockpiled and used in other parks. Item No. 9 - Approval of Minutes September 13, September 18, 1984. Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 2, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, MN. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Orttel Councilman absent: Lachinski A 1 so present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL The following additions were recommended: Item 6h, Round Lake Development; Item 6i, Tire Tech; 6j, John Imre Request; and 6k, Quotes and Rates for Bond/Attorney. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we amend the published Agenda as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING- ASSESSMENTS/IP84-6 (SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE - SANITARY SEWER/WATER) John Davidson of TKDA reviewed the assessment roll spread over 15 years at an estimated interest of 10.5 percent. The first year's interest includes interest from the date of the assessment hearing through the end of the first year, plus one full year. The assessments have been determined on a unit basis for lateral sewer, water, and connection charges, and on the basis of acreage for the area charge for sewer and water. Only two parcels had more than one unit. The double parcel on the south side of South Coon Creek Drive will be assessed for two units. And the corner lot on the north side of South Coon Creek Drive will be assessed for three units, two along South Coon Creek Drive and one off Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Davidson also explained the provisions made for crediting those property owners who donated additional right of way and adding charges to those who have acquired right of way for the relocation of the right of way. Mrs. Diane Kirchner - explained the sewer only goes 10 feet into her land but she is paYlng for 100 feet at this time, the equivalent of a unit assessment. She wanted some assurance that when the line is extended, whe will not be charged for that again. Mr. Schrantz .explained Parcel 8265 was assessed three units, two on South Coon Creek Drive and one off Round Lake Boulevard. The north lot, which has a 200-foot frontage on Round Lake Boulevard is assessed one unit, but the pipe wasn't constructed past the south 100 feet per his direction. In the future, that lot wouldn't be assessed for more than one unit, or 100 feet, under a future project. Council agreed. Mrs. Archie Kirchner - stated they have no intention of dividing or developing the other half of their lot and asked the Council to defer the sewer connection charge for that extra stub. Mr. Schrantz explained two sewer and water services are being provided for their lot to accommodate possible future subdivision. He is recommending the City consider deferring the $788 water connection charge for the extra water service, and Mr. Kirchner is also asking that the sewer connection charge for the extra sewer service be deferred as well until the lot is further developed. Council then reviewed the September 26, 1984, memo from the City Engineer reviewing severa 1 items on the assessment. Council had no objections to the recommendations made by the Engineer and also agreed to defer the sewer connection charge for the extra sewer service on the Archie Kirchner lot. Mr. Sheppard - stated he has two sewer stubs to his property and asked if only one water connection will be put in. Mr. Davidson explained none of the water services along Round Lake Boulevard were constructed because it is already off the roadway and Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearing - Assessments/IP84-6, Continued) readily available. For the assessment of the water, credit was given to his house and an area charge only was assessed at $855/acre. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the improvements of watermain and sanitary sewer for South Coon Creek Drive (west) from Round Lake Boulevard known as Improvment Project 84-6 for certification as prepared with the addition of the change items in the letter from the City Engineer dated September 26, 1984, and also under Item 6, Parcel 8220, Archie Kirchner property, an additional removal of the assessment for the extra water and sewer stubs on the property in the amount of $69S until such time as the property is subdivided. (See Resolution R101-84) Motion carried unanimously.. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanlmously. Hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENTS/IP84-7 (KADLEC ADDITION) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for improvements of watermain, streets, sanitary sewer, for Kadlec Second Addition, IP84-7, for certification as prepared. (See Resolution R102-84) DISCUSSION: Mr. Kadlec and the Clerk agreed the most satisfactory method of dealing with the $788 connection charge already paid would be to refund it to Mr. Kadlec. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. REZONE SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE/CENTRAL SECTION The Clerk explained the office has received requests to conduct uses in the central portion of South Coon Creek Drive that are not conducive to R-4 zoning. Most parcels are 10 to 20 acres in size. She asked if the Council wanted to consider rezoning the area to R-l so the rural activities can be conducted on those lots. Mr. Schrantz explained the area north of the creek is outside the MUSA, and it will be difficult to service the central area of South Coon Creek Drive with sanitary sewer unless a lift station is constructed. He stated the Council should decide whether the area is going to be served with utilities and keep the zone R-4 and allow the subdivision of those lots or whether it will not be serviced, in which case it should be zoned to R-l to allow the owners to use their property. Council agreed to refer the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing and to determine how the residents feel about a zoning change. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to refer the discussion to the P & Z for public hearing for rezoning to R-l. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Spadgenske - felt it should be made clear to everyone what the difference is between the R-l and R-4 zone so they can make their decisions. Council agreed the differences should be communicated to the residents prior to the public hearing. WATER SERVICE REQUEST/GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. Mr. Davidson briefly reviewed the water feasibility report, Proposed IP84-10, to provide water to the Good Value Homes property south of County Road 18 and Bunker Lake Boulevard plus to various other parcels and an extension up Crosstown Bourlevard to 139th Avenue. Including contingencies, legal and engineering costs, the construction cost for the project is estimated at $483,630. Using the area to be assessed as defined in the report of 211.3 net acres multipled by the connection and area charges, the total assessment would be about $677,000. That allowed for the estimated construction costs Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Water Service Request/Good Value Homes, Inc., Continued) of the watermain plus provides for the production and facilities of wells and storage. The cost per lot in the Good Value Homes property would be approximately $1,232 plus lateral costs of $17 a front foot, which is consistent with this year's costs. John Peterson of Good Value Homes - stated they have not yet had a chance to evaluate the feasibility, and at this time have no opinion as to whether those estimates would work for them. In evaluating their needs for development in Andover, he thought the proposed schedule is faster than they will be needing water service in that area. They have approximateJy .1QO lots in the Northglen Second Addition left, and how soon they need water on this parcel depends on how fast lots sell in Northglen. The very earliest they would need service on this parcel would be next fall, but it probably would be in 1986. He agreed to table the matter for two weeks to allow their accounting department to evaluate the report. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we table the feasibility report until the second meeting in October. DISCUSSION: Mr. Davidson also noted the Conroy property has been included, though the project could be cut back to a number of alternatives. The existing water system will be able to handle the development in Northglen, but this expansion will force the City into either another well or a storage system. The storage costs and production facilities are included as part of the area connection charge in the study. Motion carried unanimously. COON CREEK WATERSHED POLICIES Council noted the Uctober 2, 1984, memo from the Acting Administrator on the proposal of the Coon Creek Watershed Board to clean Ditch No. 57 -- who petitioned, the proposed assessment, and calculations for assessment purposes. The City itself is faced with a $30,000 assessment, which would mean people outside the watershed would end up paying for that project. Ms. Lindquist also noted that apparently the four owners who signed the petition will not be assessed, questioning whether someone can initiate such a project who will not be benefited by it. In going through the benefited property rolls, she found many, many errors; and there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason for the benefit assigned the properties. She stated she asked for a copy of their policy and all she received as the calculations for the formula. The hearing is scheduled for Uctober 8. Une of the problems is that many people received the notice stating "benefit", and they are assuming they will receive a check for that amount. Apparently the fair market value was made by using the county figures and viewing the property. Attorney Hawkins reported the Statute reads the "filing of a petition by any party interested in or affected by the drainage system", and it doesn't say anything about persons benéfited by the project. He assumed if the individuals petitioned for the project are affected to some degree by the ditch that they are allowed to initiate the project. He spoke with the Watershed Board attorney about the City's right to review the proposal, but their attorney did not feel it was necessary. Attorney Hawkins stated that provision is in the Statutes in Chapter 112, and the next logical step might be to send a letter to the Watershed Board demanding why they have not sought approval from the City and under what Statute they are proceeding. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize the Attorney to send the Watershed Board his comments regarding State Statute having to do with the local governing body reviewal of maintenance projects. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl asked Attorney Hawkins if he could attend the hearing on October 8. Attorney Hawkins felt he would be able to be there. Council discussed the project and the attempts the Council has made to obtain more information on the proposal with several members of the audience. It was the general consensus of the Council that there is not enough information on the project to make a Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Coon Creek Watershed Policies, Continued) decision, that the need has not been justified, that the City has not received the written assessment policy on such projects, that the request for the 100-year flood plain maps has not been supplied by the Watershed Board, that the notice to the residents was misleading, and that the City has not been given the ability to review the proposal which is required under the Statute. Council also questioned how the City can be assessed where residents outside the Watershed District would also be paying for the watershed project through the General Fund. Attorney Hawkins stated the City would have the same right of appeal as anyone else. The Council also noted that all of Red Oaks has been assigned a benefit to the project when that area had to pay for ponding because they were not allowed to drain into the Creek. Plus those ponding areas are being assessed for this project as well. This item was tabled until later in the meeting to allow time for the Clerk and City Attorney to draft a resolution of the City's position which will be presented at the public hearing on October 8. Recess at 8:47; reconvene at 9:0U p.m. FIRE DEPARTMENT - SUSPENSIONS Acting Fire Chief Bob Palmer introduced Tom Sipe, the Robbinsdale Fire Chief, who then reviewed the process he went through to ultimately establish a policy of no facial hair allowed on firefighters in their Department. He noted the loss of a firefighter last January, the 8 to 10 minor infractions cited by the USHA inspector, and OSHA's requirement that no personnel on the Department have facial hair that would impede a proper seal of breathing apparatus. He was aware of that regulation but had not enforced it, and there were several men who had beards at the time of OSHA's inspection. As fire chief, he is legally responsible, and so is the City. Legally and financially he could not afford to jeopardize the City with noncompliance. His common goal was for the safety of the people in his Department; and his decision was if his men had not removed their beards, they would have been removed from the Department. He said the requirements allow beards if they are not in any proximity of smoke; but the problem is would such an individual just stand by in the event of life safety in jeopardy on a fire scene. And he didn't believe they would just stand by. So the only decision is that facial hair would not be allowed on the Department. Mr. Sipe stated the basic fine he received was approximately $l,OOU, but with all the credlts given for things done right, it came down to approximately $335. And he presented a one-page list of regulations that are required to be met by all fire departments in the United States. Mayor Windschitl stated the Council recognizes that an individual with facial hair cannot be placed in the situation of using breathing apparatus. The question before the Council is on some actions within the Department and the bylaws. He asked if there is an OSHA requirement that anyone with contact lenses cannot go into a tire. Mr. Sipe stated there has been studies on that and it comes down to the different types of lenses. He didn't believe that at the present time OSHA has made it mandatory that contact lenses not be used. The guidelines he presented represent compliance with all OSHA requirements at this time. Mayor Windschitl asked when his department was rebuked, was there any discussion of not getting a seal because of a facial scar or facial configuration. Mr. SiRe stated yearly they fit all masks for all firefighters. It is possible that some people have the face configuration where they will not get a good seal. But they are saying beards do not conform in any way. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Fire Department - Suspensions, Continued) Acting Chief Palmer reviewed the actions at their meeting on September 26. A motion was taken to terminate the three individuals with beards. They did not have 2/3 of the members at the meeting, so they didn't even vote on that motion. There was then a motion to bring the men back on the Department, but he didn't feel they should be brought back on until the issue can be resolved. That motion failed 17 to 3. Mayor Windschitl briefly reviewed the Fire Department's bylaws, specifically Section 5 on the dismissal of a member. He summarized that the Chief suspended three members who have beards, the Department voted to remove them from the Department but it did not get the 2/3 vote of the active members required by the bylaws, and the three are still active members of the Department. The bylaws do not allow the Council to amend the Department's bylaws or constitution. If the Council wishes to do so, a change would have to be made to the enabling ordinance to allow the Council to unilaterally change a section of the Firefighters bylaws and constitution. Bob Dillon - stated the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the active members. Why lS another action needed to reinstate those people, because in fact they have never left the Department. Mayor Windschitl stated no reinstatement is necessary as they are members of the Department. They are under suspension of the Chief. And a prob lem is the bylaws do not deal with the lifting of a suspension -- an ability to override the Chief's suspension, an appeal process, length of suspension, etc. It wou ld appear that the Chief has the final authority. Mr. Dillon - stated his point is they have acted three times on the same question. Slnce they have not been dismissed by the Department according to the constitution, then they are active members and the Department will have to alter their operating procedures to accommodate OSHA's requirement. He asked if they cou ld stay under sus- pension until retirement. Mayor Windschitl though~ absent the vote by 2/3 of the membership, yes. Mr. Dillon - stated the ordinance requires a 2/3 vote of active members to change the constitution or dismiss a member, which is around 20. If it were changed to 2/3 vote of a quorum, it could mean as few as 11 people could make such changes; and he didn't think that was appropriate. They had three votes on this and everyone failed, and the solution is to accept the vote. He felt the constitution is workable and shoul dnot be changed. Bob Peach - appreciated the Robbinsdale chief coming out this evening, but felt their sltuatlon is a little different than Andover's. He's on the day shift now, which used to have g to 11 firefighters. They have lost three as a result of the beard issue and now four or five people respond to a fire, which isn't enough and is not safe. He has decided if this issue is not decided within the next couple weeks, he will go on a leave of absence. He doesn't feel safe going into a fire with one or two rookies and one or two experienced people. He sent one suggestion to the Council. He felt the problem will never be resolved at a Department meeting where there are 20 people arguing about the situation. He suggested that perhaps the Chief get two or three people together that hold the various views in the Department to reach a compromise solution and have the Department agree to that compromise. He felt there are many duties a person with a beard could do at a fire scene, as not everybody puts a mask on. Several Councilmembers and Acting Chief Palmer discussed the possibility of a committee to resolve the issue, all agreeing that may be the best way to reach a compromise at this time. Bill Bush - requested that the three individuals involved, the City Council, the Chief, and the former Chief meet to resolve the issue. He stated there have been other issues that should have been addressed within .the Department over the years, and this action of suspending three individuals is very much discriminatory. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Fire Department - Suspensions, Continued) Dale Mashuga - stated after listening to Tom Sipe, even if those individuals were kept on the Department, the responsibility and liability lies with the Council. He stated those individuals with beards don't even belong on the scene. Mayor Windschitl stated no one is suggesting those individuals wear breathing apparatus. And the interpretation of the requirement he has been given is that they can be on the scene; they just cannot wear breathing apparatus. Tom Reichert - at this point-the Council is in no legal position to make any changes; the Department is at a standstill. He thought it was a good idea to appoint a committee to resolve the issue. Terr~ Lindquist - asked if the position taken by the Oepartment several years ago to gran father these three individuals with beards is binding. Attorney Hawkins stated it has since been found out that the wearing of breathing apparatus with beards is not permissible under OSHA regulations, and it is legal to change the policy to protect the safety of the firefighters. The decision now is whether to allow them to stay on the Department in positions other than to wear masks. Mr. Dillon- stated for new people coming onto the Department, until they are certified to operate a certain piece of equipment, they are expected not to operate it. He felt it would be a simple matter of not certifying these individuals to wear breathing apparatus. Mr. Dillon referred to the incident of meeting physical fitness standards where existing firefighters would not have to meet them, but then the policy was changed to require all individuals to meet those standards. That was the cause of another member to drop out of the Department. And he understands that people have been admitted into the Department having failed two of the agility tests. But none of these instances were brought before the entire membership. Mayor Windschitl felt that the Department should be keeping documents on what is being done. Linda Nordstrom - felt this is a safety issue. She was concerned that the Council know where they legally stand on the matter. She felt the beard issue is ridiculous, that there should not be any beards on the Department and no light duty. Mr. Mashuga - has heard some talk that if those individuals with beards stay on the Department, there will be more beards on other firefighters because then there will be discrimination. Mr. Schrantz asked if it would be possible to vote by absentee ballot or must the members be present at the meeting. Mr. Hawkins stated there is no provision for voting by absentee ballot. A lengthy Council discussion continued as well as various firefiqhters restatinq their views on what steps should be taken. The alternatives were to make a change in the ordinance to allow the Council to unilaterally change the Fire Department's constitution and bylaws, to establish a committee to reach a solution to the issue, or to put the item on hold until the January annual meeting of the Department where there is generally a majority of the members present and vote on it at that time. It was also noted that under the bylaws, those three suspended members do have a right to vote on the issue when it is before the membership. Mayor Windschitl asked Mr. Sipe if it is permissible for a firefighter to be on the scene without a breathing apparatus. Mr. Si~e stated it is a vague and nebulous area. He was not asked whether those individuals wlth beards wore breathing apparatus. He was asked if there were any personnel in the Department with beards, and he stated yes. And he was in violation. The other interpretation is if those individuals do not come in close proximity with smoke, they can be on the department. In their department, they train their personnel in all facets of the fire operation. They don't know who will respond to calls, and they don't have a definite determination of who will do what Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 19S4 - Minutes Page 7 (Fire Department - Suspensions, Continued) at a fire scene. So all of their personnel have to be trained in breathing apparatus. And he stood on his decision of a no facial hair policy for the safety of the fire- fighters in his department. Attorney Hawkins also pointed out that Ordinance 42 which establishes the Fire Depart- ment states the duties of the Chief may suspend any member for refusing or neglecting to obey orders pending final action by the City Council on discharge or retention. So there is some ability of the Council to act, and the Department's bylaws should reflect that. But the ordinance is the law of the City. The Council preferred that the Department resolve the issue itself but realized it must be resolved very soon. It was also felt that waiting until January was too long, and it preferred not to act· to change the ordinance to allow for Council intervention with the Department's bylaws and constitution unless absolutely necessary. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that a Committee made up of the Mayor, the Actlng Fire Chief, Mr. Bush, the prior Chief, Bob Peach, Linda Nordstrom, and Tom May to try and work out a solution that is acceptable. VOlE ON MOTION: YES-Knight, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Elling, as he felt a committee will not solve anything. Motion carried. It was agreed the Committee meeting would be held Thursday evening, 7 p.m., and the Council will hear the issue again at the October 16 meeting. JOHN IMRE REQUEST Mark Kiðerstin, Attorney for John Imre of Rite Away Auto Parts - stated he became involve ln the problem flve weeks ago. They have made application for a junkyard license, and the Clerk has told them that the present ordinance does not allow the issuance of a junkyard license any more but rather it requires a special use permit. He has submitted that application this evening. They are proposing to operate under the current ordinance to sell and store new and used auto parts within a closed building. Mr. Imre plans to construct a building to house the parts and to do any dismantling that goes on. There would be no outside storage of the frames or any parts. Mr. Kiperstin continued he is hopeful that all litigation can be dismissed and set aSlde. They have appealed Judge Bearse's order, asking-that Mr. Imre be allowed to continue his operation pending his appeal. The Court of Appeals had not yet ruled on it. They would like to negotiate with the City Council to get the approval to construct the building in conformance with the ordinance. They want to get moving as soon as possible so that Mr. Imre can continue his operation, as that is his source of income. Mayor Windschitl stated the building can be constructed irrespective of the special use permit, as that deals with what is taking place inside the building. He confirmed that the sale of new and used auto parts is under a special use permit that would have to be processed through the Planning Commission and Council. The permit would carry an annual review to insure that it is being done under the basis issued. Mr. Kiperstin - suggested in light of what has transpired over the past two years that the Councl I pass a resolution to allow Mr. lmre to follow through with his application for a special use permit and to continue the present operation on the property pending that application, to allow the business to continue during the intermediate time when the special use permit is being processed by the City. Mayor Windschitl thought the ordinances did not allow for the dismantling of the vehicles inside the building. The Clerk stated it is a part of the business and is allowed with a special use permit. She later reviewed the Minutes and found the ordinance was amended for the sale of used auto parts in an enclosed building within a General Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (John Imre Request, Continued) Industrial Area by special use permit. The attorney also interpreted the dismantling of vehicles as incidental to the business and allowed if done within an enclosed building. Mayor Windschitl stated the special use permit would have to be judged as any other permit and felt it would be presumptuous of the Council to supersede the Planning Commission. Mr. Kiperstin - stated he would not advise his client to begin construction until he had approval of the special use permit, and again explained the position of his client and the desire to continue the operation until the special use permit is approved. Mayor Windschitl felt the permit could be approved in approximately six weeks. Attorney Hawkins preferred to discuss this matter with the Council in closed session. Council agreed to hold a short closed session at the end of the meeting and stated the attorney would inform Mr. Kiperstin of the decision. No action was taken at this time. STREET SECTIONS/SUBDIVISIONS Council had a lengthy discussion over the proposed street sections, referring to Mr. Schrantz's September 26, 1984, memo on street sections/ subdivisions. Mr. Schrantz explained he tried to make traffic volume the leading criteria for the typical street section. He thought in most instances the entire boulevard would be clearcut, but there should be some discretion used as long as the utilities are provided for. The low volume/low density streets with estimated ADTs of less than 400 would be a 24-foot travelway with bituminous berms or thickened edGe with swale on a 28-foot base course, eliminating the ditches. He stated he is trying to eliminate the ditches and trying not to overbuild the streets. Mayor Windschitl had a problem with No.4, Single family urban R-4, 750 to 1500 ADTs, proposed standard of 36-foot face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter. He asked why the City would want to exceed the Municipal State Aid standards. Mr. Schrantz stated this standard would allow parking. Mayor Windschitl was also concerned with making the determination of what the ADTs will be on a street and assigning a street standard to it, feeling it may be too complicated and subjective. He hoped some other simplistic method of making a determination of street standard could be used. He also noted the question of making one developer build to a higher standard to accommodate traffic from surrounding developments. Council debated various other methods of assigning a street standard to streets within plats and theorized the proposal of using ADTs if applied to various existing streets. Mr. Schrantz explained how the ADTs can be determined in any given area. Larv Carlson, Develo~er - stated he has held up his plats until the discussion this evening. In first ta klng with Mr. Schrantz, he understood they would not have to clear out the entire 60 feet. Mr. Schrantz stated he now feels that may have to be done. The utilities have to be provided for, but some judgement should be used in making those determinations. Mr. Carlson - stated in Woodland Ridge, they stripped out 50 feet and have contacted the electrlc and telephone utilities and will be contacting natural gas. He felt the street standard proposed in Mr. Schrantz's 1 and lA would fit into his plats very well. It is more expensive for him, but he felt the City ends up with a better road, there are less gravel costs, it is a better looking road, and it would be easier to maintain without shoulders. He stated they had decided to put in this design into both of the subdivisions being developed and whatever they do in the future because he thinks it is a better design. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 1984 - Minutes Page g (Street Sections/Subdivisions, Continued) Mayor Windschitl asked if it is the Council's intent to require a two-inch mat when road improvements are done in established developments. Mr. Schrantz stated if the job is done on"a ton age basis, the mat is generally generous in thickness. If the job is done on a square yardage basis, the mat generally is shy of what he would consider necessary for a good base. He also noted that on those streets that are confined, there may not be any problem; but there are miles of streets with l~-inch mats, that are not confined which are breaking up. In discussing the proposals of 1, lA, 2, and 2A, Mr. Schrantz stated he had no preferences on whether a berm or thickened edge would be used, thinking that would be the developer's choice. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the City Council adopt the typical cross sectlon Number 1, lA, 2, and 2A as presented by the City Engineer as Rural Street Section for the City. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson asked what the ADTs would be for his Prairie Meadows plat since it would connect two major roads. Because there are so few lots in the plat, if he would be required to put in a 30-foot road with two inches of blacktop, it would be too expensive to proceed. Mr. Schrantz felt that even with the through street, there would not be that many cars per day, or the City could dictate that that will be a through road and require a higher street standard. After some discussion, the Council generally agreed to allow the developer to construct the 1 or lA street section of a 24-foot travelway. After some discussion on the proposed standards for the R-4 district versus the existing standard for that district, the Council agreed not to change the existing standard. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we retain our existing urban street section wlth l~-inch minimum bituminous mat with curb and gutter for new developments. Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT PETITIONS - STREET IMPROVEMENTS - CEDAR RIVER HILLS AREA (Reference the September 26, 1984, memo from Mr. Schrantz requesting the Council to declare the adequacy of the petition and to order a feasibility report.) Mayor Windschitl questioned whether the Council wants to expand the project for the public hearing to improve Aztec and Blackfoot down to the existing blacktop at approximately 17458 Blackfoot. The petition only came down to 178th. Larv Carlson, owner of the property along the east side of Aztec plus other large parcels that could be affected - wouldn't object to the petition along Aztec as long as the neighbors want it. He thought that entire area was in Green Acres. His objection would be that they would have to travel out on a gravel road. He also thought once the project went through he would take the lots off Green Acres and put them on the market to pay the assessments. Mr. Schrantz stated the numbers will change if the project continues down Aztec because it is more expensive to construct. Councilman Elling also suggested Mr. Schrantz talk with Oak Grove about the possibility of improving 181st Avenue. Council noted a feasibility study for this area has been done before, so it should not be that expensive to have it updated. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we declare the adequacy of the petition for 181st to l78th. (See Resolution R103-84) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, directing feasibility study for Aztec from 181st Avenue to 178th Lane and 180th Lane, include the costs to get from 178th to 175th on Blackfoot. (See Resolution R104-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 19S4 - Minutes Page 10 1985 COUNCIL SALARIES Discussion noted a $20/month increase would be approximately 4~ to 5 percent a year over two years. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council and Mayor salaries be adjusted upwards in the amount of $300 a year. Motion carried unanimously. IVYWOOD ESTATES - ACCEPT STREETS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we accept the streets in Ivywood Addition, release the security, and hold $2,5UO for maintenance. Motion carried unanimously. ROUND LAKE DEVELOPMENT Mayor Windschitl reported the discussion about this development by Thomsen on the east side of Round Lake. The developers are not wanting to abide by the ordinance regard- ing the size of the structure and garages, their argument being the ordinance is not specific on the garage sizes for multiple family units. Now they are asking for an interpretation from the City Attorney as to what they can build there. The Mayor was concerned with the way this development is proceeding, not wanting similiar problems to occur in the future. He thought that now the developers are going to come in with a rezoning to multiple so they could construct a main floor of 750 square feet. They have objected to the double car garage requirement. Discussion noted that possibly something special is needed in the ordinances to deal with townhouses. It was agreed that the attorney, Ms. Lindquist, Mr. Almgren, and Mr. Schrantz should meet to look into this matter further and make a recommendation at the October 16 meeting. TIRE TECH Councilman Elling reported Tire Tech is not licensed at this time, but he has ta¡ked with Bob Hutchinson at Anoka County. Tire Tech took over the operation, and the County has not yet issued the license because there is some question as to whether the bond is enforceable because of the change in the name. The County is expecting to get the item cleared up any day. Council also fecIt the County should be enforcing the provisions for fire lanes that had been agreed to. CERTIFICATIONS/UNPAID UTILITIES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we certify all the unpaid utility bills to the County for collection on the tax rolls, the list as prepared and presented. (See Resolution R105-84) Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT PETITIONS - STREET IMPROVEMENTS - TULIP STREET/MSA MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we recognize the acceptance of petition for the southern portion of Tulip Street construction as MSA street. (See Resolution R106- 84) Motion carried unanimously. COON CREEK WATERSHED POLICY The Clerk read the following proposed Kesolution: WHEREAS the City Council, City of Andover has reviewed the proposed benefits on the repair of Ditch No. 57 as defined by the Coon Creek Watershed, and the City Council has found many inconsistencies of the proposed assessment rolls; and WHEREAS the record includes 1) incorrect acreages; 2) incorrect calculations; 3) double and triple benefit redeterminations on some parcels of land and benefits allocated to nonbenefited parcels; and WHEREAS the City Council believes that Minnesota Statute requ.ires that the Andover City Council concur with any Regular City Council Meeting October 2, 19S4 - Minutes Page 11 (Coon Creek Watershed Policy, Continued) improvement within the City; and WHEREAS the City Council has not received sufficient information to make any determination on the repair; NOW THEREtORE BE IT RESOLVEU that the City Council, City of Andover, does hereby state their objections to the proposed redetermination of benefits for the purpose of assessing the repair of Ditch No. 57. MOTION by Urttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council adopt the Resolution as prepared by the City Clerk on the opposition to the Watershed improvement and assessment. (See Resolution R107-84) Motion carried unanimously. Council directed a copy of the resolution be sent to the Watershed Board, to the County Board; and to the County Auditor. It was also thought that the Resolution should include the confusing and inadequate method of notification by the Watershed on this improvement. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, amending the prior motion to include reference to the nature in which the residents of the City were notified of the public hearing of the Watershed. Motion carried unanimously. QUOTE AND RATES FOR BONDING/ATTORNEY Attorney Hawkins asked for authorization to negotiate the sale and obtain rating from Moody's tor the funding of Kadlec's Addition and South Coon Creek Drive west. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. Council then went into closed session with the Attorney to discuss the John'Imre litigation and request. 12:46 a.m. The regular meeting resumed at 12:55 a.m. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Checks 8411 through 8470 for a total of $459,188.83. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Marce la A. Peach Record' Secretary