Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 17, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 17, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Sketch Plan - L. Johnson b. Sketch Plan - A. Parent c. Vacation of Easement - R. Sonsteby d. South Coon Creek Drive 1) Relocation 2) Designation/MSA 3) Improvements e. Petition/Improvements: -- Kadlec Addition f. Concrete Curb/Gutter Requirements g. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Temporary Mobile Home Permit - J.Johnson, J. Hoglund b. Northern Natural Gas Franchise Ordinance c. Resolution-Cancel Assessments/Rosella's Addition d. Amendment-Ordinance 8(Used Car Parts) 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Planning & Zoning Commission 1)Manufactured House/AgPreserve District b. Fire Department c. Administrator - 138th Avenue Parkland Negotiation/Settlement 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9 . Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M D RAN 0 U M TO: COPIES TO: TTORNEY TAFF FROM: CITY CLERK A. ADMINISTRA OA TE: APRIL 12. 1 984 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - APRIL 17 REGULAR MEETING Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 5c (Resolution-Cancel Assessments/Rosella's Addn.) and Item No. 6c - (Settlement-138th Avenue Parkland/Staff). Item 4a - Sketch Plan/L. Johnson TO-date, we have not received a copy of the sketch; therefore, the Review Committee has not had the opportunity to comment on it. Item No. 4b - Sketch Plan/A. Parent TO-date no formal sketch plan as been presented for distribution. The A.R.C. did meet with Mr. Parent today to discuss his intentions for the Plat. Item No. 4c - Vacation of Easement/R.Sonsteby Mrs. Sonsteby is requesting a vacation of a 33'x164' easement (this would be the portion of the easement not vacated by the City Council previously, and lying between that previously vacated and and 164' west) . Vacation of this portion of the easement will not affect the Hagen's access to their garage. You will recall due to some survey problems, Mrs. Sonsteby owns 10.89' between the easement and the Hagen property; she does not own the property to the north of the easement portion for which the vacation is being requested. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the request. A motion should be made directing me to prepare a resolution approving/denying the request. If the request is approved the resolution should contain a statement to whom the property vacated will belong. Normally, we have divided it equally between the abutting property owners. The property was originaly owned by B. Lappin; and as near as I can tell, Mr. Sonsteby purchased it from him; she then sold Francis' their proerty which abutts the easement on the north. Attorney Hawkins will comment on this and the proper procedure to follow. Agenda Comments Apr il 17 Regular Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4d - South Coon Creek Drive This agenda item covers several items of discussion on the proposed improvement of this street; each one hinges on the action of the others. The center portion of the street improvement was approved at the April 3 Meeting, however, it is the two end sections which require several actions. Both are in the sewer area and logically should be serviced before the street work is done. Both ends of the roadway are proposed to be relocated. Any relocation will require new MSA designation. Petitions have not yet been received from the affected property owners on either ehd. It had been reported that a petition was being brought in requesting sewer improvement for those homes abutting the existing roadway on the west end. Enclosed are memos from the City Engineer covering this item. Item No. 4e - Improvements - Kadelac Addition This addition has not yet gone to the Planning and Zoning Commission as a Preliminary Plat. The Petition can be accepted and T.K.D.A. given direction to proceed following payment of the escrow deposit of $1,000. Item No. 4f - Concrete Curb & Gutter Requirements City Ordinance requires that all new plats in an area served by utilities to have CCG. You will recall that Good Value Homes, Inc. came in shortly after the standards were changed, therefore, the CCG was not required in their Plat. Although the standards were changed, you will note in Ordinance No. 10, Section 10.08(d), the Standards adopted for grading and paving specs cannot apply to the curb and gutter requirement. It would be my opinion that if it is still the desire of the Council to hold with the action of February 19, 1980 (see enclosed) it will be necessary to amend Ordinance No. 10, Section 10.08(d) to provide that the CCG requirements will be as the Standards adopted by the City Council. If the Council feels that new plats in the Urban Area should hold with the Curb and Gutter, no action is needed. Item No. Sa - Mobile Home Permits Attached are requests by J. Johnson and J. Hoglund for Temporary 90-Day Permits to park a mobile home on their property to be used as a dwelling unit while their home is under construction. A motion is needed to approve these contingent upon the property owner securing his structure building permit with the required septic system and well permits and connecting the mobile homes to the well and septic systems. Item No. Sb - Northern Natural Gas Franchise Ordinance The re-drafted proposal was presented to the Council at the April 3 Meeting. A motion is needed to approve and send to Northern Natural Gas Co. for their signature/comments. Agenda Comments Apr il 17 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 5c - Cancel Assessments/Rosella's Addition Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the incorrect assessment of certain parcels in Rosella' Addition. A motion is needed directing me to re-apportion the assessments on PIN 29 42 24 34 0015, PIN 29 32 24 34 0016, and PIN 29 32 24 34 0017; and file and abatement with Anoka County to remove these from the payable 1984 Statements. Item No. 5d - Amend Ordinance 8 (Used Car Parts) On March 6, the City Council referred this matter of allowing the sale of used auto parts and the reduction and storage to obtain the parts for resale, if all activities are conducted within a building, to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. The P&Z discussed this at their April 10 Meeting; their comments are attached. It will now be necessary to refer it back to the Commission for a Public Hearing. Item No. 6a - Planninq & Zoninq Commission The Council has requested a meeting with the p&Z to discuss their feelings on the allowance of manufactured homes in specific districts, primarily in areas zoned AgPreserve. There could probably be a statement indicating that at such time as the AgPreserve Designation is removed from the property, the mobile home shall be moved from the property within 90 days following expiration date of AgP. Item No. 6b - Fire Department No information has been received to-date. Item No. 6c - 138th Avenue Parkland Negotiations/Settlement The property for this proposed park has now been appraised. You will recall that when the project first started, the property owners involved appeared willing to donate their land; however, since that time, the property has changed owners on two of the lots. The new owner is anxious to do some major work in both the multiple units and feels some compensation for the land is necessary. I would like to meet in closed session with the Council to discuss the negotiations and proposed settlements. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes February 21, March 6, 22, 28, April 7. Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 17, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on April 17, 1984, 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; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rich Lund, 13864 Silverod Court - presented a petition on their ideas of what they would llke to see for screenlng around the proposed shopping center. They have been talking with the builder and seem to be getting cooperation. but the petition is to let the City know their feelings in the matter. Mayor Windschitl thought the revised drawings will be before the Council in the next four to six weeks. Rosella sonsteba - has just found out she is being assessed for storm sewer on Xenia ~treet. She dl n't think that was right, noting others who were not assessed. There is no problem in that area. Mayor Windschitl suggested the Engineer look into the matter and place it on a future agenda. AGENDA APPROVAL It was suggested the following items be added to the Agenda: Item 4g, Winslow Holasek Settlement/Easement on Hanson Boulevard; Item 6d, Crime Prevention; and Item 6e, CDBG Funds. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that the Agenda be approved as changed. Motion carrled unanimously. SKETCH PLAN - LeROY JOHNSON LeR05 Johnson, 125 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW and Cyndy Nutter, ERA Realty, were present. Mr. ohnson stated he has purchased 20 acres of the Schoonover property off Andover Bou levard. He would like to see the ten acres on the north side of the creek divided in either two five-acre parcels or 2\-acre 10ts facing Butternut Street. Mr. Schoonover had donated 33 feet off the property, which has been accepted as Butternut Street by the City. Council stated he could subdivide either by platting into 2\-acre lots or by subdividing into five-acre lots as long as the ordinance and frontage requirements are met. If the property were platted, the street easement would be taken out of the ten acre s. If it were divided by metes and bounds, the street easement would be included in the lot acreage. Mr. Johnson - asked if he sold two five-acre lots now, could the property owners split the property in the future. Council stated yes, meeting the ordinance requirements with 300 feet on the street, etc., noting the lot split wowldinclude the road easement in the lot size. Because the 33-foot width of Butternut Street is an accepted road, it was felt the City could not require any further road improvement at this time. SKETCK PLAN - A. PARENT Al Parent - presented two sketch plans to plat a 40-acre piece on the east side of County Road 9 ln "the area of Round Lake. 149th is the easement going to the fields and is the southerly edge of his property. Ke explained the proposal done by Lot Survey in which Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Sketch Plan - A. Parent, Continued) three lots would front on 149th, which is an unimproved road. The plan he prefers is the one done by Oliver because the development is more self-contained, it wouldn't interfere with 149th, thinking the farmers would not appreciate a blacktop road going back to their fields, and no lots would be exiting onto County Road g. Council questioned the two raods coming onto County Road g in the Oliver sketch plan, because it would mean having three exits onto the road within a relatively short distance, including 149th. However, the problem with the Lot Survey plan is the lots facing 149th would be double-frontage lots. A suggestion was to have a road coming to the easterly or southeasterly boundary of the property to service the home abutting the property to the east which presently exits onto 149th. If. that were done, possibly 149th could then be vacated by the City, and the farmers using that road could have it as a private drive. There was some Council discussion that 149th could be a connector for a future east-west route from County Road 9 to Crosstown Boulevard, though some felt it would not be feasible because of the lowland that would have to be crossed. Council suggested Mr. Parent talk with the County as to whether or not they would approve the exits onto County Road 9 as shown in the Oliver sketch plan. They also suggested he talk with the property owners to the east to see if they would be willing to change their exit from 149th to a road going through the plat, and that he talk with the owners of the fields to the east to see if they would be willing to have 149th vacated. Ken Slyzuk, one of the property owners to the east - stated at the time he purchased the property, he was required to donate the easement for 149th. He would be willing to investigate the vacation further. Mr. Parent - understood there would be a problem obtaining a building permit on the plat because of the existing homestead on the parcel. He intends to proceed with the platting immediately and would like to get a model home constructed" on it as soon as possible. Council felt there should be a way of getting a building permit on the remainder of the property. They suggested he discuss this matter further with the City Clerk relative to signing a development contract with the City. VACATION OF EASEMENT - R. SONSTEBY Attorney Hawkins explained a letter has been received from the attorney for the Hagens indicating the Planning Commission recommendation to vacate the easement requested by Ms. Sonsteby could close off access to their property. If the attorney is relying on the March, 1974, statement by Judge Larson relative to the ingress and egress to the Hagen's property, he does not agree. The City is not named as parties in that judgement, and this item is not relative to the City vacating a public easement. He has tried to contact the Hagen's attorney but has not been able to do so; but he would like to know exactly what the attorney is basing his argument on before the City takes final action on the vacation. He suggested the Council table this until he can research this further. There was a short discussion about who would get the property if it is vacated. Mayor Windschitl stated it would revert back to the original owners, and it is not up to the Council to determine who that would be. The Council action would simply be to vacate the easement. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she purchased the property and is the current owner. She also noted that the judgement by Judge Larson had nothing to do with the 33-foot easement, but was on the 10.9-foot strip of land she owns. She felt the Minutes of the public Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Vacation of Easement - R. Sonsteby, Continued) hearing were slanted because it does not say specifically who the two people were that opposed the vacation. She stated the only two people in the audience were Mrs. Hagen and Mrs. Francis, and she felt the names should have been mentioned as is done in other public hearings when people must come to the microphone to introduce themselves and s pe ak . Also, she took issue with the statement that the Commission suggested she grant a utility easement through there if needed. She stated she had said in case some kind of utility easement would be needed, she wouldn't have a problem with that. Ms. Sonsteby also showed the Council pictures of the easement, noting the trees growing across at thi s time. There was some concern over the future subdivision of the prpoerty to the north if this easement were vacated. Ms. Sonsteby - stated it could be subdivided using cul de sacs. There is no way to come through the easement because it is only 33 feet wide. She has offered to sell some land through there, but the offer has not been accepted. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we table Rosella Sonsteby's request for vacatlon of easement until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Motion carried unanimous ly. SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE - RELOCATION, MSA DESIGNATION, IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Windschitl explained the petition from the residents on the western portion of South Coon Creek Drive is to find out the costs for sanitary sewer and water through that area; and after the public hearing, the residents would have an opportunity to react to those costs. There is some reluctance to installing water in the area. Also, the consensus was if sanitary sewer was installed, the road would come through there as an MSA road. Council discussion noted the water comes up to Rosella's Addition but will be brought further north to serve Kadlec's Addition, and that sanitary sewer comes up to Auditor's Subdivision 82. Mr. Schrantz felt it would cost approximately $1,000 to have a feasibility study done for that area for sewer and water. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution declaring adequacy of petltlon and directing preparation of feasibility report for the improvement of sanitary sewer and water for Improvement Project 84-6 for South Coon Creek Drive from Poppy Street to Round Lake Boulevard at a cost not to exceed $1,000, with TKDA to be the engineering firm. (See Resolution R026-84) Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Christenson - asked if it would be considered a collector if South Coon Creek Drive were lmproved from one end to the other. Mr. Schrantz explained the Council still needs to make the decision as to whether or not to realign the road to the south from the bridge to Round Lake Boulevard. If the alternate route were picked, it would not be a collector in front of her property. Council asked Mr. Kadlec what he felt about an MSA road going through his plat at approximately 142nd and Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Kadlec - stated it is undesirable. Mr. Schrantz stated he hasn't found a route that lS acceptable to everyone. Mayor Windschitl again noted the petition for sewer and water was based on the street being an MSA street through there. Council noted the dilemma of not knowing which alignment to take at this time. If the residents approve of the utility improvements, the alignment would remain as it exists; if they do not approve, the Council would probably look at the feasibility of the southerly alignment. That will not be known until after the public hearing. And in the meantime, Mr. Kadlec is beginning to plat his property but doesn't know whether to put the road in himself or wait for MSA funding. Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (South Coon Creek Drive - Relocation, MSA Designation, Improvements, Continued) Mrs. Christenson - stated she is totally against the road, feeling it would be a freeway. Discussion continued on the width of the road if the existing route were used, the safety factor in each proposal, etc. Mr. Schrantz stated the visual site is the same on both alignments. Mrs. Christenson - asked if there would be more frontage on the other side of the road. She felt if 30 feet is taken from one side, it should also be taken from the other. Mr. Schrantz stated any additional right of way needed could be acquired under the sewer project. Ms, Sonsteby - recalls when a garage was being built on the property years ago, she brought it to the attention of the Board that it was being constructed too close' to the road. Then every time the road was graded, it was dug in closer to their side of the street, which she complàined about to the Town as well. She was told that there is a 66-foot easement there; and when it is ultimately improved, it will be placed down the middle of the easement. She was sure that is documented in some meeting Minutes. Mrs. Christenson - asked when the report will be done and how soon they will find out exactly what lS going to happen. Mayor Windschitl explained they will be notified in writing of the public hearing, which will be held as soon as the engineers have completed the feasibility report, hopefully within two to four weeks. Mr. Schrantz requested Council action to relocate the MSA designation to go down the existing South Coon Creek Drive. The State may require designating part of Crosstown Boulevard as MSA because it is no longer a County State Aid road. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, authorizing the Engineer to propose South Coon Creek Drive from Uplander to Crosstown Boulevard as an MSA designation. VOTE ON ~10TION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. PETITION/IMPROVEMENTS - KADLEC ADDITION Council asked if the right-of-way question has been resolved. Harvey Kadlec - stated he has talked with Mr. Tressel about the right of way through his property. Mr. Tressel is to give him an answer in the morning. Council felt this plat has some re~ationship to the project on South Coon Creek Drive because of the possibility of the alternate route for South Coon Creek Drive coming through the plat. Council felt that the feasibility study for South Coon Creek Drive and for the utilities in Kadlec's Addition should be done together for the same price, even though the portion on Kadlec's Addition will be paid for by the developer. Mr. Schrantz stated two different areas have to be studied, and hedidn't know if TKDA would be willing to do both areas as one study for $1,000. He also stated the work on the Kadlec Addition would not be started until Mr. Kadlec paid the necessary fees. Mr. Kadlec - stated the problem he has is the sewer line must come through the Wallace property, and Mr. Wallace has stated he already has $60,000 worth of assessments and would not be willing to incur any more. He was assessed for 142nd Avenue but not for Quay Street. Mr. Schrantz explained the sewer line off Round Lake Boulevard can only serve three lots into this plat. (This item was discussed again after the recess.) Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Petition/Improvements - Kadlec Addition, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, introducing a Resolution declaring the adequacy õT petition and directing preparation of feasibility report for the improvement of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drainage, and streets with concrete curb and gutter, Project No. 84-7, in the 142nd Lane/Round Lake Boulevard to Quay Street area, and leave out the Kadlec Addition as there is no Addition as this time. (See Resolution R027-84) DISCUSSION: Mr. Schrantz was directed to negotiate with TKDA to do the feasibility r~~orts for this project and for South Coon Creek Drive under the same $1,000 fee. Motion carried unanimously. CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER REQUIREMENTS After a brief discussion that the ordinance requires concrete curb and gutter in new developments, it was agreed to leave the ordinance stand as is. It was felt bituminous birm curb does not stand up as well and the preference was on the uniformity of requiring concrete curb and gutter. No Council action was taken. Recess at 9:04; reconvene at 9:24 p.m. KADLEC ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS, DISCUSSION CONTINUED Mr. Kadlec - asked the policy on assessing for trunk or lateral when it crosses property on an easement. Council thought it would be assessed as was done in a similiar situation in Rosella's Addition. The question was how can the lateral be brought through the Wallace property to service the Kadlec property and will Mr. Wallace be assessed. Mr. Kadlec - stated Mr. Wallace is not wanting to develop his property right now and does not want another assessment against his property. The Clerk stated the assessment on the Wallace property could be deferred until such time as he wants to develop. But that would still require paying the interest. Right now the Wallace property is assessed on two sides and has already received an area assessment for the trunk. Council stated it would appear Mr. Wallace would receive a lateral assessment for four lots, and it was thought that could be deferred for the undeveloped property or an agreement to defer the assessment for a period of time if the easement is dedicated. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct the City Engineer to meet with the affected property owners, Wallace and Kadlec, to determine what is an acceptable direction on obtaining the easement for the proposed sewer through the Wallace property and assessments therefore. Motion carried unanimously. WINSLOW HOLASEK/EASEMENT SETTLEMENT FOR HANSON BOUELVARD Mayor Windschitl reviewed the documents on the entire matter of the right-of-way acquisition question. The appeal against the Commissioners' award is still active in the court and is the only item that is active at this time. The documents clearly show that the issue of the adverse possession claim by Mr. Holasek is not one of the City's concern and has already been ruled on by a judge. The Council had previously moved an award of $500 in addition to the Commissioners' award, for a total of $1850. That amounts to a gross land price of $2,741 per acre. At this point, Mr. Hawkins has agreed to extend the filing date to April 23. The City had moved to offer the extra $500 until April 15, and the Mayor felt that should also be extended to coincide with the April 23 date. Mayor Windschitl understood if Mr. Holasek is to raise the question of adverse possession of that approximately .2 to .4 of an acre, it would be with Mr. Laptuda, not the City. Mr. Hawkins agreed, as the judge as ordered that the City is not compelled to file condemnation of that strip of land in question. Regular City Council Meeting Apri 1 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Holasek/Easement Settlement for Hanson Boulevard, Cbntinued) Winslow Holasek - thought the City would be taking 25 feet, but instead it took 45 feet. He brought thlS up at the first Commissioners' hearing. The Commissioners ruled that they were entitled to a survey, so a second Commissioners' hearing was held. The survey showed that the fence was there for the past 50 years and that it was 41 feet that was being taken. And they asked that the Commissioners consider the entire 1.2 acres. He also noted he is representing his sister, Laura Gray Hamilton, this evening. He continued, the Commissioners stated they could only hear what was petitioned, the official condemnation of 25 feet. The opinion he gets from his attorney is at the time the condemnation proceeding took place, they were entitled to be notified on that parcel because they had possession of it; but he realizes there is a dispute on that. He also disagreed with the Commissioners' award because it was based on the taking of large acreage; and his appraiser based the appraisal on the taking of small acreage, which it was. He proposed a compromise down the middle, wich the Council turned down last September. His proposal was based on the City's appraisal of $2,000 an acre times .41 acres, which is about $850. The City offered $500. He didn't believe the City could settle for a cheaper figure than he offered. From his attorney it is his understanding the appeal will not come out with less than the Commissioners' award, but the award is "in the hands of the jury. His attorney is still saying he was denied his right to be notified. He didn't know why the City didn't want to produce a survey at the first Commissioners' hearing. He put forth the proposal to settle the entire matter. It is also his understanding from his attorney that there is nothing in the judge's statement that he can't take any action against the City on the land in question. Attorney Hawkins explained the statement of the judge says the City is not compelled to make the landowner a party of the condemnation action. And should Mr. Holasek feel he has a right to damages for the areas claimed in adverse possession, it should have been brought up initially. There is nothing in the statement that says he cannot sue the City for compenation for that land; but it was his opinion that there is no basis to sue the City. The City has paid the property owner of record for that land. There was some discussion between the Council, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Holasek about the strip of land in question and the understanding of each as to what took place and what course of action is left. Mr. Holasek - stated for an additional $850 settlement he would agree to settle the lawsuit and sign any release that he would not pursue any further action regarding the easement or the strip of land in question. He is looking at all the land from the fence over. He stated he also is speaking for his sister. The Mayor noted Mr. Holasek's proposal of $1350 over the Commisssioners' award, or $850 over what the Council has already offered, translates to a gross acreage payment of $4,000 an acre. Mr. Holasek - argued his appraiser appraised it at $5,000 an acre, which is not out of Ilne for a one-acre lot in the City. Councilman Lachinski felt the Council is beyond looking at an acreage cost but is looking to settle the matter. But he didn't feel there was Council support for the entire $1350 settlement over the Commissioners' award. Mr. Holasek - saw it as the City trying to get .4 of an acre without paying for it, feellng the fence location is obvious and the City should have known something was wrong. Council argued the City had no way of knowing there was adverse possession because it is not indicated on the records on file. Ownership by adverse possession must first be determined by the court and that has not been done. So the City had no way of knowing other than using the owner of record, which was Mr. Laptuda. Also, the City has paid the owner of record for that property; it is not an attempt to get something for nothing. The City has not violated any procedure in this matter. Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Holasek/Easement Settlement for Hanson Boulevard, Continued) Discussion continued with Mr. Holasek. Mr. Holasek - also aruged that the facts as presented by the City's law firm to the Tenth Judlcial Court were not accurate, reading the sections that say they do not dispute the public purposes of the condemnation and indeed favor the new road. Mr. Holasek noted he is on record at several City Council meetings of opposing the road, that the only benefit he receives is opening his property up to more vandalism. He stated his primary purposes was not for compensation but to stop the construction of the road, and to say he was in favor in the City's legal argument was comp letely'wrong. Mayor Windschitl stated both Mr. Holasek and Mr. Laptuda, the owner of record of the strip of land in question, were represented by the same attorney. That attorney negotiated a settlement for Mr. Laptuda. Mr. Holasek - waS1"rot aware of a settlement with Mr. Laptuda. His attorney does not inform hlm of his other clients. He asked the date it was settled. Attorney Hawkins thought it was around the time of the first Commissioners' hearing. Mr. Holasek - thought what happened is he didn't bring this issue up with his attorney unti I Just before the Commissioners' hearing, and his attorney was probably unaware of the problem when settling for Mr. Laptuda. Mr. Holasek felt that is a problem with his attorney, not with him. Further discussion was on the points of view of the City and Mr. Holasek and an attempt to settle the matter. Mr. Holasek - then said he would consider an offer less than his, but it would be strictly for the appeal of the Commissioners' award, ~od he would not gu arantee no further action relating to the strip of land in question. If the Council accepts his offer of settlement, he would guarantee that the entire matter would be settled. Mayor Windschitl cautioned the Council that there is still another 2~ miles of Hanson Boulevard to be constructed, fearing the action taken tonight would set a precedent for negotiations with future right-of-way acquisition for the road. Some Councilmen noted that in this instance the settlement does not even cover Mr. Holasek's legal costs. Councilman Knight stated what bothers him is that the same attorney represented both Mr. Holasek and Mr. Laptuda on the same piece of property in question. Counc i lman Lachinski stated the issue is the settlement for the 25 feet of easement from Mr. Holasek, not for the 41 feet he is claiming. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to settle the issue with Laura Gray Hamilton and Wlnslow Holasek in the amount of $1350 each on the Hanson Boulevard project, over the court-appointed appraisal award, which is exactly what Mr. Holasek is asking for. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Elling, Knight, Windschitl Moti on fai led. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize payment to Winslow Holasek and Laura Gray Hamilton in the amount of $1,000 each for the property dispute on the Hanson Boulevard project over the court-appointed award, with the stipulation that that offer be extended only until the 23rd of April; and that it is the intention of the Council that the amount of additional settlement be for full resolution of any issue with the Holasek and Hamilton properties relative to the Hanson Boulevard extension project. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschitl cautioned there is no assurance that the acceptance of this settlement will avoid any future court costs, as Mr. Holasek has stated he would keep open the option to s~e the City over the disputed strip of land. He expressed concern about setting ap~e~e en for future easement acquisition negotiations and was disturbed that these individuals are not being treated the same as all the other property owners who have agreed to settle in this project. Attorney Hawkins explained Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (Holasek/Easement Settlement for Hanson Boulevard, Continued) that Mr. Holasek would be required to sign a release of any claim in that dispute. Councilman Orttel stated this is only the second MSA road that is bein~ assessed, and that could get to be a problem if hugh court costs are incurred. He thought this may be the most cost effective way to settle the matter. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Elling, Windschitl Mot ion carried. TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME pERMITS - J. JOHNSON AND J. HOGLUND MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we approve the temporary mobile home permit for Jeff Johnson for gO days on Plat 6S92S, Parcel 4860 provided that the well and septic system are installed prior to occupancy. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve a temporary mobile home permit for John Hoglund at 370 Andover Boulevard for a period of gO days to allow the construction of a home subject to it being hooked up to proper utilities. Mot i on carried unanimous ly. RESOLUTION - CANCEL ASSESSMENTS/ROSELLA'S ADDITION (Reference the memo from Mr. Schrantz dated April 13, 1984, relative to the assessment division correction for Rosella's Addition.) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution cancelling the assessments on parcels noted in Rosella's Addition and re- apportion them among the remaining parcels in the Addition. (See Resolution R028-84) Motion carried unanimously. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Fire Chief Frank Stone stated several fire fighters are working with State Instructors on burning homes other than in Andover. They get paid mileage and meals for doing it, plus advertising and exposure for the Andover Department. He stated the State's Workers' Comp will not cover this; and he asked for a motion from the Council approving of the situation to extend the City's coverage. What is learned on these burns is brought back to the Department so it is very beneficial for'the Department. He wi 11 be giving approval each time this is done so he knows who is doing this and when. Dale Mashuga, firefighter, reviewed a letter from a State instructor about the benefits of members of individual departments working with State instructors. Linda Nordstrom, firefighter, stated as far as hazards on these burns, it is safer than fighting a house fire in the City because of all the guidelines and controls. Council discussion suggested the Chief talk with the trust program through the League program. It is a matter of acknowledging that this is what the Department is doing. Chief Stone reported the representative from LaVern Fire Equipment called him. He has asked for a further breakdown on the bill for the repairing of the new tanker. He will keep the Council informed of the situation. Chief Stone stated he has budgeted funds for the Rescue and Fire Departments to purchase portab le radios. Through the State bid, he can purchase Ranger portable four-channel radios for $948 each, and he requested approval to purchse two of them. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize the Fire Department to spend up to $1896 for two Ranger four-channel radios. Motion carried unanimously. - Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - MANUFACTURED HOUSE/AG PRESERVE DISTRICT Commission Chairman Don Spotts and Commissioners d'Arcy Sosell, Marjorie Perry, and Maynard Apel were present. Discussion was on the issue of allowing manufactured housing within the Ag Preserve district to be used for temporary employees. Attorney Hawkins felt it may be difficult to set up a different set of requirements for the Ag district versus the other districts, but he would have to research it further. He thought sufficient differentiation must be made between the Ag district and residential, but he didn't know what would be unique about the Ag area that wouldn't apply to the other areas as well. The problem is differentiating between the farm that is in Ag preserve and the farm tha tis not; though acreage and other requirements could be put on that would be applicable to all farmers if the Council feels it wants to allow these in farm areas as opposed to residential areas. Questions raised by the Council and Commissioners were what controls would be placed on acreage, how many would be allowed per farm, what regulations would be required for sewer and water facilities, what are the alternates to mobile homes, would it be more feasible to construct some sort of multiple dwelling unit or some other alternate type of housing, does the State have standards for housing of farm employees, would temporary housing need to meet all the housing requirements, and could one septic system and well be used for several units. Ken Slyzuk - stated he can't afford to construct a $50,000 home for his temporary help for three to five months a year who then go back south to collect unemployment. He thought a lower standard for that housing should be allowed. He felt cement block buildings would work out very well and would withstand the wear and tear. His farming is labor intensive, and he didn't feel the farmers were being treated justly by having to put up year-round housing for their temporary help. After discussion it was agreed that the Sui lding Inspector should call the State to see if there are building codes applicable only to temporary housing for seasonal workers and what would or would not be allowed. Commissioner Perry also volunteered to research "" the minimum State and County requirements for housing for migrant temporary workers. The Planning Commission could then bring a draft of an ordinance dealing with Ordinance 6, and if need be, addressing the Ag Preserve ordinance. Council generally felt that something could be made to work for temporary ho~sing provided for a specific purpose. It was also thought that information may be gotten from the Metro Council Housing Bureau. AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 8 (USED CAR PARTS) (Reference memo from the Planning Commission dated April 13, 1984, on their recommendation to allow the sale of auto parts within a building but not to allow the auto reduction to take place within a building) Council discussion was on the Planning Commission's recommendation and how that would . effect Mr. Mistelski's request to reduce and sell used foreign auto parts on the corner of Jay Street and Bunker Lake Boulevard. Councilman Lachinski recalled one of the thoughts was to eventually require all junkyards to move inside a building; and he thought the owners of the junkyards may be willing to work with the City on that matter. Councilman Orttel asked then where would the remains be kept. In Mr. Mistelski's case, he has a junkyard down Jay Street where the stripped cars can be stored. Chairman Spotts stated the Planning Commission discussion was that if the reduction were allowed within the building, the chances are the skeletons would never be hauled to the other yard, the fear being the place would end up looking as bad as the other junkyards in the area. The Commission simply felt that no more junkyards should be allowed in the City. Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 (Amendment - Ordinance 8/Used Car Parts, Continued) Council generally felt if Mr. Mistelski's business were allowed, it would be preferable not to have a fence unless it is a chain-link fence. Mr. Almgren reviewed Mr. Mistelski's plan, noting he has already applied for a building permit. Commi ss i oner Bosell stated their recommendation is to put back into the ordinance allowing the storage and sale of used auto parts within a building only and require a special use permit for the operation. But they definitely would not want to see auto reduction take place within the building. General consensus of the Council at this time was that Mr. Mistelski should be allowed to sell used auto parts on that parcel, but it should be allowed by a special use permit, no fencing would be allowed, no outside storage would be allowed, and no auto reduction would be allowed to take place within the building. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING - ORDINANCE 8 REVISIONS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we hold a joint meeting with the P & Z for the purposes of going over the ordinance revisions on May 17. Motion carried unanimously. 138TH AVENUE PARKLAND NEGOTIATIONS/SETTLEMENT The Clerk reviewed her memo to the Council, asking for Council approval to negotiate with the property owners f or the acqu i s it i on of the 1 and for We park. She recommended offering one-half of the appraised value for both properties. No one will be donating property. The total purchase she is suggesting is $8,000. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we authorize the City Clerk to offer Mr. Norling $5,000 for his portion of the proposed park property andMr. Minkveld $3,000 for his portion of the proposed park property at 138th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. CDBG FUNDS Counci lman Lachi nsk i stated he has contacted thecowner of Mom I s Auto junkyard, wh ich is about 10 acres in size, about the possibility of having the City buy her out with CDBG funds for economic development. His thought would be to work in conjunction with a developer who would develop the area. Mrs. Heidelberger indicated a willingness to discuss it further. Councilman Lachinski stated they would be responsible for removing all the cars, and he felt it would cost the city about $125,000. Council agreed the funds are clearly able to be used to try to clean up a blighted area and suggested this be pursued further. CRIME PREVENTION/CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Mayor Windschitl stated he has been working with Jack McElvy, who is preparing a proposal for increased police protection in the City, including a budget for the City's own pOlice department. He stated the bill before the Legislature is virtually assured passage, which will mean added State Aids for the City of approximately $52,000 a year. He has also asked the Sheriff's Department for costs of additional manpower. The Mayor proposed a special meeting be set where Mr. McElvy could present the costs and benefits for the different alternatives. He stated in looking at the reports and response times of the police in the City, there is room for improvement. Regular City Council Meeting April 17, 1984 - Minutes Page 11 (Crime Prevention/City Police Department, Continued) There was a great deal of Council discussion on the pros and cons of a city police department and the needs of the city, with some expressing concern over the costs of such a department and thinking it may be somewhat premature. Most wanted to see the statistics relative to response times, problems, etc. -- some justification for increased protection or a City department. It was finally agreed that rather than setting a special meeting, Mr. McElvy should be asked to present the figures at the May 1 regular meeting. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Claims Numbered 7772 through 7831 in the amount of $50,025.63. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \\\~-l~~""\~"L Marce.11 a A. Peach Recording Secretary -~. -