Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 21, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 21, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Variance/D. Carson b. Special Use Permit/R. Loftus c. Variance/Pacesetter Builders d. Variance/Semina, Inc. e. Schriptek, Inc./2nd Shift Approval f. Ditch No. 57 Repair g. Bond Sale/$510,000 Street Improvement Bonds (MSA) h. 1984 Park Improvements i. Weed Problem/Crooked Lake j . Accept Parkland/Nordeen Addition Area k. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Resolution/Acceptance, Authorize Final Payment-IP84-5 b. Resolution/Declare Cost, Order Preparation of Roll-IP84-5 c. Petition/University Avenue Street Improvement d. Award Contract/IP84-6/Utilities/So.Coon Creek Dr. e. Accept ROll/Order Public Hearing/IP83-3,2,2A. f. Refer Ordinance 8 Amendment/Sideyard Setbacks-Corner Lots g. Appoint Election Judges - Primary Election 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER M E MaR AND U M TO: COPIES TO: FROM: DATE: AUGUST REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - AUGUST 21. 1984 REGULAR MERTTNG Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. Sg (Approve Election Judges-Primary Election) ~ and Item No. 4j (Accept Parkland-Nordeen Addition Area). Item No. 4a - Variance/D. Carson Ms. Carson is requesting a variance to allow issuance of a building permit on a 5-acre parcel that has frontage on an easement, but not on a public street. Mr. Carson was advised he would have to blacktop the easement in order to have acceptance of the street by the City; this would then give him the required frontage; and also required width on a publicly dedicated, constructed and maintained roadway. (See my memo of July 5 to the P&Z). Attached is the P&Z recommendation to allow him to use the easement as a driveway, with the City initiating a variance on the lot width. Both actions would mean, if approved by the Council, setting a precedent for numerous other lots in the City which do not have frontage on a street. It was my understanding from Mr. Carson that the primary reason for him requesting the variance was the cost of constructing a blacktop street to serve oœ house; and the reason he was advised that "his chances of getting the variance were very slim" was because the reason for the request was financial and thereby specifically prohibited by the ordinance. Item No. 4b - Special Use Permit/R. Loftus Mr. Loftus is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow him to construct an accessory building prior to the issuance of a building permit on the principle structure, with the reason being that he requires a structure in which to house various landscaping equipment used in the preparation of his lot for future construction; and also his garden on the property. A resolution for approval will be prepared, including the P&Z recommendation with reasons for same. Item No. 4c - Variance/Pacesetter Builders A variance is being requested on sideyard setback. The error in the house placement was not discovered until the house was already built and occupied. The structure on the adjoining property is 15'0" from the lot line. P&Z is recommending approval of the variance. A resolution will be prepared for Council approval. Agenda comments September 21 Regular deeting Page 2 Item No. 4d - Variance/Semina, Inc. The property owner, Dennis Bjorngjeld, is requesting a variance to allow the construction of building nearer the rear property line than allowed by Ordinance. The P&Z is recommending denial of the request, inasmuch as the setback requirement of 40' was known by the property owner when he platted the land; and he should have planned his stucture differently. I have not spoken to the property owner, however, I would assume that even though he is/was aware of the "required" setback; he is making the request because he does want to vary from that to allow for a larger building. The parcel behind the subject parcel runs north/south, therefore, the building already constructed on that lot would be 50' from the subject proposed building; and would allow sufficient room for a fire truck to go between the buildings if ever required. Based on the rearyard/sideyard situation on these two ab utting parcels, approval of the variance request would still allow for more space than that required between buildings if they were side-by-side. Item No. 4e - Schriptek, Inc./2nd Shift Approximately two weeks ago, I received a call from Schriptek, Inc. , requesting permission to run a 2nd shift for a period of time. Mr. Chapman indicated all work done on the 2nd shift would be inside a building. He was advised to write a letter outling the above information and giving specifics on the time frame, jObs to be performed, agreement that all work would be carried on inside a building with no equipment being operated outside such building, including trucks hauling in or out. To-date that letter has not been received. Item No. 4f - Ditch No. 57 Repair Enclosed is a letter from Coon Creek watershed Board in response to your request to meet with them. As you can see from the last paragraph, the Board would like the Council to outline the items they would want to discuss at this Special Meeting; this item is on the Agenda for the purpose of setting the Meeting date and reviewing the topics for discussion. Item No. 4q - Bond sale/$510,OOO Street Improvement Bonds (MSA) A resolution will be prepared awarding the Sale of these Bonds. Item No. 4h- 1984 Park Improvements Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the proposed improvements for the parks in Shirley's Addition and the one in Northglen I Addition. Also enclosed is a memo to the Park Commission from me, in which fund balances are given for both the General Fund Budget and the Park Fund. As you can see, we are somewhat short in the GF Budget to complete both these parks. Agenda Comments August 21 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 4i - Weed Problem/Crooked Lake Enclosed is a letter from a resident and the comments from the City Engineer on the weed situation in Crooked Lake. The resident is suggesting another garbage container in which to throw the weeds, at least as a temporary solution. You will note from Jim's letter that the City does not have the staff or equipment to handle this problem on a permanent basis. Item No. 4j - Accept Parkland/Nordeen Addition Area Ralph Kishel of the Anoka County Right-of-Way Division has just brought out a resolution requesting that the City of Andover accept a piece of parkland belonging to Anoka County, and located near the Nordeen Addition. Although it is designated as parkland, it does contain some lowland in which ponding does occur. The City Engineer recommends it should be accepted. Item No. 5a - Resolution/Acceptance, Authorize Final Payment-IP84-5 Item No. 5b - Resolution/Declare Cost, Order ROll-IP84-5 Item No. 5c - Petition/University Avenue Street Improvement Item No. 5d - Award contract/IP84-6/Utilities/South Coon Creek Drive Item No. 5e - Accept Roll/Order Public Hearing/IP83-3, 2, 2A Resolutions and covering memos from the City Engineer are enclosed. Item No. 5f - Amendment/Ordinance 8-Sideyard Setbacks Enclosed is a memo from the Andover Review Committee covering some of the problems we have encountered with this section of the ordinance as written. A motion is needed to refer this to the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold the required hearing. Item No. Sq - Appoint Election Judqes - Primary Election Enclosed are the Precinct listings for the election judges. You will note there is a party balance as required by Statute. No names were received this year from the Caucuses; therefore, all judges are those who have worked previously or of which I have called from referrals. Item No. 6 - Reports of Committees, Commissions, Staff No information has been received to-date. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes July 17, July 26, August 7, 1984 Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 21, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on August 21, 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; TKDA Engineer, John Davidson; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, Don Spotts; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 14lst Avenue NW - thought it was too much to be assessed approximately $3,700 for water on her lot on Round Lake Boulevard. She stated she can put in a well much cheaper than that. She understood that she would have to pay for the cost of jacking the line under Round Lake Boulevard, which would be between $1,300 and $1,600. If she didn't have to pay for that cost, she stated it wouldn't be so bad. Mr. Schrantz stated the proposal is to jack a copper one-inch line under Round Lake Boulevard to serve just that property. But he noted the problem faced when the water line is run up one side of the street and the additional cost to run the line across the street for those who happen to be on the other side. Council questioned the cost, asking if it wouldn't be more cost effective to run a larger line across to serve more properties. It was agreed to discuss this further when the project IP84-6 is awarded later in the meeting. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she was appalled when reading the August 7 Minutes which stated "Mrs. Sonsteby is refusing to do the work on the road in the park" (referring to the park in Shirley's Addition). She stated before she started the work in the park, her contractor and Mr. Schrantz and the surveyor were out there to make sure they did the work the way it was supposed to be done. She stated the road she was supposed to build is in that park, that she would not let the contractor go until everything was done the way it was supposed to be done. She also showed the grading plan for the Shirley's Addition project, referring to places where she stated Mr. Schrantz had suggested making an area about 10 feet and 30 feet down, which she stated is what she did. Ms. Sonsteby continued that Mr. Schrantz then told the contractor she had to go all the way down to the lake, and she stated that is not in her agreement. She stated she gave an extra acre for access to the park. She stated she will not disturb the area to the lake, noting the areas that were graded according to the engineer's specifications. As to the entrance to the park, she stated she will not do that and did not agree to do that. She stated she agreed to put the road in the park, which she did, noting the easement is outside of the park. All that is left is to put on Class 5, noting she has an individual to do that, and to seed it down. Ms. Sonsteby again stated she did everything she had agreed to do. Ms. Sonsteby and Mr. Schrantz debated what was to be done in the park, Ms. Sonsteby disagreeing that the road was to go further than 30,feet down at a 10-foot width. Council tabled the discussion to allow time to research the Minutes to determine what was understood would be done in the park. The item was briefly discussed again when the Public Hearing for IP 83-3, 2, and 2A was considered later in the meeting. Ron Ferris, 14940 University - asked under Non-Discussion Item 5c; Petition/University Avenue Street Improvement, whether there could be any discussion on it. Council noted the item will be discussed. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we accept the Agenda as published with the addition of Item 4j, Accept Parkland/Nordeen Addition Area, and 5g, Appoint Election Judges - Primary Election. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/D. CARSON Chairman Spotts reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a variance request of Dick Carson to allow the issuance of a building permit on a five-acre parcel that has frontage on an easement but not on a public street. There is a structure on the parcel to the west of this parcel. The Clerk stated in reading the legal description, the easement is across the southerly 30 feet of this property. It is a private easement. Mr. Carson - thought he owned the 30-foot easement all the way to County Road 9, that it was deeded to him with the property. It was his understanding that he is the fee owner. Council noted if that is the case, then no variance is needed because the parcel abuts a public street, Round Lake Boulevard. The Clerk stated in that case, a variance would still be needed for lot width, interpreting the ordinance as determining width of a lot within the first 30 feet of lot depth. Mr. Carson - stated the lot has been a separate piece for many years, probably before the ordlnances were in effect. He purchased the property about 1\ years ago from George Pemberton. Attorney Hawkins stated according to the copy of a Schedule C off an insurance policy, this property was conveyed, and along with fee ownership was given an easement. over the first 66 feet plus an easement given along with the subject property over the 30 feet immediately south of Mr. Carson's property. And an easement was reserved by the person selling the property of the south 33 feet of his property. So Mr. Carson does not own the easement in fee; he has a non-exclusive easement. Council discussed options available to Mr. Carson: 1) Have the 474 feet from Round Lake Boulevard to the property line donated to the City and ask for a road to be constructed; 2) Have Mr. Carson obtain fee title of that 474 feet, which would mean that lot would then abut a public road; or 3) Work something out with Mr. Chutich, the property owner to the east, to gain access via Heather Street, probably with a small plat on the Chutich property. Mr. Carson - stated the 60-foot easement to Round Lake Boulevard services Mr. Swanson's garage. Assuming he would obtain fee title of the easement from the parcel to Round Lake Boulevard, Mr. Carson asked if the Council would then grant him the variance for lot width on the parcel he wants to build on. Council discussion was that he would not have to go through the P & Z process again, and several Councilmen indicated they could foresee no problems with a variance for lot width on the parcel he wants to build on providing the driveway is constructed according to driveway standards. It was noted the construction of the driveway would require a 12-foot driveway, gravel base witry slopes, cautioning Mr. Carson that it could be quite costly to put that driveway in because of the length. Mr. Carson - didn't think extending Heather and blacktopping it would be less expensive than constructing the driveway. He stated he was willing to construct the 474 feet to a gravel standard, but he felt it was ridiculous to blacktop that stretch to service one piece of property. He also stated he is willing to construct the driveway to the driveway standards; he will investigate the Heather Street alternative; and he will look at the possibility of acquiring the property. But he again asked for some re- assurance that he would be granted the lot width variance to get a building permit if he does all that. Council generally was not too concerned with the lot width question but more with the access question, but no specific answer was given. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes P~e 3 (Variance/D. Carson, Continued) Mr. Carson - asked if it would be necessary to plat the property off Heather, or could Heather be constructed according to City standards with the approval of the City Engineer. Council noted it would not have to be platted but could be done as a road location, but the road would have to be brought up to a blacktop standard and would probably result in a lot split for whoever owns the other parcel. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to table the variance request of Doris Carson for the property at 17551 Round Lake Boulevard until the first meeting in September. Motion carried unanimously. (There was further discussion clarifying the Council's position on providing access to this lot later in the meeting.) SPECIAL USE PERMIT/R. LOFTUS Chairman Spotts reviewed the Commission's recommendation to grant the special use permit requested by Robert Loftus to construct an accessory building prior to the issuance of a building permit on the principà} structure to house various landscaping equipment used in the preparation of his lot for future construction. The accessory building would be constructed of the same material as the principal structure would be, a log house. Mr. Loftus - stated he was not sure it would be the exact same kind of logs. But it will be a log building, 24x36 feet, and looks very attractive. He wants to house equipment - a tractor, tiller, disk, loader, and 15-foot mower. Mr. Loftus also explained his future plans for the parcel. He works with a senior citizens medical home care service which has been in existence for seven years. They have a doctor and and several medical specialists and 150 people working as home health aides throughout the metropolitan area. They are presently leasing at the medical building in Mercy Medical Center, which is very expensive. He felt it would be to his advantage to build on this 20-acre parcel. He proposes a congregate housing with congregate dining on site, a van to use for transportation, having therapists and a doctor there, and paths would be constructed around the area. This would be a kind of out-patient facility in itself. He has applied for a qrant for this proposal and should know in September whether he will receive it, stating it presently sounds favorable. Mr. Loftus - also stated instead of placing the accessory building 220 feet back from County Road g as shown on the sketch, he wants to place it 620 feet back; and the congregate housing complex would be placed in front of that accessory building. He thought the front five acres would be used for the complex, paths, etc. Mr. Loftus - further explained his group is a non-profit organization known as 501C3, Metro Home Health Care and Reinforce Home Care. The Board of Directors makes the decisions, not himself personally. At this time he is seeking the special use permit for the accessory building to house his equipment so he can clear the property prior to the building, realizing it may be quite some time before the grant funds are actually available. He realizes that he would need to come back at some point to ask for a multiple use on the property. Council raised the point that the notices on this item were only for the special use permit for an accessory building prior to the construction of a principal structure, not for any change of use of zoning of the property. Council did not want Mr. Loftus to construe the granting of the special use permit as implied approval of the multiple use he has just explained, noting the residents would be notified and would provide input on the proposed use at a public hearing. It was suggested it may be in Mr. Loftus' best interest to hold that public hearing as soon as possible. Mr. Loftus - stated he is not talking about developing the entire 20 acres. At the most the building would be a six-resident unit, not a large complex. The back area would probably be developed into 2\-acre lots in time. Assuming he does not get the grant, Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Special Use Permit/R. Loftus, Continued) he would apply for senior and disabled housing for which he could obtain low-interest housing. If those two options fail, he would use the property for a doctor's office. And if that was not possible, he would use the property for residential purposes. In any event, the accessory building would be useable for storage. He stated he would like to get the building constructed this fall. Council discussed the request, noting the special use permit is allowed by ordinance. The concern was that the approval of the permit not imply approval in any way of the multiple uses proposed by Mr. Loftus this evening, again noting that matter would need to go through the public hearing process for public input and separate Council action. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving a Special Use Permit as requested by R. Loftus for the construction of an accessory building in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 as prepared with the addition of: in the final BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ...that such accessory building shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications furnished and the structure be used for private garage and private storage purposes only. (See Resolution R076-84) DISCUSSION; A question was raised about the construction of a driveway to the structure. Mr. Almgren stated driveways are not required to accessory buildings, only to primary structures. Motion carriedJunanimously. VARIANCE/PACESETTER BUILDERS Chairman Spotts reviewed the Commission's recommendation to approve the variance request of Pacesetter Builders on sideyard setback. The error in the house placement was not discovered until the house was already built and occupied. Chairman Spotts stated the Commission felt there may be a better method of dealing with such errors rather than having the builders wait for the extended period of time to close on the house. Council comments were that at some point the applicants should be required to purchase more land and that in this instance the error was realized several months ago. Robert Miller - stated the house was built in the winter and the site was inspected by the Building Official. He stated it was a mistake and they were at fault, but in turn the Building Official should have caught it. The lot was surveyed, but the mistake was not caught until it was resurveyed after the house was constructed. Mr. Almgren stated the house was built in the winter. He did the front setback check, which was all right. He didn't check to the west because no house was built,there at that time, and it looked like there was enough room on the east side. The mistake was not noticed until the house was built on the west side. That is when he notified Mr. Miller of the problem, that being early spring. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution as prepared approving the variance on sideyard setback as requested by Pacesetter Homes, Inc., for the structure on Lot 4, Block 1, Northglen II. (See Resolution R077-84) Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/SEMINA, INC. Council discussed the request to allow the construction of a building nearer the rear property line than allowed by ordinance in Westview Industrial Park. Discussion was on the recollection of what took place when the property was platted relative to the Fire Department's request for a fire lane through that area and how the request affects that. It was agreed to postpone action on this item to allow time for the Minutes to be researched on that issue. BOND SALE/$510,000 STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS (MSA) Attorney Hawkins noted Moody's has upgraded the City's general bond rating to Baa-l, and they gave this particular bond issue an A rating. He opened the five bids submitted: Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Bond Sale/$510,000 Street Improvement Bonds, Continued) Allison-Williams Company, bid $500,565, net interest rate of 8.6310 percent, for a total interest cost of $245,985 First National Bank of St. Paul as account manager with Robert Bard and First National Bank of Minneapolis, bid $500,437.50, net interest rate of 8.8758 percent, for a total interest cost of $252,962.50 Kronin and Marcotte, bid $502,605, net interest rate of 8.6629 percent, for a total interest cost of $246,895 Piper, Jaffray, Hopwood as account manager with American National Bank of St. Paul, bid $501,840, net interest rate of 8.8354 percent, for a total interest cost of $251,810 Moore Juran and Company, bid $501,840, net interest rate of 8.5485 percent, for a total interest cost of $243,635. Attorney Hawkins stated he will verify the interests, but recommended awarding the sale to the low bidder of Moore Juran and Company. He explained the reason the rates vary is because there are separate interest rates for each bond that matures starting September 1, 1985. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, introducing a Resolution for the sale of $510,000 General Obligation State Aid Street Bonds, Series 1984, fix form and specifications, directing execution and delivery, and providing for their payment as prepared, awarding to Moore Juran and Company for $501,840, net interest rate of 8.5485 percent, net interest cost of $243,635. (See Resolution R078-84) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel; PRESENT-Windschitl Motion carried. (Further action was taken regarding this item later in the meeting) 1984 PARK IMPROVEMENTS Council reviewed the August 14, 1984, memo on the Park Board's request for improvements in Shirley's Addition Park and Rose Park in Northglen. To stay within the General Fund budget, Council agreed not to blacktop the parking lot in Rose Park this year. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Park Board request to make the fol lowing improvements using 1984 budgeted funds: Shirley's Addition Park, $3,600 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve Park Board's request for improving Clty parks for the Rose Park in Northglen as follows: backstop, $1,000; level park by grading and discing by City Public Works Department, construct parking lot to gravel only, $2,500; estimated total, $3,500. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Bill LeFebvre reported the Chairman, Steve Nichols, has resigned from the Commission, and asked if the Council would like to appoint a new chairman. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, tha twe appoint Merlyn Prochniak as Chairman C (Of the Park and Recreation Commission). Motion carried unanimously. AWARD CONTRACT/IP84-6/UTILITIES/SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE Mr. Davidson recommended awarding the contract to the low bidder, Channel Construction, for the base bid and Alternative #1. He recommended excluding Alternative #2, as Ms. Sonsteby told him before leaving the meeting this evening that she was not in favor of extending water to her property at 14244 Round Lake Boulevard at the price that was bid. Mr. Davidson stated the cost for the project is approximately $1000 less per lot than what was specified at the public hearing. The City's share of the cost of the water connection charges increased due to the additional 310-foot extension up Round Lake Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Award Contract/IP84-6/Utilities/South Coon Creek Drive, Continued) Boulevard to service Mrs. Kirchner's third lot and the extension of the 8-inch watermain and hydrant to the Thompson property on the west side of Round Lake Boulevard. If the 25 ünits come in on the Thompson property as proposed, the City would take in approximately $50,000. He is suggesting not assessing lateral benefit at this point, but to assess the area benefit and the service line. Council discussed Alternate #2 as to why it is so costly to jack a line under the road and whether anything could be done to reduce that expense. Mr. Schrantz noted the disadvantage of living on the "wrong side of the street" so to speak when the water line is run down the opposite side, suggesting the additional expense of jacking the line under the road be considered a trunk-type charge and taken from the trunk, source, and storage fund. Council suggested a larger line be jacked across to serve more properties, the cost then being shared by more properties also. This was discussed again somewhat later. There was some discussion on implementing a policy of requiring the utilization of municipàJ water where it is available in new developments and in any new single-family residential lot. Mr. Davidson suggested assessing this project and Kadlec's Addition this fall based on the engineer's estimate in the projects, and asked the Council to consider assessing on a unit method rather than the front-footage basis. The unit method is much easier to calculate and there is very little difference in the assessment to those affected by this project. After some discussion, the Council genreally agreed that the unit method would be equitable to everyone in the project. The understanding of the Council and engineers was that on the D. Kirchner property, three units would be assessed at this time -- two along South Coon Creek Drive and one for her residence on Round Lake Boulevard. And at some point in the future, if the utilities are extended up Round Lake Boulevard, she would receive an additional unit assessment for a lot that could be split off north of her residence. It was also agreed that; on the unit method, the Archie Kirchner lot on South coon Creek Drive would receive two assessments; which would equate to approximately 200 front feet using the front-footage method, so the assessment would have been virtually the same. Ray Freeman, South Coon Creek Drive - believed the unit method would be best, so every- one would get the same assessment, even the lot with a narrower front and wider back. Council noted on a front-footage method, odd-shaped lots are equated back to a rectangle, so there will not be that much difference. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the assessment by unit method on the west end of South Coon Creek Drive, Project 84-6. Motion carried unanimous ly. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution awarding contract for ProJect 84-6 to Channel Construction for base bid of $110,065.25, with the addition of Alternate #1 for total bid price of $123,384.95; and note that we hold the deposit for H.B.H. Construction, the next lowest bidder, for a total base bid of $117,177.75 with Alternate #1, $14,705.25, and return the deposits of all the other unsuccessful bidders. (See Resolution R079-84) Motion carried unanimously. Discussion returned to the question of the additional expense of jacking water lines under the road to service residents who are on the opposite side of the road as the watermain. Councilman Lachinski was in favor of changing the policy to require the use of municipal water on all individual lots that develop where water is available, rather than just requiring it in new plats. He didn't feel it was reasonable to allow the drilling of a well on Ms. Sonsteby's lot petitioned in Alternate #2 when municipal water is available directly across the street. Councilman Orttel noted the opposing argument is she shouldn't have to buy into the system if it costs more than what anyone Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Award Contract/IP84-6/Utilities/South Coon Creek Drive, Continued) else would have to pay. Mayor Wi ndschit 1 also thought it wou ld be more reasonable to jack a larger line across to have the ability to service a greater area, not just the one lot. It was generally felt that the development of all the vacant property in that area should be considered when deciding to jack a waterline under Round Lake Boulevard. The engineers were asked to prepare a report on what it would take to service that vacant property and the most effective method of doing it. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve Change Order No.1 for Channel Construction to delete 1200 ton of Class 5 gravel for the amount of $g,OOO, revised contract amount would be $115,819.95. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schrantz then reviewed his proposal for easement acquisition for the sanitary sewer and water project on South Coon Creek Drive west, stating everyone on the south side has signed the easements except Mrs. Freeman. He explained his calculations for those property owners on the north side of the road. He told those owners their assessment would be credited for the amount of easement given for the project. When making his calculations, he gave everyone the benefit of the doubt and calculated what those on the south side would owe for the benefit of moving the road further from their home. He hasn't received final approval from Ken Posterick to increase that assessment by $420. But with the increases and credits for easement, Mr. Schrantz stated the project would be approximately $1,000 short for easement acquisition. Total cred its of $1520 would be given; and if everyone is agreeable, the City would be getting back $580. Council discussed the funding of the $1,000, with suggestions that it come from MSA funds, from the sewer trunk fund, from the water tunk fund, or to carry it in the project account. Points brought out were that the City may have some responsibility as a result of the buildings allowed to be constructed so close to the road, that the paperwork required to obtain MSA funds would not be cost effective for such a small amount, that the easement is actually needed for the sewer and water project, that the Council did not want the amount assessed back to the property owners, and that there probably would be enough monies in the project to carry that $1,000 without assessing it to the property owners. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we carry the $1,000 in the project and not assess it. Motion carried unanimously. (referring to the $1,000 for easement acquisition for the 84-6 utilities project on South Coon Creek Drive West) PETITION/UNIVERSITY AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we acknowledge acceptance of petition for lmprovement of University Avenue on the Andover side. Motion carried unanimously. Council briefly discussed the problems of surfacing University Avenue as .., an MSA street as noted by the City Engineer in his August 14, 1984, memo to the Mayor and City Counc il. Mayor Windschitl asked if it is possible to trade stretches of road with the City of Ham Lake so Andover could improve University from approximately 150th south and have the City of Ham Lake responsible for that portion of University from approximately 150th north to 157th, the exact location to be determined so each city would be responsible for an equal distance of the road. The Engineers thought that may be possible. Council questioned when Ham Lake would have the MSA funds for this road, noted that Andover's funds for 19S4 and 1985 are already committed, and noted the different assessment policies for MSA projects between the two cities. It was agreed that Mr. Schrantz should talk to staff and Council of Ham Lake to find out their opinions on the problem. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (Petition/University Avenue Street Improvement, Continued) Mr. Ferris - stated the petition was only taken up to 150th. He stated the road was upgraded to gravel several years ago, but it has deteriorated rapidly because of the heavy equipment and trucks and lack of a speed limit on the road. He felt the City should evaluate the speed limit and post it for a safe speed. He stated the road is quickly reaching the point where it is unuseable, and even the grading does not eliminate the washboard. He asked that in the meantime the upgrading of the road be looked at. BOND SALE/$510,OOO MSA STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS, CONTINUED MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution relating to the City of Andover's $510,000 GO State Aid Street bonds of 1984 bonding as presented having to do with the Commissioner of Transportation keeping records. (See Resolution R080-84) Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:53; reconvene at 10:08 p.m. ACCEPT ROLL/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING/IP83-3, 2, 2A Mr. Davidson reviewed the assessments for Shirley's Addition, Rosella's Addition, and Northglen II and IV. In Shirley's Addition, account work for the City street was included at $l,083.33/unit. There was also a deferred assessment from the 80-3 improvement on the west side of Xenia that was deleted by the Council at that time with the understanding it would be assessed when it was platted. The total assessment for Shirley's Addition is $6,222.45/unit. The rolls for these projects are carried in two parts because of the way the development contracts have been written -- one roll for a two-year assessment at 8.5 percent and one ro 11 for the balance, 13years, at 10.5 percent interest. Attorney Hawkins explained the roll is spread over 15 years; but from what they can determine, almost every lot in the Northglen Addition is sold and the total assessment must be paid on July 1, 1986. So there should be very few assessments that will have to be carried beyond that date; and there may be enough pre- payments at that point so no permanent financing will need to be issued. Attorney Hawkins also advised if there is an objection to the City force account street work on Shirley's Addition, the City may have to pull that out and go through the hearing again. But it is a part of the sewer and street project, and there is benefit. Mr .Schrantz also noted from the Minutes relating to the work in the park in Shirley's Addition, it is clear Mrs. Sonsteby agreed to have a pathway filled across the lowland from high area to the other high area. In briefly reviewing the grading plan, it was the Council's interpretation that it shows the pathway from one high area to the other, and that is what is being requested of Ms. Sonsteby now. Mr. Davidson reviewed the roll for Rosella's Addition, which also includes the deficiency for parcels from the 80-3 project which were agreed to by Ms. Sonsteby at that time. The total unit assessment against Rosella's Addition is $4,550.98. Mr. Davidson also reviewed the Northglen II and IV assessment roll of $6,017.g7/unit. The assessment also includes a deficiency from the 80-3 project. Mr. Schrantz stated the City is collecting all previous assessments..on these two Additions, and the other Additions won't be having the sewer and water trunk assessments. This has been agreed to by Good Value Homes. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution accepting the roll and setting date for public hearing on proposed assessment for Improvement Projects 83-3, 2, and 2A and work previously done under 80-3 as prepared. (See Resolution R081-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page g ACCEPT PARKLAND/NORDEEN ADDITION AREA Council discussed the County's request that Andover accept a piece of parkland belonging to Anoka County located on the north end of Prairie Road. Council questioned the use of the parcel since there is no access to it. Mr. Schrantz suggested it could be used for storm drainage to alleviate the drainage problem on an adjoining lot. Council felt it may have some benefit if an access could be obtained to the parcel. And it may also be beneficial if the County would allow it to be used for storm drainage as well. It was directed that that option be looked into further and that the Engineer talk with the residents in an attempt to obtain an easement to the parcel. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we table it and contact the County and ask them to change and broaden the purpose so that we aren't limited to strictly park purposes. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/D. CARSON, CONTINUED Council directed the Clerk towrite Mr. Carson clarifying the Council's position on the variance and of the discussion earlier this evening. Mayor Windschitl understood the staff position is Mr. Carson should be required to construct a street from Round Lake Bouelvard to his property line. The concern is also that the logical extension and connection of Heather Street to the north not be disturbed. There was also a question as to the interpretation of the ordinance regarding lot width. If Mr. Carson owned the easement from Round Lake to the lot line, the question was whether lot width would be measured within that easement, in which case a variance would be needed, or within the bulk of the lot where the property would normally begin, in which case a variance would not be needed. Since Mr. Carson left with the interpretation that a variance would be needed for lot width, Council decided to leave it that way. The Clerk was directed to inform Mr. Carson that the ordinance requirements will need to be met; that if the Heather Street concept is desirable, it must be constructed to a blacktop road going straight north for future connection; and that the construction standards for private driveways over 300 feet be clarified. SCHRIPTEK, INC./SECOND SHIFT APPROVAL The Clerk stated she has not heard anything from the owners regarding this proposal. Mayor Windschitl asked for a motion to table this item. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. WEED PROBLEM/CROOKED LAKE Council discussed the weed problem, noting the letter from Linda Chouinard at 13524 Gladiola Street, questioning what has happened to the Homeowners Association in that area. The Mayor also noted that the County is installing an aereation system in another lake this fall, so it will be known whether that will work and will help to eliminate the weed problem. The Clerk was asked to find out if the homeowners association is still active and to talk with the City of Coon Rapids to see if-they are still considering the aereation project in Crooked Lake. RESOLUTION/DECLARE COST - ORDER PREPARATION OF ROLL - IP84-5 MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution declaring cost, dlrecting preparation of assessment roll by City Clerk with assistance by the City Engineer, and setting date for assessment public hearing for the improvement of streets and storm drainage for Project 84-5, Hugh's Addition Area. (See Resolution R082-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 ACCEPTANCE, AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT - IP84-5 MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we table authorizing the final payment for 84-5 until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously. REFER ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENT/SIDEYARD SETBACKS - CORNER LOTS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we refer the concerns of the Andover Review Commlttee dealing with front yard setbacks and sideyard setbacks for corner lots in new plats and structures in existing areas to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion carried unanimously. APPOINT ELECTION JUDGES - PRIMARY ELECTION MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the lists and appoint the people on the lists for election judges as prepared. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/SEMINA, INC. The Clerk stated in reviewing the Minutes, the final plat of Westview Industrial Park was approved contingent upon a clear delineation of a road, drainage, and utility easement over Lot 2 and Lot 1. In looking at the final plat, the road easement is totally located on Lot 2. The variance is being requested on Lot 1 and will not affect the easement on Lot 2. Also, there is a fence located on the lot line of Lot 1, which also does not affect the road easement. Council then discussed the variance request to construct the building closer to the rear lot line than allowed. Mayor Windschitl felt in looking at any realistic use of Lot 1, the 205-foot side should be the sideyard, not the rear. Council felt that the setback remaining would be sufficient for emergency vehicles. It was also noted that the 40-foot rear setback is to allow for a service lane, for garbage containers, etc., but this business is being served from County Road g. Mr. Almgren stated he personally was not too concerned about the reduced rearyard setback as proposed; but the ordinance requires 40 feet and the owner developed the property and knew of the 40-foot setback requirement. He suggested possibly 40-foot rearyard setbacks is not the correct number in industrial areas. Mr. Almgren did not see any problem if the variance was granted. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution approving a Variance request for rearyard setback on Lot 1, Westview Industiral Park for Semina, Inc. (See Resolution R083-84) DISCUSSION: Councilman Elling stated he walked the property and could not see a problem with the request of a 14-foot encroachment on the setback. He didn't feel it would adversely affect the area. Mayor Windschitl felt that possibly this building will improve the area in terms of visual appearance. Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE UPDATE Mayor Windschitl reported the date from which the time schedule begins for the studies on the hazardous waste pit and landfill is August 8. The drilling for the test wells starts tomorrow. And the PCA is pleased with the new engineering firm of Conestoga-Rovers hired by the generators. MINNESOTA HOUSING AND FINANCE AGENCY LOAN PROGRAM MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council direct the City Admlnistrator to check with the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency for documents necessary to apply for eligibility for the City of Andover provided that the City would not have to give up any of its requirements or modify or alter any of its housing code or requirements in order to do so. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 11 ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT/AUTHORIZE BURN MOTION 'by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, authorizing the training of the Fire Department on the property of Alice Packard on Constance Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously. WATER FEASIBILITY REPORT/DISCUSSION Mr. Davidson put together a map outlining the service area to be used as a starting point to work out a service district for municipal water, relating it back to the estimated costs of the various pieces of trun~,watermains, and resevoir. He requested a work session be set to discuss this further. There was considerable discussion on the entire system itself, on the petition from Good Value Homes for water to their property, and on the suggestion of asking the residents in the well advisory area whether'~not they want municipal water at this time. Councilman Elling stated the service area as outlined on the map by Mr. Davidson was not acceptable to him, feeling any service area should include the Northwoods, Green Acres, and other developments within the well advisory area now. He also stated the Hazardous Waste Committee is recommending each neighborhood be brought in separately to inform them of the situation and to ask them whether or not they want municipal water installed now. The feeling of the Committee is there may be a majority in favor of municipal water now; and once the system is installed, the City could go after outside funding, grant monies, or whatever, to assist in paying for the system. There was some concern over bringing the residents in now, Councilman Lachinski asking that those meetings be held after the 120- and 180-day period is up for the studies and tests in the landfill. He felt then there may be more information to tell the residents and on which they can make their decision. Other concerns were that bringing them in now may cause residents to panic, that once a municipal water system is in, the City's chances of receiving funding for it are drastically reduced, and that to date there has been no proof of damages that would allow for any legal action or pursuit of funding. Though it was noted that lower property values documented in -the well advisory area should-be considered damages. One of the major concerns at this time is the excess money a resident would need to spend if a new well would need to be dug because of the added requirements placed within the well advisory area. How would the City justify assessing someone for municipal water if he was previously forced to pay $6,000 to $8,000 for a well because of the well advisory? Some felt a provision should be made for those people, but no specific ideas were presented on how that could be accomplished. Discussion continued on property values, the affects of the well advisory placed on that portion of the City; whether the installation of a water system will help the property values in that area, what will be learned at the end of the studies and tests at the landfill, and on how to proceed at this time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we direct the firm of TKDA to prepare all necessary documentation for future public hearing at some future date for the urban service area city water project. DISCUSSION: Mr. Davidson understood that would include all the platted subdivisions within the well advisory, put some numbers to them by subdivisions, and put it into phases according to the Council's direction. Council agreed, noting the request by Good Value Homes must also be included. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Checks numbered 8246 through 8283 in the amount of $51,467.49. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 12 DITCH NO. 57 REPAIR/REGIONAL PONDING Mayor Windschitl reported the first hearing for the repair of Ditch No. 57 through Andover is October 8, feeling the Council will end up having to answer to those residents who are angry about and oppose the project. Mayor Windschitl summarized the points to be discussed with the Coon Creek Watershed Board regarding the regional ponding concept: 1. Request a written summary of their assessment policy, ponding fees, what is benefitted acreas, how it is calcuated, regarding the fees for the regional ponds. Council also wanted to see the assessment policy being used for the cleaning of Ditch No. 57 as well. 2. Council wants to know the specific policy of the treatment of natural ponding areas in future plats -- how is it treated. Mayor Windschitl suggested the Council consider the following proposals to the Watershed Board: a. If there is a natural ponding area, Andover would allow the developers to pond water on site making the assumption it does not drain to the creek. Andover will then not assess for that pond or the acreages going into it, which is consistent with the current plan. b. The City Engineer rather than the Watershed Engineer would determine the benefits to the watershed in plats so the City would control the assessments. If Andover would have the responsibility for assessing, the City should have the determination of that assessment. c. If a developer wanted to voluntarily join the system and pay the assessment, they would be allowed to do so. d. Make a ratio determination of cost benefit, determine what is Andover's cost given the fact that Andover has the smallest amount of acreage in the Watershed and the lowest density per acre of people. 3. Assuming Andover is 50 percent developed and 50 percent undeveloped, the City would collect half of what the Watershed wants for ponding. 4. The City could use the existing storm drainage plan which has been approved by the Watershed Board, and not participate in the regi,onal ponding concept. 5. The County will be starting construction very soon of a manmade swimming area in the Regional Park at Bunker Hills. Also, the County is trying to find a way of getting water into Bunker Lake to raise the water level. Mayor Windschitl stated it would be relatively inexpensive to check the contours to, in effect, use the, lake for the creek overflow. He stated the County has asked that this possibility be pursued, to take as much water out of the creek as possible without drying it up. This could eliminate the $9 million cost for ponding as proposed by the Watershed Board; the County may be willing to participate in some of those costs; and it would save the Andover residents a consider amount for the storm drainage. Council also questioned how the boundaries for the assessment of the cleaning of Ditch No. 57 were determined and asked for a statement of benefit or some justification for the cleaning of Ditch 57 specifically through Andover. Based on Andover's approved plan, what benefit is that cleaning to the City? The City Clerk was directed to write to the Watershed Board expressing the concerns and to make the requests of the Board pri or to meeting;w:i:th the Watershed Board. Counci 1 agreed to a tentative meeting with the Watershed Board on Wednesday, August 29, 1984. Regular City Council Meeting August 21, 1984 - Minutes Page 13 ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT/SAND FILTER MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve a sand filter for the Fire Department for $2,400. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:34 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~~ Marce a A. Peach Recordin Secretary