Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 18, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Final Plat/Cunningham Addition b. Final Plat/Howard-Tempel Addition c. Special Use Permit/J. Thomsen d. Rezoning/South Coon Creek Drive e. Neck Lot Provisions f. Junkyard Licenses/Renewals g. Water~ServicetMinnesota Recycling h. Public Works Building i. Utility Budget j. Feasibility Study/Cedar River Hills 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Utility Rate Resolution b. Retailers - License Renewals c. Meeting Date/Ham Lake Council d. First Meeting/January/Date e. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: COPIES TO: ATTORNEY FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - DECEMBER 18 MEETING Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 6a - Engineer/End Loader Specification Approval. Item No. 4a - Final Plat/Cunninqham Addition Attached is the Final Plat of Cunningham Addition. The City Attorney has the abstract and should have his Opinion ready by the Meeting. Park Dedication fees of $4,400 are still to be paid. The property was purchased Tax Forfeit from the County; therefore, we should receive payment for those assessments levied in 1977 , however, if we do not receive the full amount due, a notation should be made in the resolution to indicate these charges will be levied against the property at some later date. The escrow deposit appears to be sufficient to cover legal and engineering fees. Item No. 4b - Final Plat/Howard-Tempel Addition Enclosed is the Final Plat of Howard-Tempel Addition. Deposits have been made for the improvement fees. The abstract is with the City: Attorney; his Opinion should be available on Tuesday for the meeting. Park dedication fee in the amount of $900.00 is due. Escrow deposits have been made for engineering and legal fees. A resolution will be prepared for approval. Item No. 4c - Special Use Permit/J. Thomsen Enclosed is the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the request. They are indicating that if some areas of the floodplain are not filled, the maximum units he could have would be 12, based on the attorney's position on the ordinance definition. Total area is being calculated to not include the pond and the floodplain. Item No. 4d - Rezoning/South Coon Creek Drive Enclosed is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the rezoning. This matter was discussed at two different meeting; all affected residents were notified personnally, however, out of the 22, only 6 appeared at the rezoning. Agenda Comments December 18, 1984 Meeting Page 2 Item NO. 4d - South Coon Creek Drive Rezoninq (continued) The Commission did inform those affected residents present that should the City change their policy to indicate the installation of lift stations would be included as an option, the area could easily be rezoned back to R-4. Item NO. 4e - Neck Lot Provisions Enclosed is a motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending that no changes be made in the ordinance. It is their feeling that existing ordinances sufficiently cover the matter. Item No. 4f - Junkyard License Renewals Renewal notices were sent to the operators the first week of December, however, to-date we have not received any responses. A complete report will be furnished you for the meeting. Item No. 4g - Water Service/Minnesota Recycling Mrs. Heidelberger has advised me that they do wish to pursue a water connection to the well serving the residential structure on the adjoining property. They will continue to use a self-contained unit for sewage for the construction/office trailer. Item No. 4h - Public Works Buildinq Proposals have been received from four (4) pole building contractors for the construction of a building to house public works vehicles/ equipment. Funding for this item would come from the unused "seal- coating" funds. A motion should be made to contract with , at a proposed cost of $ , with funding to be from the 1984 surplus funding under Code No. 43100-531. Even though the building will not be completed until mid-January, the monies from 1984 will be secured. The electrical work will be paid will unallocated 1985 funds. Item No. i-Utility Budget Enclosed please find the proposed 1985 Utility Budget. The only major change is that under "Sewer Fund B" Revenues for customer service. The recommended increase of 25% would be required if no additional cuts are made in expenditures. Item No. 4j - Feasibility Study/Cedar River Hills Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Engineer covering the Cedar River Hills proposed street improvement. The majority of streets in the area are blacktopped; and if this area is ordered, there would be just a couple gravel roads still remaining. It is suggested that the "unpetitioned" area be included in the public hearing. A resolution will be prepared accepting the feasibility report. Agenda Comments December 18, 1984 Meeting Page 3 Item No. Sa - Utility Rate Resolution Enclosed are two resolutions covering the utility rates for 1985. The figures are adjusted according to the ENR and city policies establishing the basis for increases, etc. You will note the ENR actually would show a decrease in connection charges and water rates, however the City Engineer is recommending they remain constant with 1984. Sewer Fund "B" rate is increased based on proposed budget figures. Item No. 5b - Retailers/License Renewals Applications/fees/insurance/bonds have been received from the following: Bill's Superette: Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Cigarette Downtown Deli: Cigarette G-Will's Liquors: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Cigarette JJ'S Liquors: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Cigarette Speedy Market: Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Cigarette T~m Thumb: Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Cigarette A motion is needed to approve the above. Item No. 5c - Meetinq Date/Ham Lake City Council The Ham Lake City Council is interested in meeting with the Andover City Council to discuss joint MSA projects and other matte~that affect both communities. They meet on Monday nights for their regular meeting, so any other time would be appropriate. Item No. 5d - Meetinq Date/January Meetinq The first regular meeting in January will have to be rescheduled due to New Year's Day being ,a holiday. It is recommended that this be moved to January 3 to allow time to get year-end checks prepared. I have spoken to the Auditor and he has informed me that inasmuch as their is no Council change, the December 31 claims can be approved at the first meeting in January. Item No. 6a - Loader Specifications The City Engineer will have a report for you on this. Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MtETING - DECEMBER 18, 1984 r~I NUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on December 18, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski (arrived at 7:35), Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawklns; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Loning Chairman, Don Spotts; City Clerk/A. Adminlstrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL It was suggested the following items be added to the published Agenda: 4k, Coon Creek watershed - Viewers Report; 41, Local Government Aids - Ramsey Attorney Fees; 6a, End Loader Specîfications;-,6b, Special Meetlng wîth City Attorney; and 6c, Public Works Employee. MOTION by El ling, Seconded by Orttel, that we accept the Agenda as amended. Motion carrled on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Lachinski) vote. FINAL PLAT/CUNNINGHAM ADDITION Ms. Linðquìst noted according to the County, the City will collect the assessments; but they haven't been receiveJ yet. There should have been enough money in the settlement to cover the assessments. Attorney Hawkins advised the City can levy up to the amount of the unpaid balance of the original assessments by going through a reassessment hearing. He also advised there are some title matters that have to be taken care of. tlecause it is tax forfeit property, the ~tate wlll not give the deed until the Council approves the plat. Approval should be contingent upon them SupplYlng him with copies of the documents to affect title to the individual signing as fee owner of the plat. MOTIUN by El ling, Seconded by Orttel, introducing a Resolution approving the Flnal Plat of Cunningham Addition as presented, addlng the contingency that the city Attorney be provided with proper documents for title approval under Sectlon 3. ($ee Resolution R13l-84) Mr. DeGardner - asked lf the plat could be signed and show that the park dedication has been pald Sd they can get the financing at the bank and the title from the State. Mayor Windschitl stated as soon as the proper documents are received, he and the Clerk will sign the plat. No further Council action is needed. Motion carried unanimously. FINAL PLAT/HOWARD-TEMPLE ADDITION MOTION by Knlght, Seconded by Elllng, a Resolutlon approving the Final Plat for the Howard-Temple Addltion as prepared. (See Resolution R132-84) DISCUSSION: noted a plan of the townhouses was attached to the special use permlt prevlously approved, and the Englneer felt the proposed townhouse wuuld fit on Lots 5 and 6. Motion carrled unanimously. ~PECIAL U$E PERMIT /J. THOMSEN Chairman Spotts reviewed the planning Commission discussion and recommendation for 26 townhouse units on approximately 6.6 acres located at l44th Avenue and Kound Lake tloulevard. He disagreed with the Commission Secretary's calculation of 1.47 acres remalning after the area below the 870flood plain is elimlnated from the total area, as he estimated it would be abOut 2.5 acres remainlng. Mr. Scnrantz stated he too arrived at approximately 2.5 acres remaining. Regular City Counci I Meeting December 18, 19~4 - Minutes Page 2 (Special Use Permlt/J. Thomsen, Continued) Chairman Spotts stated the Commission felt the developer had the option of fllllng the lOW areas below the flood plaln to buildable standards to increase the buildable acreage. USlng the Comprehensive Plan, they arrived at 5 to 8 units per acre in the UrDan ~ervice Area with 3,50U square feet per lot area. Council pointed out the ordinance require- ment must be followed, not the guidellnes of the Comprehensive Plan. John Thomsen - stated the proµosal is for a tri-Ievel townhouse with 904 square feet of flnished floor space, 4~0 square feet of expansion and 4qO-square TOOt garage. Those blueprints were presented at the last meeting, Dut he also showed the Cbunci I a copy of those plans again. Discusslon was on the possibi lity and extent of filling above the H70 flood plain line and on the effects of alterlng the pond. Mr. Thomsen - stated the last time he talKed with the DNR, they were not concerned wlth the area or the pond because the pond was excavated. Their only concern was that Mr. Hulegard birm between the pond and the lake at the time the pond was excavated so water wouldn't run directly into the laKe. The last time he talked with the DNR was at the time the sewer went in about three years ago. Wayne walbert' 14349 Vlntage - asked if that is in writing, as he felt that wasn't right. Mr. homsen - explained it is on record wlth AnoKa County and was part of their settlement with the County. Mr. Shepperd - stated his property joins this, and he was concerned how or if" his property would be affected if Mr. Thomsen does some fllling. Mr. Thomsen - stated he didn't think they would De doing any filling. Mr. Shepperd - stated he wants to know for sure. Mr. Walberg - again stated somethlng isn't rlght. Then both he and Mr. Shepperd noted the water has risen in that area since the storm sewer was put in. ThlS year they weren't even able to mow down there. Ken (?) - asked what happens to the water in the pond when it fills up. His concern was that the surrounding property would be flooded if filling or pond alteration took place. He asked if the counci I checked into this matter at all. Mr. Thomsen - stated that is all a matter of record ln their settlement with the County. ¡he County clalms the birm is the spillover to the lake rather than to go back and floOd everyone out. The pond was not acquired, though that is what he wanted the County to do. The drainage easement is exactly as it appears on the drawing. Council felt that was very unusual, wondering if the County isn't arguing that pond is public waters. Normally a defined easement cannot be filled or interrupted. Mr. Thomsen - stated he spoke with Mr. Redepennlng at the County last week. He was reassured that the County agrees the proposed development does not adversely affect the drainage, that they will support the development and the density level as long as there isn't an exit within jOO Teet of an intersection, that he can alter the con- figuration of the pond, that he can use the drainage easement as a driveway thoogþ'-a structure cannot De built on it, and that they can alter the easement to fit the plan as long as it doesn't adversely affect the flow of the water. Mr. Thomsen stated as of last week, the County stated they had not received a letter from the City of Andover requestlng this informatlon. Ken (?J - asked if alterlng the configuration of the pond also includes changing the hol ing capacity. If so, it maKes the drainage pond totally worthless. Regular City Councll Meetlng uecember 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Special Use Permit/J. Thomsen, Continued) Mike Vagle, designer of the development - stated the pond and drainage easement is totally irrelevant to tnis Decause they are not changing the configuration or the pond nor the drainage easement. The point lS on the Plannlng Lommission recommendatlon to not al low the land below the 100-year floOd plain to be considered part or the lot squ are footage. He stated in all other situatlons throughout the City, those areas are included as part of the total lot square footage. But the P & Z is excludlng that area ln tneir plat to determine the number of units on thlS property. Tney are not intending to go Delow the lOu-year flood plain; they are not requesting to do so; they are not requesting to change the configuration of the pond. Tney are trYlng to determine tne amount or square footage that they are going to be able to work wlth. That in turn wlll determlne the numDer of units they woulo be allowed. Council argued a certaln portion of each lot is required to De buildable, but in plats there may often be areas that are excluded because they just are not developable. And in tnose cases it is not uncommon for some of the lots to ce ldrger in size to absorD that unDuiJdable land. Mr. Vagle - stated they are also doing the same thing. using tne 3500-square-foot area per lot divided into all the property, they would arrive at an astronomical number of units wnicn they are not even considering. Attorney Hawklns advised Ordinance 8, Sectlon 4.19 deals directly' II townhouses, and tnat provides tnat units have at at lejst 4,000 square feet of lot area. He also stated tne ordinance'outlines the proce ure for al)owlng townhouses under a planned unit development, and ne believes it allows the Lounci I some flexibi lity in order to sign the plat so that it meets the standards the Clty feels is important. 4,000 square feet per lot area is only a minimum standard. Councilman Elllng noted tnat comes to 24 units. Councilman Orttel stated divlding tne buildable acreage by single family home lots comes to 10 lots. Mr. Schrantz stated in preparing his November 20 memo to the Council on various calculations of density, he was making his interpretation of Ordinance 8, Section 4.20, zoning density,where the number of units permitted is not greater than permitted by the application of the regular provision of the District. The problem is the ordinance does not give what density to use. The Mayor clarified Mr. Schrantz's calculations are, based on a density no greater than the present zoning of single family, and that comes to 8 units. The biggest fear of the residents is that there will be a large number of units pushed into a relatively small area which creates problems as far as their valuations. He felt this is a legitimate argument. Attorney Hawkins didn't think Section 4.20 was applicable in this instance because it deals with single family homes. He again stated Section 4.19 specifically deals with townhouse densiæy zoning; and using that section the Council can come up with a reasonable amount. The Councll must decide on whether or not there are characteristics unique to the property such that there would be requirements more stringent than the 4,000 SF/lot elther per lot or shared in common. Councilman Orttel noted the ordinance states in an M-l zone, a two-or-more family unit would require 6,000 SF/unit. Uiscussion was then on the concern by some of the Council on the square footage of each townhouse. Mr. Thomsen - stated it is 904 square feet of liveable area finished on two levels. Ihe third level has 480 square feet which is unfinished. Dave Almgren, Building Inspector, stated when the square footage of the dwelling unit is determined as is done for any other home, the ground coverage is 804 square feet. The garage shown is 420 square feet. He interprets the ordinance to mean they must have 960 SF of ground coverage and 440 SF for a garage. Mr. Vagle - stated they have agreed to add on to the garage to meet the 440 SF requirement. Regular City Council Meeting December 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Special Use Permit/J. Thomsen, Continued) Mr. Walberg - asked if the traffic problem has been addressed. Council noted approval would have to be contingent upon Anoka County approval of the traffic situation. ~ichard Bombard, 3608 144th Avenue NW - understood there will be private roads through the development. He lS concerned about snow removal. Also, he felt that all the traffic from the development would be going in and out on 144th as the main entrance rather than directly onto County Road g because it is so difficult to get onto C~9. There is alreadY a lot of traffic on l44th and 143rd, which are the only entrances/ exits for their development. He was concerned with the greater density of automobiles that would then use that road. Mayor Windschitl acknowledged the traffic problem in that area is a dilemma. Mr. Vagle - stated the way it is designed, half of the traffic would go through 144th and the other half would go out Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Walberg - stated in either event, it is extremely treacherous getting onto CR9. Discussion returned to the square footage of the units. Mr. Vagle - stated according to the interpretation of the Attorney, this falls under three or more units which requires a minimum of 750 square teet/unit and a 440-square-toot garage. He stated they have no problem complying with that garage size, and the unit meets that minimum. Attorney Hawkins stated his interpretation of the dwelling unit size for townhouses in the R-4 district is from Ordinance 8, Section 2.03. He advised the Planning Commission if they felt that is insufficient they should change the ordinance. Mayor Windschitl stated that matter has already been referred to the Planning Commission. There was a brief discussion by the Council on the ordinance requirements and the various interpretations of them. Mr. Va1le - stated they are dealing with a piece of low land which is virtually unusab e for single family residents because of the land layout and titting into that particular corner. The type of unit proposed is the most and best use of the land. Mayor Windschitl stated most people understand the problem and are not totally opposed to the townhouse concept. The opposition is to that which is lower in value and which will depreciate their property and that it is so dense there are a lot of people and tratfic in a small area. Mr. Vagle - explained the vacant land may actually be a depressant on surrounding property values whereas any addition of several hundred thousand dollars of development on that property adds to the valuation of the area and to the houses next door. Counci lman Ell i ng fe It that It shou ld be a reasonable use of the property, and "most" is not necessarily better. Councllman Knight stated they are dealing with speculative property, and he didn't teel the nelghbors'should have to absorb that risk. Mr. Bombard - stated they don't have any guarantee that these people are gOlng to keep up that property. There are many children in the neighborhood already, and they see the effects of vandalism, etc. He is concerned about adding more. He asked who makes up the difference if their property values do indeed go down. He stated no one will, and that is why they want to make sure these things dO not happen. Mr. Walberg - stated they were here when the 64 units were originally proposed for thlS property and were told that would be good tor the neighborhood. Now the proposal lS for 26 units of affordable housing and they are also being told that will be good for the neighborhood. He asked just what is going to happen on the property. Ken (?) - stated Mr. Thomsen has ten acres across the road. If 25 or 3U units are allowed on this four acres, does that set a precedent for allowing multiples on that ten acres as well! Is there a potentlal for that kind Of development to occur? And is that type of development compatible with the community! He also asked the Council Regular Clty counci I Meeting December 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Special Use Permlt/J. Thomsen, Continued) to address the issue of drainage. With South Coon Creek Orive being surfaced this spring, additional drainage will be put into this area. If the developer is allowed to alter the pond, his concern is that it is conceivable that a number of people could end up in a swamp. Mr. Thomsen - stated part of their settlement with the County was that any drainage other than directly along side the road would go to the ditch on the other side. According to the County, the water from the other side ot Round Lake Boulevard supposedly goes toward the Creek. Mayor Windschitl stated the general rule is the natural drainage flow of acquired easements cannot be interrupted. He doubted the County woUld allow any significant interruptions of that water flow. The pond and the overflow to the land is another question as to what is taking place with that. Those items would be addressed when the plat would come in, assuming the special use permit is approved. Council and Attorney discussed the request further, again noting the density and square tootage questions, the effect on the surrounding area, the traftic problem, the lack of specific guidance in the ordinances tor townhouse development in the City, and the criteria to be addressed tor granting a special use permit under Ordlnance 8, Section 5.03B. Several Councilmen felt it would be possible to develop the property into single family. Mayor Windschitl felt a good argument could be made tor the tact that it is surrounded by existing single family residences. Attorney Hawkins advised the Council is to take action on the request for 26 units unless Mr. Ihomsen wants to change his application. He has the right to have the Council act on that request and not to have the Council change or revise it. MUTIUN by Knlght, Seconded by Lachinski, that we not approve the Speclal Use Permit as requested by John Thomsen for 26 units on property located at 144th Avenue and Round Lake Boulevard tor the tollowing reasons: 1) The proposal is not compatible with the surrounding property, as the proposed use is substantially higher than the present R-4 classification and density of the surrounding neighborhood; 2) 26 possible units entering on two possible entry points with an already existing tratfic problem creates a potential for further traffic problems on Round Lake Boulevard; and 3) There is a potentially detrimental effect of existing surrounding property values. (See Resolution R133-84) DISCUSSION: Councilman Elling asked Mr. Thomsen if he would be willing to reduce the number of units requested for the property at this time. Mr. Thomsen - stated he indicated to the Planning Commission he would not like to but would accept a reduction to 19 units rather than argue the matter legally. Any less than that wOUld mean quite a financial loss tor him. With 19 units, he would eliminate the row of homes on Round Lake Boulevard, the center units; the two ends of the development would remain as shown. Mr. Walberg - was under the impression 12 would be acceptable for the neighborhood. He dldn't understand Mr. Thomsen taking a financial loss. He asked what about their loss. They didn't speculate; they bought their homes. Mr. Thomsen - stated they are in a borderline situation, feeling he has a right to develop the land to its highest and best use. He stated he has worked with the existing ordinances. He was encouraged by the City staff to wait until utilities were available, as multiple units could not be developed with private water systems. They waited, and they are now at the point of having to do something. He felt hlS civil rights are now being violated with regard to this property. He stated he has to know what the City will accept with regard to this property; otherwise, he will have to seek other remedies. He has spent a considerable amount ot time meeting with staff, the Planning Commission, and the Council on this, plus he has already run up an engineering fee of $23,000 on the property. He stated he wants a member ot his own family to live in one of these units and will not put in a dump. He will put ln private areas. Mr. Thomsen stated they want to cooperate, but the city is backing him into a corner. Regular Clty Council Meeting December 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Special Use Permit/J. Thomsen, Continued) Councilman urttel acknowledged this particular parcel has been talked about for a number of years in the context of townhouse development, though no specifics were ever discussed. Councilman Lachinski hoped Mr. Thomsen woUld change his concept, to make the townhouses more exclusive since they will be living on the lake, with fewer, larger unlts on the property. That would also turn' around his profit situation. And the Council is looking for something WhlCh would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Thomsen - stated addlng 100 square feet to the building would not adversely change the number of units, and he stated that concept could be worked out. Twelve units is not favorable to him. Motion carried unanimously. There was further discuSSlon with Mr. Thomsen and Mr. Vagle. The developers argued they were following and even exceed the ordlnances as they exist. They asked for gUldance. There were several suggestions from the Council, generally that from 12 to lb unlts would be acceptable on the property and that the minimum square footage of each unit meet the requirements Of all other surrounding dwellings, that belng 960 square feet of ground coverage wlth 440 square feet of garage. A suggestion was also to spread the unlts nicely on the property and to provide screening from the existing residents such as two or three rows of pine trees. Councll also wanted Anoka County to agree with the site layout as it relates to the dralnage easement and pond and to agree with the entrance onto Round Lake Boulevard. Recess at 9:24; reconvene at 9:39 p.m. REZONING/SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE Chairman Spotts revlewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone a portion along South Coon Creek Drive from R-4 to R-l. Mr. Spadqenske - stated he is in favor of the rezoning. Council discussion was on redefinlng the western boundary to clarify it. It was agreed the western boundary will be the 40 line just east of the ditch. A H of "the property being rezoned will remain in Section 28. MUTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elllng, that we direct the City Clerk to prepare Ordlnance 8AA reflecting a rezoning Of those properties in the South Coon Creek Drive area as shown on the reference map used at tonight's meetlng ad adjusted, all in Section 28. Motion carried unanimously. JUNKYARD LICENSES/RENEWALS MOTION by Urttel, Seconded by Elling, that we approve renewal licenses for Anoka Auto Wrecking, 1775 Bunker Lake Boulevard and Bob's Auto Parts on 1950 Bunker Lake Boulevard, with the legal descriptions to be included on the licenses. Motlon carried unanimous ly. WATER SERVICE/GREATER MINNESOTA RECYCLING The Clerk reported she has not received an applicatlon for the renewal of the junkyard license for Greater Minnesota Recycling (formerly Schriptek). Robert Sayers, ManaÄer - questloned whether a junkyard license is needed because of thelr llcense wlth noka County, and their business is not junk but the manufacture of fuel. Attorney Hawkins stated accordlng to the City's ordinance, they are storing used parts, scrap tires, etc., and a junkyard license is needed. Regular City Councll Meeting uecember 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Water Service/Greater Minnesota Recycling, Contlnued) Mr. Sayers - stated they are asklng for permission to connect to an existing adjacent well (that of Marian Heidelberger) to serve their construction trailer for making coffee, etc. They do not intend to use it for toilet facilities, as they have a satellite for that. This is a temporary office traller. The drainage would be handled by a five-gallon bucket under the sink and emptied into the sate11ites. Councilman Orttel stated he has learned that in the State of Minnesota, the Code allows more than one home on a private well. Building Inspector Uave Almgren stated some means of disposal is required. Also, the City has never allowed water and sewer hookup on existing systems for construction trailers. Cecil Heidelberger - stated the well lS large enough to take care of three homes. It lS an outside well and is a 200-foot deep drilled well. It is not one of the wells that was advised not to drink out of. He asked why there are restrictions on his operation where there are none for any of the other junkyard businesses. Council noted the restrictions are conditions of the special use permit; and Schriptek had agreed the special use permit would expire once the tires on site have all been removed. At that point the operators of the business could reapply for the special use permit and some future Council would act on it. Council then dicussed the hours of operation and ratio of Old to new waste tires. Council agreed to a ¿ to I ratio to run wlth the special use permit renewal date. The Clerk also reported there have been no complaints about the second shift operating on site. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, an amendment to the Special Use Permit lssued to 205~ Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, Andover, MN, Minnesota Recycling, Inc., to change the ratio of old to new waste tires to a ratio of ¿ to 1 and to change the operating hours to 12 midnight, Monday through Frlday, both until June 30, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion returned to the request for temporary water hookup to the office trailer. Mr. Heidelberger - stated they anticipate putting up a permanent building this summer. They want water now for the convenience of their secretary. He suggested they could lnstall a holding tank Off the bathroom and have it pumped at the same time the satellites are pumped, which is every Tuesday. Mr. Almgren stated if a holding tank is used, a permit should be granted. He felt a holding tank would be more advisable than on-site sewage in this instance. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Ortte1, that we grant the request for temporary water connection for Greater Minnesota Recycling and stipulate that the trailer use be connected to a holding tank to continue through June 30, 1985; that a permit be required for the holding tank. DISCUSSION: Mr. Almgren stated the former office which had burned still has not been removed from the premises. Mr. Heldelberger - stated his attorney has advised him not to do anything with it. He stated it is being used for storage rlght now. Mrs. Heidelberger - stated if it is 50 percent or less of the value of the building to remodel or rebUl Id it, then lt would come under the grandfather clause and they do not have to remove it from the property. The Clerk noted the provisions call for the structure to be rebuilt within 12 months if it is damaged under bO percent of the fair market value. If it is over 50 percent, it must be removed. The Council asked for a report on the condition of the builDing from Mr. Almgren, addressing it accorDing to the provisions of the ordinances. Councilman tlling asked if Greater Mlnnesota Recycling has made any arrangements with the EPA or pCA for the removal of any hazardous waste material found on slte. Mr. Heldelberger stateD they have not, but that is belng taken care of by the generators. Regular ~ity Council Meetlng uecember 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (Water Service/breater Minnesota Recycling, Continued) Mr. Heiaelberger continued, everything"has been tested and fenced. The procedure when new materlal lS founa is up to Pace Laboratories oftlue PCA. Mayor Windschitl stated he has been tola some agreement has been reached to have the barrels removed trom the site. Motlon carried unanimously. Mrs. Heldelber~er - understood the City's special use permit has a stipulation in it about ~ecl I Heldelberger not being involved in the operation. She asked it that is true; and if so, can that be changecl. Mr. Sayers - stated Mr. Heiclelberger is the presldent ot Greater MlnnesOta Recycling. He owns 25 percent of tne corporation, and Mr. and Mrs. Heidelberger own 75 percent of the stock. As the board of directors, each one has one vote. MOTION by Orttel, Secondecl by Lacninski, that we amend the Special Use Permit for Minnesota Recycling, Inc., at 2050\ Bunker Lake Boulevard NW to remove the exclusion of Cecil Heidelberger from the operatlon and ownership of tne operation until June 30, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. NtCK LOT ~ROvISIONS Mayor winclschitl noted the ~lanning Commission's recommendation not to make a change regarding neck lots in the City. He felt some of the ,,council's concerns were not addressed at the Commission meeting. He reviewed the ~ouncil's actlon regarding the lntent to allow a variance for lot wiclth on a neck lot off Round Lake Boulevard owned by D. Carson. He felt the Councll's action was inapproprlate and opened up the way for any other number of similiar neck lots situations in the City, noting a similiar request is bet ore the staff right now. He askecltor ~ounci I direction as to how the staff should handle such requests. There was a very lengthy discussion by the Councll on the situation. Mayor Windschitl and Councilman urttel opposea the allowance of the ~arson varlance arguing it is not a hardship of the land to allow such a variance, it sets a precedent for allowing other neck lots in the City, and owners were maae to construct roads to such lots in the past. Others argued for the Carson variance feeling it was a very unique situation, that tne swamp in the southwest area of the lot and easement prohibited the constructlon of a roaa which lS a harash1p ot the land, that there would be no other reasonable access to the lot, and that good Clty planning WOUld inclicate a road is not wanted in that locatl on. Discussion was on the pros and cons of allowing neck lots in tne Clty, how such lots could theoretlcally be created in the City if the ordinance is subvertea, and what that does to the overall development planning of the City. It was tinally agreed that neck Jots created to subvert the ordinance are not al lowed in the City, and that, according to the provisions ot the ordinance, variances for such lots would only be basecl upon the hardship of the land as has always been done. ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Acting tire Chlef Bob Palmer noted the fire call on Herman's last week and stated they received a great deal of cooperation through mutual aid. He also reported they have just received a check from the railroad company tor fire calls along the tracks. He asked that those funds be carried over. Council had no problem carrying the funds over to 1985. Regular City Council Meeting December 18, 1984 - Minutes Page g SPECIAL MEETING WITH CITy ATTORNEY/SONSTEBY LAWSUIT Mayor Windschitl called a special closed meeting with the City Attorney to discuss a lawsuit brought against the City by Rosella Sonsteby. 11:24. Council returnea to the Regular Agenda at 11:35 p.m. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID - RAMSEy ATTORNEY FEES Council reviewed the Motion made to assist Ramsey in thejr lawsuit for increased State Aias, and it was generally felt the amount being considered at that time was between $5,000 and $10,000. There was a feeling by some that the work done for the lawsuit was not directly responsible for the Legislative bill to increase State Aids for the Cities of Ramsey and Andover. It was also expressed that the City does not necessarily have an obligation to pay for something it didn't have any control over, as all expenses were incurred without Andover being involved nor being kept informed of the progress and expenses. Though it was felt Andover should support Ramsey's effort to the extent it was originally thought. MOTION by Drttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council authorize payment in the amount of $7500 to the City of Ramsey for legal and consultant expenses incurred in the legal action against the State of Minnesota to increase State Aids. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Council reviewed the December 14, 1984, memo from the City Engineer regarding the quotes for the Public Works cold storage building, 36x80x14 feet. Council felt the quotes for the electrical work was very high. The Engineer was also asked to have an overhang on the building for asthetics. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize the City Engineer to spend up to $14,900 for a cold storage building for the Public Works Department, with such contract to the company who is the lowest responsible bidder on a quotation basis, ana note that the bui Iding shall have one-foot eave and gable overhangs 111 the way around. DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins advised if there is a change in the specs, all parties should be given a chance to bid on the change. Councilmen Elling and Orttel WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachjnski, SeconDed by Orttel, that we award the bid for the cold storage bUllding to Great Plains for $13,932 provided they include at no extra cost a one-foot overhang all the way around the building. Motion carried unanimously. (Council felt if Great plalns would not include the one-foot overhang for the price bid, then the Engineer shoula contact the other biaders and bring it back to the Council for further action.) END LOADER SPECIFICATIONS Council aiscussed the buy-back option, wonderlng lf such an option inflates the prlce of the unit. The Engineeer was airected to bid the end loader both with and without the buy-back option. FEASIBILITY STUDY/CEDAR RIVER HILLS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we accept the feasibi lity report on Cedar River Hills estates Second Adaitlon for street improvement Project No. 85-1 and set the public hearing for the project to the Second Regularly Scheduled Meeting in February, 1985, 8 o'clock. (See Resolution R134-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting December 18, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 APPROVAL uF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to approve Checks 8787 through 8835 for a sum of $186,U40.84. Motion carried unanimously. RETAILERS - LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, approve Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License and Cigarette License for Bill's Superette; Cigarette License tor uowntown Deli; Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, Otf-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License, and Cigarette License for G-Will's Liquors; Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Cigarette Licenses for JJ's Liquors; Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License and Cigarette License for Speedy Market; and Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License and Cigarette License for Tom Thumb; for the year 1985. Motion carried unanimously. SENIOR CI I IZtNS COMMITEE / THANK YOU Mayor Windschitl read a Thank You card from the Senior Citziens Commitee thanking the Council for the Center and for funds used for the Senior Citizens Center. FIRST MEETING/JANUARY/DATE MOTIUN by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we set our first meeting in January for January 3, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MEETING DATE/HAM LAKE COUNCIL MOTION by Urttel, Seconded by Knight, that we attempt to set the joint meeting with the Ham' Lake officials for January 10, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. UTILITY RATE RESOLUTION Council briefly discussed the Engineer's recommendation for the 1985 utility rates. Because of the late hour, it was agreed to act on the Resolution at the first meeting in January. PUBLIC WuRKS EMPLOyEE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we hire Wayne Patchen tor Public works employee at a salary not to exceed $14,000 per year, Public Works III at $6.73 per hour. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ';\ c^,:,~~ ~:'¿l<L Marce la A. Peach Recordi g Secretary