Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC June 5, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 5, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Board of Review/Continuation 5. Public Hearing - IP84-6 (South Coon Creek Drive-West) 6 . Discussion Items a. Variance/M.R. Olson b. Rezoning/D. King c. Andover Shopping Center/Progress Report d. Revocation of Junkyard License/Mom's Salvage e. Final Plans/MSA-157th Avenue NW f. Shirley's Addition/Park Access g. h. 7. Non-Discussion Items a. July 3 Regular Meeting Change b. Franchise Ordinance-North Central c. Ordinance 8 Amendment-Sale & Storage/Used Auto Parts d. Acceptance of Senior Citizen Center e. Fees/Vacations f. 8. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Community Schools - M. DeLuca b. 9. Approval of Minutes 10. Approval of Claims 11 . Adjournment CITY 01 ANDOVER MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, STAFF //ì FROM: CITY CLERK/A. DATE: MAY 31, 1984 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - JUNE 5, 1984 REGULAR MEETING Item No. 3 - Aqenda Approval Please add Item No. 6f (Shirley's Addition-Park Access) ; this was not on the published agenda. Item No. 4 - Board of Review (continuation) Anoka County Assessor's Office was going to review their sales/ratios on houses sold in the area affected by the landfill; and those houses sold along the Rum River after the enactment of the Scenic River Ordinance. This has been done and a report will be presented at the meeting, thereby enabling the Council to make any adjustments if determined it is necessary. Item NO. 5 - Public Hearinq/South Coon Creek Drive West Notices have been sent to all affected property owners and published as required. You have received the feasibility reports on the proposed sewer and water. A resolution will be prepared accepting the feasibility reports and ordering/ærminating all or part of the proposed improvements. Item No. 6a - Variance/M.R. Olson Mr. Olson is requesting a variance of .56 acre, which, if granted, would make his parcel a full 10 acres, thereby allowing him to divide it into two separate 5 acre parcels. The property is in the General Industrial area abutting the Heidelberger property on the east and Sontere property on the west. A large portion of the land is low; as a result he does not feel it to be feasibile to plat it into smaller commercial lots. The property presently contains three separate parcels, however, one is landlocked; therefore, a contingency of the approval would have to be that all parcels are combined to make one single parcel. Inasmuch as the division would then be for two five-acre lots, it would be done strictly through Anoka County. Item No. 6b - Rezoning/D.King Mr. King is requesting a rezoning from Neighborhood Business to General Business to allow him to construct a small full-serve car-wash on the property. The property contains approximately 2 acres and is located between the Medical Building and Carlson property on Bunker Lake Blvd. Agenda Comments June 5 Meeting Page 2 Item No. 6b - Rezoning/D.Ring (continued) The P&Z has held a public hearing; approximately 7 property owners from the Chapman's Addition objected to the rezoning, primarily because of the type of business going into it, i.e. , car wash. In reviewing the ordinances, it would appear that the residents were not completely aware of the kinds of businesses able to go into a Neighborhood Business area without the benefit of a Special Use Permit; in particular, a restaurant serving N.I. Malt Liquor, laundromat, both of which are heavy traffic carriers. The car-wash'proposed is to be fully automatic which requires attendants at all times. It is an allowable use in a General Business District under Automobile Service definition. Because of the nature of the proposed use and the area required,for driveways, setbacks, green space, etc. it would not appear that another business could be placed on this lot if the proposed use for a car wash proceeded. p&Z recommendation for denial is attached. Item No. 6c - Andover Shoppinq Center Progress Report Representatives from Boisclair Corporation will be present to cover with the Council their plans and time frames. Item No. 6d - Revocation of Junkyard License (MOm's Salvaqe) Attached is a letter sent to Mrs. Heidelberger last week. As of today, part of the fence is still down in front; it appears a portion of it has been put up. The County has again checked the materials dumped at the site and has reported that no new materials have come in during the past week. If the fence is not replaced by the meeting, action should be taken to revoke the license. Item No. 6e - FPS/MSA 157th Avenue B.R.A., Inc. will be presenting the Final Plans and Specifications for bituminous improvement of 157th Avenue. A resolution is attached along with a memo from the City Engineer. Item No. 6f - Shirley's Addition/Park Access Approval is being requested to extend the culvert to allow for a 32' entrance to the park. The City Engineer is preparing a memo on this. Item No. 7a - July 3 Reqular Meeting Chanqe July 4th will fall on Wednesday this year, therefore, some Councilmembers will be taking vacation on Monday and Tuesday of that week, or leaving for out-of-town on Tuesday evening. Our By-Laws require that meeting to be the day following a holiday if the holiday falls on a meeting date; in this case, however, neither is the case, so it would be optional when and if the Council will hold this first meeting in July. Item No. 7b - Franchise Ordinance/North Central This item has been tabled to allow the Council and City Engineer time to review the proposed ordinance. A motion is needed for action and direction to refer to North Central for execution. Agenda Comments June 5, 1985 Meeting Page 3 Item No. 7c - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment/Sale & Storaqe of Used Auto Parts This item is continued from a previous meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the enclosed ordinance to allow for the sale and storage of used auto parts within a building with no outside storage. Item No. 7d - Acceptance of Senior Citizen Center A motion is needed to accept the Senior Citizen Center and authorize final payment in the amount of $2,073.22 to Marcus Construction. The minor items that need fixing are covered under warranty from the manufacturer. Item No. 7e - Fees/Street Vacations It has been found that the City costs on a street/easement vacation request are very high. These costs involve mailings, legal fees, administrative costs, etc. As a result, it is recommended that we establish a fee of $150.00 for all vacation petition requests received. Item No. 8 - Community Schools Ms. DeLuca will be here to cover this item. Item No. 9 - Approval of Minutes February 21, March 6, 22, 28, April 7, 17, May 1, 15, 17. Attachments ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE ~, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on June 5, 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 Chairman, Don Spotts; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Windschitl suggested the following additionsitothe published Agenda: 6f, Shirley's Addition/Park Access; 6g, Plans and Specifications/Kadlec Addition; and 6h, Hugh's Industrial Park/Award Bids. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept the Agenda as amended. Motion carr1ed unanimously. BOARD OF REVIEW/CONTINUATION County Assessor Bob Weisbrich reviewed the three outstanding items from the Board of Review. First he reviewed the question of whether there is any reflection in value on the fact that the DNR is strictly enforcing the rulings on the use of the river. He has found only one sale that has occurred on the river within the last two years which was valued at 85.6 percent of the sale price. Though that is not enough data to go by, it gives an indicàtion _ ' that their value is not high. If there is an impact by what the DNR is doing, it is going to have to show up in the marketplace. He stated they will have to watch the situation. Secondly, Mr. Weisbrich stated he has reviewed the parcels abutting Round Lake of Gerald Nordstrom and Rosella Sonsteby. He has found that those lots will need fill prior to building. Based on that information, he suggested reducing the assessed valuation by $2,000 for each lot. The third issue was on whether or not the ratio in the area affected by the landfill is beginning to exceed the City norm. He ran a complete ratio study over the past two years on Sections 28, 33, and 34, and he provided copies of that study for the Council. It indicates that there really isn't much difference between what those properties are selling for and what properties in the remainder of the City are selling for. The County is aware of the situation and understands that it may take longer for houses to sell in that area, but that as of yet it hasn't had an effect on the values. In his opinion this is something they should continue to monitor. Currently they aren't seeing anything and cannot justify'lowering any values. No Council action was taken on this issue. Mrs. Cvetich - stated they were 10Dking for tax relief because they have been told they cannot do anything with the back of their property, including not cutting down the dead trees for firewood. The Army Corps of Engineers has been hired to remove the fill that they put in there for a road back to the river. They are not really on the Rum River but are on Cedar Creek, and it is just a swamp behind them. Mr. Weisbrich stated the values are less because of the creek frontage versus the river frontage. But they make their valuations based on sales. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Board of Review/Continuation) Mrs. Cvetich - stated if it is going to be based on sales, there are only five houses on the creek and the rest are on the Rum River. She didn't feel there was enough in the area to make an evaluation. Their house is for sale now and has been for 18 months. There is also one other house that is for sale and has been for a year and a half. It's not going to help them if they find out it is overvalued after the house is sold. Their taxes have increased 122 percent since 1981. Mr. Weisbrich stated the problem they are having is there is no evidence the regulations are affecting valuation. And there has been only one complaint on the situation. Council discussion was on the problem of high prices paid for lots in that area and the DNR then strictly enforcing the restrictions on the use of the land. Council took no action on the valuation at this time, but agreed to have the Clerk invite representatives of the DNR to the next Council meeting to review the restrictions. Council also discussed the continuation of the County doing the assessing for the City of Andover versus hiring a City assessor. It was agreed to continue to contract with the County for assessing. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Board of Review make the following changes to the assessed market value figures: Section 29, pin 32 24 24 0005 property be reduced from $14,000 to $12,000; Section 29, 32 24 24 0011, the value be dropped from $13,000 to $11,000; 29 32 24 24 0013, valuation be dropped from $13,500 to $11,500, because the properties require fill to be buildable. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to close the Board of Review. Motion carried unan1mously. Board of Review closed at 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - IP84-6 (SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE - WEST) Mr. Davidson reviewed the feasibility report for sanitary sewer and water noting the location of the mains for water and sewer. He also noted that the street improvement would be considered as a separate hearing, the proposal being to do that as a municipal state aid street. He noted that when extending the watermain up Round Lake Boulevard, the City policy is not to assess existing residences for water unless they choose to hook up to the system; however, any property or lot that can be subdivided will be ' assessed an area charge. The special conditions to the project were reviewed: 1) The sewer in the street at 3436 South Coon Creek Drive will be only two feet lower than the basement level, which may require special precautions to bring sanitary sewer to that basement. 2) The watermain will be 12 inches to provide for the eventual total looped system, but the assessment will be based on a normal 8-inch line. 3) No storm sewer and street improvement will be provided in this project. 4) The sanitary sewer can potentially be extended 650 additional feet down South Coon Creek Drive. 5) The unit method of establishing cost was determined, amounting to 14 units for sanitary sewer and water, 12 acres of area to be assessed for the watermain, and 6 acres for the trunk sanitary sewer main. The future connections will be picked up as they connect to the system. 6) There is a 50-foot right of way, although the City is considering some adjustment to make at least a minimum setback for the houses along the street on South Coon Creek Drive. Mr. Davidson expected the project to be completed by November 30, 1984. The total estimated cost per unit for the project was established at $5,723. Mr. Schrantz also explained the notice for the hearing indicated the project would go up to l46th to encompass the Thompson property; however, the utilities are planned only to go up as far south as South Coon Creek Drive. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Public Hearing - South Coon Creek Drive West, Continued) Testimony was then open to the residents. Rosella Sonsteby - asked if the people have to pay interest on those assessments that are deferred. Mr. Davidson explained the present City policy is to pay the difference in construction costs which are related to the ENR cost index. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she has a lot between Hagens and Francis, asking if there is a poss1bi lity she could have it served with municipal water. Council stated it would be possible, but services on that side of Round Lake Boulevard would have to be jacked under the street. She was advised to provide the City with the request in writing to be included in this project. Mrs. Bev Christenson - stated it was mentioned there is a possibility of running the sanltary sewer on the side of their property in the future. She asked if that would mean she would get another assessment at that time. Mr. Davidson explained once she is assessed, she could not be further assessed unless there is additional benefit provided. The policy is not to assess corner lots unless they are subdividable or larger than the other lots in the neighborhood. Mike ? - on the Thompson property, asked if the City had a figure for the unit cost of sewer and water connections that they could use for development purposes. Discussion was that to some extent it would depend on the density of development, but the property has already been assessed for the sewer trunk area charge and will be assessed for water trunk. At the time of connection, there will be some internal system to be built, and there would be a connection charge for the water supply on the basis of $788/unit. Ken Posterick - asked if there is an assessment on the strip of land between his property and Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Davidson stated that is the lot that has been anticipated would be a future connection. Mr. Posterick - asked what is the time period before they are obligated to hook up to water and sewer. Mr. Davidson stated the sewer must be hooked up within two years. There is no specified time to hook up to municipal water. Henry Sheppard - owned land off Round Lake adjacent to the Thompson property. He asked if they are included in this project. Discussion with Mr. Sheppard was that that property is not included in this project, but it would be available if he chose to petition for it. It was also suggested that when the Thompson property develops, it may be advantageous for him to work together relative to developing and servicing that land. Mrs. Diane Kirchner - asked if the sewer line would come up to her house on Round Lake Boulevard. Mayor Windschitl explained it isn't proposed to come to her house. But she would be assessed for the two lots she would have on South Coon Creek Drive. If she would like it brought to her house, she would have to provide a written request to be included in the project. Mrs. Kirchner - asked if it would be one unit to have the utilities brought to her house. Mr. Schrantz drew a map on the board explaining the lot and its dimensions, noting it'is possible to split the property along South Coon Creek Drive into two lots, though a variance of 2~ feet would be required on lot width. Another consideration is that the lot split ordinance only allows for splitting into two lots, but this split would create three lots. The estiniates in the feasibility study proposed assessing two units for that lot. Mr. Kirchner is also considering providing service to her home on Round Lake Boulevard, but the remainder of her lot with the house on it would have 200 feet on the road. The question is how many units she would be assessed Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Mi nutes Page 4 (Public Hearing - South Coon Creek Drive West, Continued) for her residence. It could not be subdivided because the house is in the middle of the lot. Council discussion with the engineers was that there would be three units on the entire parcel -- two off South Coon Creek Drive and one off Round Lake Boulevard to service her residence. The Council generally had no problem with the variance that would be required if the parcel were split to provide two lots facing South Coon Creek Dri ve. Rosella sonsteb) - asked if sewer is run up Round Lake Boulevard to Kirchner's, would everyone else a ong there get assessed as well. Mr. Davidson explained generally that unit would be added into the total project, and the City would carry the costs that would be attributable to the area beyond that. Mr. Schrantz asked if she would want utilities to service her lots in that general area. Ms. Sonsteby - stated she would go along with whatever the majority wants to do. Mrs. Darlene Kirchner - stated they have a one-acre lot on South Coon Creek Drive. They have no intentions of splitting the lot and have buildings on the back. She as ked that their property be assessed as one residential lot rather than for two units. The engineers stated the house is placed on one side of the lot and it was anticipated that it would be subdividable and assessable as two units. Further discussion was also if the assessment were deferred, the interest would still be payable on it. It was also brought out that the assessment policy calls for a front-footage assessment, which would eliminate the argument in this case. The engineers noted that all the parcels in this project are very similiar in size, and the unit-method of assessment is virtually the same as the front-foot method but easier to determine. Council argued the front- foot method would eliminate the question of unit here. This question was held until the end of the hearing. Lorraine Tressel, Round Lake Boulevard - stated they have already been assessed for sewer. She asked what they would have to pay if the water comes by but they do not choose to hook up. Mr. Davidson explained there would be no assessment until they connect. There will be sewer and water available on the side of their lot; and if they choose to divide along 142nd, those utilities would be available and would be assessed at that time. The reason they are not assessed along the side at this time is that the developer, Mr. Kadlec, has agreed to pay the total cost of that improvement, including the improvements past the Tressel property. Council addressed the question of front-footage versus unit-method of assessment for the project. It was generally felt that the Kirchner's on South Coon Creek Drive would either have to be' assessed for two units or the front-footage method of assessment be used in the project. It was also argued that where there are existing lots with a mixture of lot sizes, the front-footage method of assessing is the better method; and there are several other lots that would have some variance in this project. It was agreed that the project should be assessed per the policy, that is using the front- footage method. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council maintain its policy of assessing sewer and water on a front-footage basis. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Kirchner, Round Lake Boulevard - asked if it is now going against what she was told five minutes ago. Mr. Schrantz explained the lot that her house sits on would be assessed for 200 feet, which would be equivalent to two units, but the lot that fronts on South Coon Creek Drive would only be assessed for the 170 feet. So in this instance it would be less for the frontage on South Coon Creek Drive, but more for her residence if she chooses to be served in this project. After further discussion with Mrs. Kirchner, she was advised to come in and discuss the specific figures with the engineer prior to making a decision of including her residence in the project. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing - South Coon Creek Drive West, Continued) Discussion was then on the issue of street alignment on either end of the project. Mr. Schrantz stated he talked with Mrs. Diane Kirchner about how she could split her lot north and south providing a variance would be granted and about extending sanitary sewer to her house. They also talked about mo~ing the road right of way to the north, and it was his opinion that that would be reasonable. He told Mrs. Kirchner that some easement may be needed for the sanitary sewer/water project which would possibly need to be acquired. But no agreements were made. He has also talked with the people on the south side of the road, and they are anxious to have the road moved so that they would have a normal setback. Mrs. Christenson - asked if they will be staying within the existing easement on their end of the road. Mr. Schrantz stated that will be done, but the curb would be within five feet of the corner of their lot. On the west end they would have to move the easement north to get a normal setback for the house on the south side. He suggested another 10 feet of boulevard would be needed on that end from the Kirchner lot and 6 to 4 feet on the lot just to the east. He also stated there would be no infringement on the Christenson property for sewer and water construction other than possibly a temporary easement for sewer service. They will not have to acquire any more right of way from the Christenson's in order to put the road through. Pete Germain, 3447 South Coon Creek Drive - asked what is the most serious problem with not putt1ng ln the roadbed on the eXlst1ng roadway. Mr. Schrantz stated the City has an opportunity to provide the proper setbacks to those houses on the south side which are too close to the road right now. Mr. Germain - asked whose fault is it that they were constructed so close to the street. Mr. Schrantz stated he did not know. Mr. Germain - stated it sounds like the City is trying to rectify a violation of setback. Mr. Schrantz agreed, stating they have the ability to satisfy the ordinances and of making it ,look like a typical neighborhood, as the value of one house also determines the value of another in a neighborhood. He felt that could be done without much damage. Mr. Germain - asked what percentage of funding the MSA will provide. Mr. Schrantz stated the MSA funds would pay for the entire street project except for right-of-way acquisition costs. The residents will pay for the water and sewer improvements. The typical cost for street improvement for a similiar street being done in Kadlec Addition is $4,000 per lot for street benefit. Mrs. Christeoson - felt with a 30-foot setback and it being a thoroughfare, it would be 11ke Foley Boulevard. She asked if the speed limit will always be 30 mph and 35 mph in the center; and can the City guarantee that is what it will stay? Discussion noted the procedure the City must go through to have the speed limits changed, noting the residential area is within the 30 mph density. There doesn't seem to be a reason to change the 35 mph in the center of South Coon Creek Drive, and the State would change it bnly if the City asked and it is warranted. Mr. Germain - felt the problem is one of speed, asking how does one get the people to reduce the speed. Mr. Schrantz explained that would be helped through enforcement, though the same people now going 50 mph through there may continue to do so. But they will be safer with the new road. Mr. Germain - asked if the proposal is to have the road in next spring. Mr. Sèhrantz explalned the proposal is to install sewer and water and the gravel base this year, with the bituminous surfacing completed next summer. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Public Hearing - South Coon Creek Drive West, Continued) Mrs. Christenson - asked how they can get stop lights at the intersection of South Coon Creek Dr1ve and Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Schrantz stated it would have to meet warrants, and the County and City would have to have the ability to pay for them. But he doubted there would be enough traffic to warrant that, feeling there are very few generators in the area to increase the traffic down that road after it is improved. Discussion with Mrs. Christenson and others was on the setbacks and the implementation of the ordinance in 1971. Generally members of the audience felt that the City was at fault for allowing those houses on the south side to be constructed so close to the road, that a City did a wrong for those people on South Coon Creek Drive. It was fe It the City should provide a smaller road because it was the City that made that mistake. Council and staff did not really know what had happened in the past, but the road being proposed is the normal street width. The road would not have to be built to minimum MSA standards, but then the residents would have to pay for the cost of the street. It was Councilman Lachinski's feeling that the property owners in the area have to agreed with the City Engineer with respect to improving the property values and the general looks of the neighborhood. That can be done by either the additional easements donated for the project; or, if the City has to acquire the right of way, it should be assessed back to the benefitted owners, those people on the south side of the road who are now receiving a normal setback where they hadn't had it until now. Mr.Posterich - in the event that nothing is changed and he cannot get a reasonable setback, he feels: he would have to take some action because he cannot have people virtually driving on his front step. He didn't know what happened years ago and was not the builder of the house he lives in, but he does know that every time the road grader comes by there's more green gra5s in the street from his yard. As it exists, he cannot even safely park a truck on his driveway without being in the right of way. At this point he felt he would have a difficult time selling the house. He's even afraid of his children playing on his front step because the road is so close to the house. He suggested if he cannot get a legal setback, the entire road project should be for- gotten. If it were a consideration that only the benefitted people pay for the additional right of way needed, when would the City know those costs? Counci 1 stated 'it could be either under the utilities project or under the street project. The Engineers' suggestion has been to obtain an additional ten feet of easement on the north side. It was not known exactly what that cost could be, but that would be determined by an assessor. Councilman Knight suggested if this is what the neighborhood wants, there is going to have to be some give and take on the part of everyone.. Some will gain; some will lose; but as a neighborhood, everyone benefits. Archie Kirchner - asked why wasn't he issued a permit unless his house was moved further back, but Mr. Quickstrom got permits to build houses and he was not told to put the houses back. He felt someone should check into this. Mr. Schrantz did not know what had happened. Mrs. Christenson - stated the people are not at fault, yet the people are paying for th1S blg mistake. Ms. Sonsteby - stated the Minutes of the Town meeting will show there were complaints about people building houses too close to the road. At that time it was said the road is there; and if at some time it gets widened, it will stay within the existing easement. She alleged that at that time, as now, there was a building inspector who let some people get away with anything and other people couldn't do anything. When she built houses across on the north side during that time, the building inspector told her to build closer to the road than she wanted; but she didn't want to build close to the road. She stated there was a setback of 30 or 35 feet at that time. Mayor Windschitl stated if she could find the approximate dates of those meetings, he would like to read copies of those Minutes. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Public Hearing - South Coon Creek Drive West, Continued) Council discussion was on what action to take on the project. Mr. Germain placed his name on the petition as a no vote. The total votes on the petition was 10 in favor, 2 opposed. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we order Improvements of sanitary sewer and water for Improvement Project 84-6 along the east side of Round Lake Boulevard from 142nd Lane to South Coon Creek Drive and along South Coon Creek Drive from Round Lake Boulevard to 800 feet east, approximately the street grid Poppy, all within the south one-half Section 29, Township 32, Range 24, and diredt TKDA to prepare the Final Plans and Specifications for the project. (See Resolution R038-84) Motion carried unanimously. Hearing closed at 9:33 p.m. VARIANCE/M. R. OLSON Commission Chairman Don Spotts reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant the variance request to convey two pieces of property in acreage of less than five acres. Mayor Windschitl noted that at some point in time, there will be a sewer and water assessment against this property; and dividing into large parcels might make it difficult to subdivide at some future date. He didn't have a problem with the principle of what is being done. Mr. Olson - stated there is too much low land and swamp to make it feasible to plat the property. The previous problem with asbestos in fill for his land has been solved. He stated there is no asbestos on the property. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution approving a variance of parcel size pursuant to Ordinance No. 10, Section 14.02 as requested by M. R. Olson and as prepared. (See Resolution R039-84) Motion carried unanimously. REZONING/D. KING Chairman Spotts reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request to rezone a portion of land on Bunker Lake Boulevard from Neighborhood Business to General Business. David King, 6604 153rd Lane - submitted the application for the rezoning to build a carwash east of the medical office on Bunker Lake Boulevard. It would be a full- service carwash on a self-service basis similiar to Typhoon in Anoka. A General Business zone would allow them to do this. There is city sewer and water available. The traffic flow would be strictly from Bunker Lake Boulevard and back onto it with nothing going back into Chapman's Addition. He also proposed the installation of privacy fences or other remedies to take care of the problems with the neighbors in Chapman's Addition. Jim Martenson, owner of the property - stated he got the impression there is a concern of hav1ng a buffer zone between the residents on the south side of 136th and the shopping center on the other 'side of Bunker Lake Boulevard 400 feet away. He didn't see that there should be any more buffer in this instance than for those people living in back of the shopping center. He felt if someone wants to use his land for a buffer, they should purchase it. Mr. King - something else that was mentioned at the P & Z meeting was they would like the neighborhood business zone to be the bufifer for the residential area. All the other General Business areas in the City are around the junkyard area which have residential areas that are quite close. Also, the Commission mentioned there are other GB areas Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (Rezoning/D. King, Continued) available for this business; but there is no GB area in the City at this time that is feasible for this type of business because of the needed traffic flow and city utilities. Gerald Gerrard, 3442 136th Lane - objected mostly to setting a precedent of rezoning to GB zone 1n this area. Many hearings were held to rezone the City as it exists, assuming the rezoning to NB was done with considerable thought. The GB zone opens up the area to a number of different types of uses. NB tends to be store-front type operations with the activity facing the service road. The rezoning to GB also sets a precedent in that anybody owning property in that area of the City could get it rezoned, indicating the long-range planning for the City was in error. He asked the Council to consider the serious matter because of the precedent it will be setting. Karen Strassburg, 3422 136th Lane - asked what could go in there if it is rezoned GB but the carwash buslness fal Is through. Council stated it could be restricted to a carwash business through contract zoning. Mrs. StraSSburg - asked if it were rezoned GB and the carwash didn't go in, would it remain GB or revert back to NB. Council stated that too could be limited to a time period. Mrs. Strassburg - stated one of her concerns is what will happen if the proposed business falls through. She also questioned what would happen to the rest of the property re- maining beside the carwash. Mayor Windschitl asked if the City can contract zone. Attorney Hawkins advised it has been done in the past, but there is no case law in Minnesota that deals with contract rezoning. There have been many decisions in other jurisdictions -- some in favor, some opposed. Both Councilmen Elling and Knight expressed opposition to contract zoning, concerned with tying the land to one particular use and with the legalities of the issue. Both Councilmen Lachinskl and Orttel noted the question is if this is a good use of the land, suggesting there would be enough room on the land to provide multiple housing units facing 136th as a buffer to the residents in Chapman's Addition and still allow the carwash operation off the service road and Bunker Lake Boulevard. Mrs. Strassburg - also stated she is definitely opposed to the carwash operation because she believes they do not need any more traffic on Bunker Lake Boulevard. She also felt she would prefer to purchase another home rather than one next to a carwash because of the noise for one thing. It would be better if it could be guaranteed houses would be constructed as the buffer. Councilman Orttel felt that the most logical development of that lot would be for residential facing 136th and a business, whether it is NB or GB, facing the service road. Mr. Martinson - stated he would be more than willing to come up with alternative proposals, one of them being residential off l36th. If the Council would indicate that it would be suitable to split the land for residential on the south side and a carwash on the north, he stated he would build residential units on the back half. Councilman Lachinski stated his only other problem with the carwash is that he would want to be specific as to what it would look like. Mr. Kin~ - had no problem with that, indicating they have several proposals to cons1der. e is proposing a building of over $100,000 worth with brick front. Ms. Gellin~, 3432 136th Lane - asked even if the houses were built there, who would buy them llving next door to a carwash and the cars, etc. Council stated different people live in different areas. And it's usually different when the business is there first. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page g (Rezoning/D. King, Continued) Gary Stoll - was concerned about noise pollution with the proposal of 115 cars going through the carwash an hour at maximum. He was also concerned with the driveway plan proposed which comes down by his house. Mr. King - stated it is designed for a maximum of 115 cars an hour. Traffic flow on that corner is only 14,000 cars a day, and to pull 115 cars an hour is impossible. He also has two proposals, one that puts the carwash on the east side of the property and one that puts it on the west side. Dale Gelling - asked the minimum lot size required for residential on the back side of that lot. Discussion noted the lots would have to meet ordinance requirements, and it appears there would be enough room on the lot to do that. Kathy Stoll, 13614 pop~ - worked at the daycare at Grace Lutheran Church for over five years. She real1zes t at traffic will be increasing on the corner of Bunker Lake and Round Lake Boulevards. But there are times when children are being droppoed off or picked up by parents when they may run off. Her concern is that there are cars that use the church parking lot as a shortcut rather than going around the corner at the stoplights. And they come thröugh the parking lot at high speeds, not really looking out for people or children who may be in the lot. She fears this will be happening more and was concerned for the children, asking if anything could be done about that. Council noted that problem has been brought up before. A proposal in the past has been to block off the entrance to the church from 136th and use the service road as an entrance to the church. Council generally agreed that the developers could go back to the P & Z with alternative proposals, especially with regard to developing residential lots facing 136th and to see if some agreement can be reached with the neighborhood. But Mayor Windschitl and Councilmen Elling and Knight were uncomfortable with a GB classification in this area, and Councilmen Elling and Knight again stated their reluctance to contract zone the area,though they had no problem with the use. Mr. King - stated the GB zone is the only classification where a carwash use is allowed. He stated he did not intend to have a gas station with the carwash. Mr. Martinson - noted that a majority of the things allowed in the GB zone are not feas1ble for th1S size property. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, to refer this back to the P & Z for additional work to let Mr. Martinson come back with another proposal utilizing the whole lot, with something that would be agreeable to the neighborhood, within 60 days, subject to their written request for an extension. DISCUSSION: It was noted Mr. Martinson, as owner of the lot, would need to provide a written request for an extension of time for Council action on this matter. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 10:12; reconvene at 10:24 p.m. ANDOVER SHUPPING CENTER/PROGRESS REPORT Jeff Wieckert, Boisclaire Corporation - provided sketch plans of the proposed shopping center, not1ng the phas1ng, proposed uses for each phase, progress on obtaining tenants, and construction schedule. The project basically consists of a bank location in the northern area of Round Lake Boulevard, a service retail center of 13 stores to the south of that, the multiuse facility with grocery store, hardware store, restaurant, and office space on the corner, and another separate facility east off Bunker Lake Boulevard. They have had interested tenants for the banking facility, grocery store, hardware, drug store, restaurant, and others, but they are still in negotiations with no firm commitments made to date. They have hired Randolf Limited who has been providing a lot of exposure for the project and are aggressively promoting their leasing program. There has been a heavy demand for the service retail center, so rather than wait for a signing of a supermarket, which is the anchor of the multiuse facility, they Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 (Andover Shopping Center/Progress Report, Continued) have decided to get the tenants for the service retail center and begin construction on that phase of the project first. The service retail center is about 16,200 square feet with 13 tenants. Their target date for opening the center is November. Then, depending on leasing, they would like to build the multiuse center as soon as possible. They are also in discussions with two banks, but they are asking for fairly extensive market research studies. Mr. Wieckert also noted that screening has been a concern of the neighborhood, and they have worked out an agreement with the Northglen Homeowners Association to screen the back side of the center. They have put that agreement in writing, subject to the approval of the Council. It is a high-quality commercial grade fence which will be behind the center of 8 feet high at the residential areas and 6 feet high at the ponding area. They have presented their status to the bank, who has agreed to the proposal. Tonight they are asking for Council approval to redefine Phases 1 and 2 in the project to allow them to commence with the construction of the service retail center. Frank Padula - asked what happens if they don't find a tenant for the grocery store. Would the Phase 1 just sit until 1985 when the bond issue is due? He's in favor of the shopping center, but felt the larger grocery store, multiuse facility should be put up first like it was originally proposed rather than the little retail stores. He asked if all the leases for the service retail center are signed. He also asked the price per square foot for the center. Mr. Wieckert stated they are working on leasing, and they will begin construction as soon as 50 percent of the leases are signed. They have an obligation to provide a center that is a viable success in the long run. And if they can't fill it up, it's in no ones best interest to build a vacant center. Mr. Wieckert estimated the cost of the center at $60 to $7U per square foot, and the total shopping center at $9.1 million of which $7.7 million is financed with tax-exempt bonds and $1.4 million is financed with equity. The service retail center is about $1.2 million total cost. They are also looking at several other alternatives if they cannot get a grocery store to sign; however, they are convinced they will have a supermarket there. It's just a matter of when. Rich Lund, Northglen Homeowners Association - presented the agreement reached with Boisclaire Corporation relatlve to the screening around the shopping cente~, They are interested in seeing the shopping center go in there and have worked with the developers in reaching an agreement on screening. He also thanked the developers for their willingness to work with them on the matter and the cooperation they provided in this effort. Council discussion with the developers was on the call date on the bond issue, the consensus of both groups that the multiuse center would need to be under construction by this time next year or it could not be completed by the end of 1985. Mr. Wieckert noted the general reluctance of businesses to do any expanding and the concern over the population here have been the major reasons tenants have not been signing leases for the shopping center. Their price per square foot in this center are very competi- tive to others; the concern of tenants has been about sales volume. Mr. Wieckert - also noted that they will put up a construction fence along the back of the center during the construction portion in lieu of a permanent fence. The permanent fencing would be put up as the last thing done on the construction of the service retail center prior to opening in November. Council noted the three letters to be incorporated into the motion from Boisclaire Corporation dated June 5 to Rich Lund, June 1 to Rich Lund, and June 1 to Ken Braun. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 11 (Andover Shopping Center/Progress Report, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council adopt the conceptual plan for the Andover Shopping Center as presented by the Andover Limited Partnership and include in that acceptance the two letters of June 1 and one letter of June 5 from the developers regarding the description of the fence they agreed to construct around the site. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wieckert - agreed to provide the pictures;of the drawings shown tonight for the Clty'S records. Attorney Hawkins explained he has read the bond agreement, and it states if the project isn't done by December 1, 1985, no more disbursements will be made and the City can enjoin to accelerate the loan and declare the full amount due and payable. Counci lman Knight suggested the developer set up a designated ride-share lot. Mr. Wieckert - stated they are looking at that. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to adopt a Resolution approving Amendment One to the disbursing agreement executed in conjunction with the $7,700,000 City of Andover, Minnesota, Commercial Development Revenue Note (Andover Limited Partnership Project) as presented. (See Resolution R040-84) Motion carried unanimously. REVOCATION OF JUNKYARD LICENSE/MOM'S SALVAGE The Clerk stated they received a certified letter indicating the fence for Mom's Auto Salvage has been repaired. She noted the fence is up and it is a better fence than was there before. There is also a solid gate, which meets the ordinance. Council discussion was their disappointment over the asthetics of the fence, feeling it may meet the ordinance but it is not very pleasing to look at. Fencing standards for the junkyard ordinance were again discussed. No action was taken at this time, but it was agreed that Councilman Lachinski and the attorney will discuss fencing standards to be incorporated in the junkyard ordinance. (Councilman Orttel left the meeting at this time. 11 :05 p.m.) FINAL PLANS/MES - 157TH AVENUE NW MOTION by Knight, A Resolution as prepared, a Resolution approving final plans and spec1fications and ordering advertisement for bids for Project No. 84-3 for 157th Avenue, Holly Street to University Avenue. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Council reviewed the plans and specifications done by Bonestroo. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, repeating the prior motion. (See Resolution RU41-84) Motlon carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. SHIRLEY'S ADDITION/PARK ACCESS Mr. Schrantz explained when the preliminary plat was approved for Shirley's Addition, the developer agreed to construct a gravel road back to the park. There is a curb across the street on Xenia. He recommended the developer take the curb out and construct a concrete flume across to direct the water out. Ms. Sonsteby doesn't want to extend the pipe nor take out the curb. He has suggested approving a change order to Shirley's Addition or hire someone to do it and put the cost into the Addition. Ms. Sonsteby is concerned about the water going onto her lots which she is improving. Ms. Sonsteby - stated Xenia Street is in Auditor's SUbdivision 82, and she wants nothing to do w1th the drainage from that street. She drew a map showing the ditch and culverts she originally placed under the driveways along that road ' to help those people in the Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 12 (Shirley's Addition/Park Access, Continued) subdivision. Now a manhole has been placed on the corner of Xenia Street and 143rd, it, has been tarred, and she is getting all the water from the area. She stated none of the City's maps show the storm sewer culvert on that corner. Her lots were there before the storm sewer was put in, and now she is getting all the water on the back of her lots. It was not going there before because it stayed right in that ditch area. She stated she has put in her road in the park and has dug out the peat and is filling it full of dirt. But she stated she will not remove the curb and extend the culvert in that corner. She stated that was not part of the agreement in the preliminary plat and felt that should be a walk-in park, not one where cars can just come back there and tear it up. Mr. Davidson stated the pipe on that intersection pre-existed anything they did in the utilities project and street improvement. That intersection was always the low point. When they urbanized the street, the only reason they put the catch basin and pipe in was to retain the crown through the roadway. He stated there is no storm sewer that goes into that. It is just one catch basin and outlet pipe and merely drains the water from one gutter to the other. Council felt that the curb must be cut and culvert extended to provide an entrance to the park. No decision was made as to where the funds would come from, suggesting either from the development contract or from the project when it is assessed back to the lots in the Addition. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, authorizing the Engineer to contract for the work necessary for the curb cut and extension of culvert in Shirley's Addition. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS/KADLEC ADDITION Mr. Davidson reviewed the plans and specifications for sewer and water, noting the sewer main off Round Lake Boulevard will extend eastward along the street to service the first three lots in the Addition as was originally designed. Mr. Kadlec - stated the surveyor is drawing up the easements from Mr. Wallace, who has 1nd1cated a willingness to sign the agreement. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, introducing a Resolution approving final plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Project No. 84-7 for Kadlec Second Addition for watermain, sanitary sewer, and streets with concrete curb and gutter. (See Resolution R042-84) Motion carried on a 4-yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. HUGH'S INDUSTRIAL PARK/AWARD BIDS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the improvement of Project No. 84-5 for street construction on 162nd Lane NW, Hugh's Industrial Park, as prepared (Awarding contract to Forest Lake Contracting in the amount of $53,934.50) (See Resolution R043-84) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. Mr. Schrantz stated thæ'owners of the lot for the storm drainage are willing to sign a quit claim deed and do the excavation for the drainage pond, but they are asking for a signed document from the City for tax purposes on the value of the lot and the cost of excavation on the lot. Council saw no problem documenting the assessed value of lot and the fact that work was done for the City, but the City is not in a position to determine the value of the work done. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 13 (Hugh's Industrial Park/Award Bids, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, to accept the Quit Claim Deed from Gilbertson Block Company for the purposes of storm drainage on Project 84-5. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. JULY 3 REGULAR MEETING CHANGE MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to move the 11th of July as the first meeting 1n July. Motion carried on 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. ACCEPTANCE OF SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER Council was generally disappointed with the finishing of the Senior Citizens Center, feeling a very sloppy job has been done. Some specified concerns were the falling down of the roof, the cabinets were not made correctly, there is no light switch next to an entrance, the circuits in the kitchen were not properly wired, and the cabinet doors warpped. Mr. Schrantz stated the ceiling has been repaired. He also noted the cabinets were made to specifications and so was the placement of the light switches, so there would be no recourse against the contractor. The circuits were also fixed in the kitchen. The Clerk stated Bonestroo has not been paid about $600 for the project, and the Council felt that they may have to accept responsibility for some of these things if the specifications were drawn poorly or incorrectly. It was agreed to invite Mr. Bonestroo and representatives of the contractor to a meeting to discuss the Council's concerns and resolution of the situation. ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENT - SALE & STORAGE/USED AUTO PARTS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, introducing an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 8 effective January 1, 1971, and Ordinance No. 8F, effective February 19, 1980, known as the zoning ordinance of the City of Andover as presented (limiting the sale and storage of new and used auto parts within a building only). Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE - NORTH CENTRAL MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, introducing Ordinance 67 as presented by North Central Gas Franchise without the amendments as presented back on 4-3-84. DISCUSSION: There was some confusion as to what was originally presented and what the amendments were that Councilman Elling had suggested to the ordinance. When going through the ordinance, Councilman Lachinski indicated he liked the addition of Section 4, but suggested deleting Sections 6 and 7 and the two sentences in Section j dealing with the length of time to do things. Councilmen Knight and Elling WITHDREW the Second and the Motion, and it was agreed that Councilman Elling and Mr. Schrantz will go through the ordinance together and make a recommendation. FEES/VACATIONS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution establishing a fee tor all street vacation requests in the' amount of $150. (See Resolution R043-84) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. Regular City Council Meeting June 5, 1984 - Minutes Page 14 LANDFILL/WATER TEST UPDATES Councilman Elling felt there is a possibility of a problem with contaminated wells around the landfill, relating his findings of frequently tested wells by the PCA that show contaminates. He is still researching the matter to determine just what is taking place. Mayor Windschitl also noted they have now reached an agreement with Mr. Roth for access to the landfill. The Clerk reported the County has determined that there has not been any landfill operation taking place out there, and the trucks coming down Crosstown Boulevard are to place lime sludge on a portion of,the landfill that cannot be reached from Hanson Boulevard. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we pay Checks 7918 through 7989, with the exception of 7969 and 7957, for the amount of $39,317.27. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Absent (Orttel) vote. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1- Absent (Orttel) vote. Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \\~~~ Recording Secretary