Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 6, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-MARCH 6, 1984 AGENDA 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4 . Discussion Items a. Revocation of Special Use Permit - All Imports Auto b. Variance/Lot Split - M. Bergman C. Accept Petition, Order Feasibility Accept Feasibilty, Order Public Hearing - 162nd Lane Street Improvement. d. Accept Feasibility, Order Public Hearing - 164th Avenue e. Designate State Aid Mileage f. Rum River Watershed District *, g. Amended Special Use Permit (Sloth) h. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. b. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff a. Utility Budget - Staff b. Fire Department c. Park & Recreation Commission 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment NOTE: Interviews for two (2) Park Board Members will be at 7:00 P.M. as follows: 7:00 P.M. - Stuart Kindade 7:15 P.M. - David Szyplinski ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL COPIES TO: ATTORNEY, FROM' CITY CLERK/A. DA TE: MARCH 1 , 1984 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - MARCH 6 REGULAR MEETING Interviews - Park & Recreation Commission (7:00 P.M.) Aqenda Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please add Item No. 4g. (Amended SUP-Sloth Bros. Nursery) . Aqenda Item No. 4a - Revocation/Special Use Permit(All-Imp~rts Auto) Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for revocation of the Permit. The property has not been used for the purpose of a junkyard since the permit was granted in November,1981. In July, 1983, the fence was blown down and not reconstructed. The Zoning Ordinance no longer allows for the issuance of SUP's for junk yards , and the original permit is conditioned by annual reviews. It is my understanding that Mr. Mistelske is planning to construct a warehouse building on the property; therefore, does not intend to use it as a junkyard. A resolution will be prepared. Agenda Item No. 4b - Variance/Lot Split (M. Berqman) Mrs. Bergman is requesting a lot split of her property on Crosstown Boulevard and 158th Avenue NW. Included with her request is that of a variance to acquire a 33' strip of land along the north property line to increase the size of her presently owned property to a full five acres to allow the two (2) 2.5 acre lot splits. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval. (Note: Mrs. Bergman did pay the lot split fee, however, we did not ask for a separate variance fee inasmuch as the variance is a requirement/part-of the lot split request.) Agenda Item No. 4c - Accept Petition, Order Feasibility, Accept Feasibility, Order Public Hearing (162nd Lane). It is recommended that a resolution be adopted covering all the title items in order that this project can be done at the same time as those streets just to the north. A combination should save costs, inasmuch as the project size would be increased and the need for mobilizaticn fo~ two projects would be eliminated. A resolution is prepared. Agenda Comments March 6 Regular Meeting Page 2 Agenda Item No. 4d - Accept Feasibility, Order Public Hearing(164th Ave.) Enclosed is the Feasibility Report for the street improvement of 164th Avenue. A motion is needed to adopt the attached resolution accepting the report and setting the date for the public hearing. Apr il 3rd (Regular Meeting) is recommended as the date for the public hearing. This will allow sufficient time for advertising and notification of the property owners. Aqenda Item No. 4e - Desiqnate State Aid Mileaqe Delete - Will require another Road Committee Meeting to finalize these figures. Aqenda Item No. 4f - Rum River Watershed District This item is continued from the February 21 Meeting. The question to be decided is whether the City of Andover is of the opinion that perhaps this Watershed Committee should be divided to a smaller entity. Agenda Item No. 4q - Amended Special Use Permit/Nursery (A. Sloth) Mr. Sloth has requested an amendment to the Special Use Permit issued on the nursery. He is planning on constructing another building in which to keep stock. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval. A resolution will be prepared approving the amendment. The Building Inspector has checked the plans for the structure and it is in conformance with zoning requirements, but will require an architect-engineer cevtification for compliance to the code for public buildings. A resolution will be prepared. Agenda Item No. 6a - Utility Budget We have reviewed the salary figures for the water/sewer(s) funds and based on expectations for 1984, Jim has reducted the salary requiremenss for IIwaterll and correspondingly increased those for ~sewers". An increase will not be needed in Sewer Fund liB" for 1984, however, we will be running with only a $200+ surplus. Aqenda Item No. 6b - Fire Department Agenda Item No. 6c - Park & Recreation Commission The P&R is meeting tonight; they will be reviewing the Commissioners award for the Windschitl property and have a report for the meeting. We have not received the data yet, however, an award of $15,000 came through. Attachments ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 6, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on March 6, 1984, 7:33 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski Councilman absent: Mayor Windschitl Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz (arrived at 9:11 p.m.); Planning and Zoning Chairman, Don Spotts; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Lloyd Reimann, 2813 142nd Avenue - stated the letter to the residents in Northwoods and Green Acres about the speed1ng and stop signs was threatening. And he thought adding another stop sign on Flora, which would require stopping at three signs to get in and out of the development, was ridiculous. That would be one stop sign for every three houses, and he didn't feel that was necessary. He also didn't feel it was right to have a meeting and invite only those people who are for it but not against it, stating he is a member of the Road Committee and was never notified of the meeting where this was discussed. Council apologized for his not being informed of the meeting, stating the intent was not to slight anyone, and that the discussions at the Road Committee meeting were not necessarily who was for or against the stop signs but just what could be done to solve the traffic problems through that area. Mr. Reimann - felt the stop signs are only creating problems, and now the deputies are out there harrassing everyone who lives there. He stated the signs are a nuisance to those who live in the area, as he goes to and from his home 10 times a day and it's not right to have to stop at every three houses. He also alleged the reason those on Crocus are complaining is too many people are using their street. He thought the entire situation should be looked at again. He also stated there were no reports of accidents on that street. The people driving on 138th in Red Oaks go just as fast as here, but it is a main thoroughfare through the subdivision, as Crocus is. He stated the use of stop signs to control speeders was not right, and they are now being harrassed by the police in their neighborhoods. He also fe lt that one or both of the stop signs on Crocus should come down right now. Councilman Lachinski explained the Council has been informed of at least two personal injury accidents on Crocus, and the rationale for putting in the stop signs was also because it is easier to ticket for stop sign violations on that particular street than it is to ticket speeders. The reason for the letter was to put the people on notice that there is going to be some stepped up efforts to insure that the violations are stopped and that the City is doing something about the problem. The City is also waiting to see the reports back from the Sheriff's Department within a month or so. Councilman Elling felt that the people on Crocus would just as soon have the signs down, but they are controlling the speed. Mark Smith, 2939 142nd Avenue - stated the City is putting up more signs, which requires more laws to be enforced, yet the speed limit law is not being enforced. He felt it is a law enforcement problem, not one of putting up more signs. And the problem of people speeding through there really occurs on weekends about 10 or 11 o'clock at night. Acting Mayor Orttel stated there has been a great deal of discussion on this matter, and the stop signs were a compromise in an attempt to solve the problem. He also explained the difficulty the deputies have in attempting to set up radar on that street because of the open areas. The problem is not only kids speeding through the area, but all residents. The letter was to explain the situation and to let the resi- dents known the City is still monitoring and trying to correct it. Discussion continued, Regular City Council Meeting March 6, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) with Mr. Smith and Mr. Reimann expressing their opinions in opposition to the stop signs. Council noted that there will be a Road Committee meeting in April at which time the police reports for the area will be reviewed. Carroll Abbott, 2917 142nd Lane - stated his feeling is the people on Crocus would be very happy 1f the people from Green Acres would not go through the area. He talked with everybody who lives on 142nd Lane over the weekend and asked them to come to the meeting tonight to express their thoughts, but there are very few here tonight. He also stated last Wednesday evening about 7:30 he was in his yard and observed two cars lined up side by side racing down 142nd Lane, thr.Q~~hthe intersection of Heather, around the corner on Ivywood and 142nd Lane, and down. A stop sign at Heather would not have stopped that. He stated it is pathetic to see black tire marks at all the stop signs. He knew who was driving those cars, but felt it would do no good to identify them. Mr. Abbott also stated he would like to see more done on the Crime Watch Program. No further Council action was taken on the matter. AGENDA APPROVAL Acting Mayor Orttel suggested the following changes to the Agenda: Delete Item 4e, Designate State Aid Mileage, Add Item 4g, Amended Special Use Permit (Sloth) and Item 4h, Holasek Settlement (Closed Session). MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. REVOCATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT - ALL IMPORTS AUTO Chairman Spotts explained the Commission felt there was evidence that the property had not been used as a junkyard or auto reduction yard for nine months. Because the storm last July had torn the fence down, it was obvious that it was not used; and there is an indication that prior to that it had not been used as a junkyard either. For those reasons, the Commission recommends revocation of the special use permit. Jt was Mr. Hawkins' opinion that if there has been no activity that would give the holder a vested right to continue under that, then the Council has the right to revoke the special use permit in the same fashion as rezoning a piece of property. Irvin Shaw, Attorney for Charles Mistelski, who was also present - felt the basis for the recommendation by the Planning Commission was erroneous, as there was a time when the house located on the site was used to store parts. The emphasis for that business was to use it for foreign auto parts, and during the last licensing period Mr. Mistelski was storing those parts from foreign autos that he was stripping at Commercial Auto. He then stopped using it because he found it was inadequate. The fence was then blown down in the storm, and he spent months fighting the insurance company to get the fence paid for under his policy. Mr. Mistelski has found that to be successful in selling automobile parts, one needs to have some place to store, separate, and inventory the parts. The plan is to strip the auto parts and store them in a building on the site of All-Imports Auto. Mr. Mistelski has been planning to apply for a building permit to construct a 60x125-foot storage building, which costs approximately $65,000 to construct, and he provided a sketch plan of that building for the Council to view. Plus Mr. Mistelski also has a substantial investment in that site of over $125,000, which includes the construction of a fence. Mr. Mistelski had thought he would be given the same treatment as the other junkyards to get the fence up by May 1. The cement posts for support of the fence have already been purchased and are on site, and he has also purchased the other pacts of the fence that will be needed for re- construction. The plan is to apply for the building permit of this structure and to have a warehouse in which to store the parts that will be accumulated and offered for sale. Regular City Council Meeting March 6, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Revocation of Special Use Permit - All Imports Auto, Continued) Mr. Shaw also reported that Mr. Mistelski did make application and paid the fees for the junkyard license for All Imports Auto for 1984. They attempted to present the general picture to the Planning Commission, and it seemed for awhile that several agreed with Mr. Mistelski's plans and that he should be treated like the other yards and be allowed to have some time to restore the fence. But then a comment was made that the basic idea is to get rid of the junkyards in Andover and that this is a good place to start. He felt that was the primary reason the recommendation was made to revoke the special use permit and felt that was improper. He felt it is discriminatory; it is in the heart of the junkyard business, and this use will not change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Shaw also noted the fence is a solid blue and white steel fence, 8\ feet high that w1ll match the building. The prpposal is also to have all parts within the storage butlding, so nothing will be outside. Ultimately when this building is built, Mr. Mistelski will have over $200,000 invested in that sight. He asked the Council to consider the matter in the same manner the other junkyard applicants were handled who haven't had their fences restored from the storm and in light of Mr. Mistelski's good intentions of reconstructing the fence, constructing the building, and improving the site. They feel the issue of not using the property for six months is directly related to the storm, as it was used to store parts prior to that time. Council discussion noted a junkyard license was issued for 1983 but not for 1984, and that the special use permit includes the entire two-acre tract where the house stands. Councilman Knight stated to accept Mr. Shaw's logic, all that would be needed is a tire rim stored in the house and it would constitute a junkyard; and he questioned whether that would fall under the definition of junkyard. Mr. Shaw stated it is an expanded use, that the storage of auto parts in the house is as much a part of the junkyard business as any other part, which in fact is the most efficient way to do business. Mr. Mistelski also had some junk cars there in 1982, and in 1983 it was limited to the storage of auto parts in the house. Chairman Spotts stated they do not have exact kn'owledge that it was not used in that fashion prior to the storm. But they do know since the storm when the fence was blown down it is obvious it has not been used as a junkyard. Acting Mayor Orttel noted the question is not necessarily the fence, but whether there has been use or nonuse of the property to meet the requirements of the ordinance. He felt there has been no substantial use of the property, whether there has been some minor storage in the building or not. Mr. Mistelski explained the special use permit prohibits him from using the house for an office, but he could use it for storage. That is all he has done with it. He had planned to construct the building a long time ago but didn't have the money to do so. He also explained that he would plant shrubs around the area and planned to begin as soon as the whether breaks. The front would face Jay Street and would have brick on it. He explained all the reduction of the vehicles would be done inside the building and auto parts shelved in the building. The carcasses of the vehicles would be put in the main yard, not on this site. He would be the sole owner of the business. Several Councilmen felt the proposal for the area was an attractive one and thought that any auto reduction business, if done completely inside a building, would not be objectionable. But the general consensus was that the minor storage of parts and sales is a nonconforming use, and the ordinance would have to be amended to allow what is being proposed. Mr. Shaw argued that the Council is saying a nominal use is not a substantial use, but there 1S no measure in the ordinance. There wasn't an actual finding, and it seems that the Commission felt this is a way to accomplish a different objective of ultimately eliminating all the junkyards. Regular City Council Meeting March 6, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Revocation of Special Use Permit - All Imports Auto, Continue~) Councilman Lachinski felt the Council is in favor of impcoving the area and this may be an opportunity to work with the owner to improve the area. He wasn't sure if a fence would even be desirable around such a building if it were allowed for the sale of used parts and everything was indoors. Attorney Hawkins advised the Council would have to amend the Qrdinance to allow the sale and auto reduction only in an enclosed building in this area. The use under the special use permit is nonconforming because there has not been sufficient use for over one year, so the special use permit cannot be amended. Council discussion continued with the idea of allowing such uses if it is to be con- ducted totally within a building and no junk was laying outside, that the City should have some controls over such buildings especially as to visual impact, that the possibility of requiring existing yards to move their operations indoors on some time schedule should be investigated, and that with an ordinance change, the requirements and conditions can be written in to govern the operation,especially design approval. Councilman Lachinski stated he would be willing to work with the Planning Commission both with Mr. Mistelski's plan and modifications to the junkyard ordinance itself. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution as presented revoking the special use permit for a junkyard issued to Charles Mistelski on the 15th Day of December, 1981. (See Resolution R018-84) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we refer to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration the concept of auto reduction and storage and sale of used auto parts providing that its done totally inside a building with the building to be approved with plans submitted to the Council, etc., and approved for such use. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE/LOT SPLIT - M. BERGMAN MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Resolution approving a lot split with a variance for M. Bergman on Plat 65914, Parcel 9210. (See Resolution R019-84) Motion carried unanimously. AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT/SLOTH Chairman Spotts reviewed the Commission's recommendation to approve the amended special use permit noting that the addition will not be seen from the road. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, the Resolution as presented approving an amended special use, permit for A. Sloth to allow for the construction of a nursery building on Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3, Block 2, of Lakeview Terrace. (See Resolution R020-84) Motion carried unanimously. (Council then recessed and went into a special closed session with the attorney to discuss the Holasek/Hamilton settlement. 8:50 p.m. Meeting resumed at 9:11 p.m.) PETITION/FEASIBILITY STUDY/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING - 162ND LANE AND 164TH AVENUE MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, accepting petition, declaring it adequate, orderlng feasibility study, accepting such study and ordering the public hearing for the improvement of bituminous streets for 162nd Lane from Round Lake Boulevard to a quarter mile east, and set the public hearing for 7 o'clock, Wednesday, March 28. (See Resolution R021-84) Motion carried unanimously ~1IDNby Elling, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution accepting the feasibility report and sett1ng a public hearing for the improvement of bituminous streets for the 164th and 165th Lane area as submitted, and set the public hearing for March 28 at 7 o'clock. (See Resolution R022-84) Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting March 6, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 RUM RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Council discussed the proposal for apportioning the costs,crradministration and water management plan for the Rum River Water Management Organization as presented in a March 1, 1984, memo by Mr. Schrantz. Discussion noted the formula doesn't impact Andover very much. The Council generally agreed that the formula proposed was acceptable and felt it is the best solution for everyone. Councilman Knight stated it is still not known what happens if one of the cities should decide not to participate in the organization, and the Council suggested that matter should be resolved. UTILITY BUDGET The Clerk reported she made the following adjustments to the Utility Budget since the last meeting: Frank Stone's salary split for the water budget was changed from 75 percent of 50 percent of his time to 50 percent of 50 percent of his time, for Sewer Fund A from 15 to 35 percent of 50 percent, and for Sewer Fund B from 10 to 15 percent of 50 percent. That changes the distribution in the water fund from $26,763 to $23,283 and total expenditures from $55,970 to $52,490, leaving an unallocated surplus of $6,710. In Sewer Fund A, the collection system goes up from $64,548 to $67,331, and total expenditures up from $72,682 to $75,465, leaving an unallocated surplus of $4,691. In Sewer Fund B, the collection system goes up from $27,197 to $27,892 and total expenditures up from $30,118 to $30,813, leaving an unallocated surplus of $219. It means the rates will not have to be raised this year, but it will have to be looked at closely for Sewer Fund B next year. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, to approve the Utility Budget as amended. Mot1on carried unanimously. PARK AND RECRE~TrON COMMISSION MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Elling, that we authorize payment of $15,000 for the land and $300 for appraisals to Jerry Windschitl for park property. Motion carried unanimously. There was a brief discussion on the 100x150-foot parcel on Jay Street that the City picked up from tax forfeiture several years ago, suggesting it be looked at for economic development purposes. Acting Mayor Orttel also suggested the City look into selling the lots in Nordeen Addition with the possibility of applying that money toward the park property being purchased for Kelsey Park. Attorney Hawkins was asked to check into the legalities of the deed transfer, etc. Councilman Elling stated he would contact reputable realtors in an attempt to get an appraisal on the lots. Counci 1 was asked to think about whether to sell the lots for cash or on contract and on how to proceed with the matter. MEETING/HAZARDOUS WASTE ON SOUTH ANDOVER SITE The Clerk reviewed her memo of yesterday's meeting with Schriptek, County, and PCA representatives. The project on the South Andover site wi 11 be handled as an EPA lead. All of the generators were contacted approximately 14 months ago, and none of them indicated any willingness to participate in the cleanup. It is felt that by this spring they will be on site to do the Remedial Action Plan, which EPA and PCA set up for the contract. Following that, it will take about a year to do the Remedial Action Feasibility Study. Then the contractors can go in to complete the work, which is estimated to take about six months. The only problem right now is that the owner of the land has not given approval to go on the land, though the County feels if it has to go to court, it would only mean a delay of a week's time. Schriptek has also agreed to fix the well that they capped. Regular City Council Meeting March 6, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT Fire Chief Frank Stone reported they hope to have the new rescue vehicle within two weeks. They will then be trying to find a Chief's vehicle for the amount within the budget. He asked how the City could go about disposing of the old rescue vehicle and chief's vehicle, hoping he could get as much as $2,000 apiece for them. Attorney Hawkins stated the amount is under the limit, and that the City could dispose of them in any way it can, suggesting quotes be obtained. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Checks 7621 through 7689 with the exception of 7663 and 7688 for a total of $35,020.38. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, to ad~ourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~7~ Mar lla A. Peach Recor ing Secretary