Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 20, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-NOVEMBER 20,1984 " AGENDA 1 . Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. Variance - J. Reich b. Special Use Permit - J. Scherer c. Variance - G. Wade d. Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen e. Water Service - Good Value Homes, Inc. f. Watershed District - Ponding/Development g. Sewer Billing Policy h. Variance/A. Palo g. h. i. j . 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Cable Franchise Amendment b. Bond Sale c. N-I Off-Sale Liquor License/G-Will's Liquors d. Andover Athletic Association e. 6. Reports of Committes, Commissions, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment - ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: COPIES TO: T 0 FROM: CITY DA TE: REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 20. 1984 Item No.3 - Agenda¡comments Please add Item ND.} 4h (Variance-A. Palo) . i . , , Item No. 4a - Variance/J. Reich Ms. Reich is requesting approval of a variance to allow her to divide her property into two individual parcels, both of which will contain in excess of five acres. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval of the request, noting the concern that the vehicle by which this is handled should be a lot split under the provisions of Ordinance NO. 40. Ms. Reich did contact me prior ,to making application and we discussed several options available to her; one of which was to purchase an additional 100 I from the adjoining property owner, thereby allowing her two lots, both of which would meet the area and width requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, and would not require any City approval for the subdivision (she would, however, have had to secure a variance for the 100' transfer of property). The intent of Ordinance 40 is to allow a property owner to subdivide into a parcel which would contain acreage similar to that of a plat, however, this ordinance would allow him to do this to avoid the high costs of a plat for just one or two lots. Ms. Reich was advised to get the variance to allow her to subdivide into the two 5+ acre lots, with the variance being on the width only (assuming she could not purchase additional property). Ordinance No. 10 allows a subdivision of over 5 acres/300'width without platting or a lot split; in granting the variance the Council could set out the provisions on the resultant lots as to the width. Should the property be divided again into parcels of which one or both would be under five acres, Ordinance 40 would be used and park dedication fee required. The City Attorney will also comment on this at the meeting. A resolution will be prepared granting approval. Item No. 4b - Special Use Permit/J. Scherer Mr. Scherer is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow him to sell Christmas trees from his residential property. Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for approval. A resolution will be prepared. - -.._- Agenda Comments November 20, 1984 Meeting Page 2 Item No. 4c - Variance/G. Wade Mr. Wade is requesting a variance to allow him to construct an accessory building prior to the construction of the principal building. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the request, with a stipulation that the principal building, when built, must be located nearer the front lot line than this accessory building. A resolution will be prepared, granting approval. Item No. 4d - Townhouse /Development Attached is the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for the construction of townhouses on the parcel owned by John Thomsen. Per Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.18, 4.19, 4.20 a Special Use Permit is required to develop this under the provisions of a PUD. Mr. Thomsen requested approval for 26 units, however, the Commission has recommended 19. The difference comes with the acreage for streets being subtracted from total acreage prior to computing the requirements for each unit. The attorney will present an opinion of the correct manner of computation . Item No. 4e - Water Service/Good Value Homes, Inc. This item is continued from previous meetings. The Mayor and Engineers have met with Good Value to establish a time frame for this development. They will cover this at the meeting. Item No. 4f - Watershed District/Pondinq- Development The discussions with the Secretary and Attorney of the Watershed District have resulted in their agreement to present/with figures, alternatives which may result in lower costs to everyone, both in the area of ditch repair and the reservoir determination. A complete report will be given by the Mayor at the meeting. Item No. 4q - Sewer Billing Policy This item is continued from the November 8 Meeting. Adoption of the amended resolution will simply establish the starting date for sewer user charges as the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupany rather than the sewer connection date as it now reads. Item No. 4h - Variance/A. Palo The applicant is requesting a variance to allow him to split off approximately 4.17 acres from a 39-acre parcel to be added to an existing l-acre parcel. The combination of the 4.17 acres and the 1-acre will create a parcel containing in excess of 5 acres with a width of 300' . The variance was required because the 4.17 acres, in itself, did not have a width of 300' . A resolution will be prepared for acceptance contingent upon the combination. Item No. 5a - Cable Franchise Amendment This item is tabled from the November 8 Meeting. A motion is needed for the adoption of the Ordinance Amending covering the items approved earlier this year. Agenda Comments November 20, 1984 Regular Meeting Page 3 Item No. 5b - Bond Sale A bid was received from Juran & Moody on November 8 for this issue, however, based on the interest rate assessed for the improvements, the net interest rate of the bid proposal could result, if accepted, a shortage in the debt service fund for repayment. The City Attorney was requested to re-work the schedule for repayment in an effort to secure a lesser net interest. The JM representative agreed to work with the attorney on this proposal. Item No. 5c - N-I Off-Sale Liquor License G-Will's Liquors are requesting approval of a license to sell non- intoxicating malt liquor. We have received no complaints, nor has the Sheriff's Office on this operation. Item No. 5d - Andover Athletic Association This item was tabled from the November 8 Meeting. Councilman Elling will furnish a report. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes September 13, September 18, October 4, October 11, October 16, November 8, 1984 Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1984 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 20, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, Don Spotts; City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and others RESIDENT FORUM Carroll Abbott, 2917 142nd Lane - thanked the Council for having the stop signs on Cnocus removed. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Windschitl suggested adding Item 4g, Garage for Second Sheriff's Car to the Agenda. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to approve the Agenda as submitted. ~1ot ion carried unanimously. VARIANCE - J. REICH Attorney Hawkins advised that the variance is appropriate, that it is varying from the width requirement and five-acre requirement. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution approving a Variance on Lot Width as requested by J. Reich on Lot No.1 of Auditor's Subdivision 141 as prepared. (See Resolution R122-84) Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - J. SCHERER Chairman Spotts reviewed the Commission's recommendation to approve the special use permit of John Scherer, 1560 Andover Boulevard, to operate a choose and cut Christmas tree sales lot pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 7.03. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution approving a special use permit to sell Christmas trees as requested by J. Scherer. (See Resolution R123-84) Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE - G. WADE Gregory Wade - stated he is requesting permission to build a garage ahead of the house to store machinery used for the preparation of building the house. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, approving a special use permit for the construction of an accessory building prior to that of the principal building as requested by G. Wade for his property on University Extension and also include the maximum size of the building shall be 36 x 48 feet. (See Resolution R124-84) Motion carried unanimously. TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - J. THOMSEN Chairman Spotts reviewed the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, noting a major concern of the residents was the traffic problem on Round Lake Boulevard and how the additional traffic and additional ingress/egresses to the street would add Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 2 (Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen, Continued) to the problem if that townhouse development were constructed. The Planning Commission was also concerned with the high density, feeling a more appropriate figure based on the City's ordinances would be not more than 19 units. Mayor Windschitl stated normally a special use permit has certain conditions tied to it that would need to be determined, namely the number of units, the size of the structures, and a profile and elevations of the units. John Thomsen - stated they want to work with the property, as they have held the property for a long time and it is to the point of no longer being profitable. So it must be developed now, otherwise the financial loss is going to be too great; plus it is being vandalized quite severely at this time. There are over 37 tree stumps since this summer, and he doesn't know who is cutting down the trees. He wants to cooperate with the City, and he thought his density is fair. But he is open to negotiations. He wants to keep the costs of the housing affordable as entry-level housing. They have agreed to meet the 440-square-foot garage requirement and are providing 912 square feet of finished space plus 400 feet of expandable walkout. It is not their intent to get spec financing, as the townhouses will be sold as they are built. Mayor Windschitl questioned the square footage, stating the ordinances require 960 square feet. Attorney Hawkins stated this question was addressed by the Planning Commission. It was his interpretation of the ordinance of dwelling size in the R-4 district of attached units of three or more two-bedroom family units that the square footage requirement is 750 square feet per unit. In his opinion, the proposed development comes under the category of three or more families under one unit. Mr. Thomsen - stated the reason they want to cluster the units is to provide more open space. He felt it is much more salable with open space, leaving the lakeshore property alone. Chairman Spotts reviewed how the Commission arrived at the 19 units (As noted in their recommendation to the Council dated November 14, 1984). Councilman Knight questioned why the pond would be used to calculate density when ponds have never been used for such cafcu 1 at iorrs in other deve lopments. Mr. Thomsen - stated in their recalculations, they have found that with 26 units, it w111 be marginally profitable. Each unit will be in the $60,000 price level. At 20 units, they will have a loss. If he has to settle for 20 units, he will; but he doesn't want to. But the time element is more critical than the 26 units. In addressing the traffic problem, Mr. Thomsen stated they are more than 300 feet from the intersection with their north entrance. There is a driveway at that access, and he felt it makes sense to make that a common driveway with their road. He did not know how he would have to deal with the four units that are proposed to be in the flood plain. The Mayor then asked for testimony from the residents. Mel Litke, 1435 Underclift - stated that pond is a drainage area for County Road g. He also stated the proposed entrance is about 300 feet from the hill. Cars come over the hill at high speeds, and he felt the proposed access to Round Lake Boulevard is suicide. Councilman Knight stated he has watched the traffic in that area and agrees it is a problem. It is not only a problem of visibility, but of speed as well. Councilman Elling noted the Council has not yet heard an opinion from the County on the proposed ingress/egress to the development. Kevin Sylvers, 14416 Underclift - lives right acnoss the street. The proposal means a lot more traffic coming through there and a lot more danger. He also cautioned that once this is allowed, it is setting a precedent for having cluster developments allover the City. He asked how anyone of the Council would like this type of development in their front yards. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen, Continued) Denny Stephens, 14348 Underclift Street - emphathized with Mr. Thomsen's problem. But on the other hand, he has lived there since 1973 and likes it the way it is. He is concerned about the number of units going in and whether there is ample room for children. He too noted the traffic issue. As to affordable housing, he didn't want that type of housing to devalue his property either. He did not think putting in 26 units on that property would do his property value any good, feeling there is a tendency of low-cost housing to become rundown and unsightly. He would be in favor of reducing the number of units, but he didn't know of anything that warrants~6 units on that property. John Berry, 14401 Underclift - stated his property butts the end of the property in question. From what he can determine, a unit would be constructed about ten feet away from his doghouse. There is also talk about putting in a road through to 144th. He asked if they want to have a road there and to have the main artery, plus a parking lot, plus other units. Right now the children skate on the pond and there is a lot of wildlife in that area. He too was concerned about property values. Traffic is a problem now, and it won't get any better with 19 more units in there. He estimated another 40 cars in that area once the developmnt is completed. If a stop light is needed, who will absorb that cost? Mr. Berry stated he isn't against development on that piece of property but is not anxious to see all the townhouses come up in his back yard. He'd like to see one, two, or three homes on that property. He thought homes of $100,000 each would be more in line with the neighborhood. He asked what the setbacks would be for the townhouses. Mr. Thomsen - suggested acquiring the pond to be used as a park or recreation. Mayor W1ndschitl noted the sideyard setback is 10 feet, front yard setback is 50 feet, and rearyard setback is 20 feet. Dennis Harper, Round Lake Boulevard - asked the price of the units when completed. Mr. Thomsen - stated they would be around $60,000; but with air conditioning, cathedral cei 11ngs, it would be close to $65,000. They are designed for the two-income entry- level family as a starter home. The density is estimated at 2.7 people/unit. Richard Bombard, 3608 144th Avenue - is right across the street from the driveway on l44th. He has two ch1ldren, and there are a lot of children in that area. His main concern is the additional traffic and the safety of the children, especially on that corner. John Zillhardt, 145th Avenue - was not sure that the statement made by the developer that he would have to take a loss on the property was a valid point. It was speculative property in an R-4 zoning, and he must take the risk of planning to put in a higher density than what is allowed by ordinance. Secondly, he felt the will of the people who live in that area should be taken seriously. That property has been zoned R-4 for years and the people bought their houses feeling they were coming into an R-4 area. Mr. Litke - noted it has been stated the estimated density of the development is 2.7. He estimated the existing area to be 4.7. He asked where all the children are going to play, because there is no park in that area. The kids use the pond as a skating rink now because they don't have anywhere else to go. He liked the idea of buying the property for a park. Ron Engle - stated the Council must look at the entire thing carefully, asking what lS to stop other developers from constructing townhouse develoment as the population increases. Is that the type of development wanted in the City of Andover? Mr. Sylvers - hoped the City Council senses the sentiments of the residents on this 1ssue. It is not how many units, but the consideration of why they moved to Andover. They are being asked to make a decision on a proposal for development in their back yards by someone who doesn't even live in Andover. This is an investment for him to Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen, Continued) make some money, but they have to look at it all the time. There is a lot of land left to be developed in Andover, and he felt the Council needs to ask where this is going to stop. Mr. Stephens - asked if this is setting a precedent for the rest of the City. There are no guarantees that this type of home will not be built throughout the City, and there are no guarantees that this development will be kept up. His concern is what happens around his home, and he hopes the Council will take that into consideration. Jeff Kieffer, 14385 Round Lake Boulevard - couldn't believe they are looking at more homes when they already know there 1S a traffic problem. He stated he is taking his life into his hands just going to his mailbox. He thought it was crazy to be talking about more homes before there is any control over the existing problem. Bonnie Thiede, 14423 Underclift - asked if it isn't putting the cart before the horse to make a decision before all these matters are known, such as how many units, the trafffc problem, etc. Mayor Windschitl stated those items will be addressed prior to acting on the special use permit. Cheryl Bombard, 3608 l44th Avenue - stated Mr. Thomsen has had this land for many years, but now all of a sudden he's in a rush to develop it. Mr. Thomsen - stated he was told by City staff they would not be allowed to develop 1nto mult1ples without private sewer and water. This is the earliest he could get here because sewer and water has just been installed. Mayor Windschitl stated he could have developed into single family residents without city water. Mr. Thomsen - noted other developments in neighboring cities of 800 square feet or less. He stated his builder is reputable, and the unit will be a good one. From a safety standpoint, he noted he personally lost a child who was hit by a car, and he lives on a circle where it is normally considered to be safe. His point is that he sympathizes with the people, but accidents can happen anywhere. If there is going to be a moratorium on developing his land until the traffic problem on Round Lake Boulevard is solved, then there should also be a moratorium on all land north of him as well. Mayor Windschitl felt when talking about the density factor, the comments on the traffic issue are valid. He also noted once the last piece of Hanson Boulevard is constructed, some of the traffic problem may be alleviated on Round Lake Boulevard. County Road 20 is supposed to be upgraded this summer, which may also help. There was a lengthy Council discussion on the request. Mayor Windschitl still had a problem with the size of the townhouses, feeling Mr. Thomsen should meet the Andover minimum requirements for housing. He also questioned why single family hou>ing wouldn't be feasible on this property even though it may be a difficult parcel to work with. But it is totally surrounded by single family housing right now. If a development with this high density were allowed, Mayor Windschitl felt it would be in no developer's interest to ever develop single family units again. There would be a savings on assessment costs and a lot of things with this high density on lot use. Councilman Knight didn't think it was the obligation of the local citizens to assume Mr. Thomsen's risk. He questioned the whole concept of townhouses, especially that small. He didn't think it was good use from a City standpoint. He again questioned using the pond for acreage to determine the maximum density of the land. And he felt there would be additional runoff and didn't know what that could do to the lake eventually. He also questioned if the DNR would need to be involved for development into the flood plain. Councilman Lachinski stated there has been no comments back from the County, but he thought normally the county does not turn down such requests. He felt the developer clearly has the right to develop this type of housing if he follows the ordinance. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen, Continued) One issue that needs to be determined is the density issue. Mayor Windschitl stated if the pond is taken out of the total acreage, the calculated density would be 16 un its. Mr. Thomsen - stated in the opinion of his engineers, the property is undevelopable as single family because of the cost of soils excavation. The City engineer determined the property was assessed for sewer and water for 3.17 acres. Using that calculation, it was determined that 8 or 9 single family¡,homes could be allowed on that property if streets were not constructed. Other concerns raised by the Council were the question of elevation of the buildings, the question of proposed construction encroaching on the flood plain, the concerns about the effects on the rest of the neighborhood, the traffic question, and the entire concept of townhouses in this area. Council discussed the matter further with residents as to the ordinance requirements and the conditions that can be tied to such a permit. Members of the audience again stated they moved out to Andover to get away from things like this, that it is ruining what brought them to Andover in the first place, that there are other areas where this would create less of a traffic problem than on Round Lake Boulevard, that they would like and would not object to the development in terms of single family neighborhood like their own, and that the developer should be able to make a profit by constructing g homes on those 3.17 acres. wa*ne P), Vintage - stated the residents are here to ask the Council to ad ress th1S issue, not the County. Councilman Lachinski felt the question is what basis, according to the ordinance, does the Council have to deny the request. He also stated the Council does not look at the costs or profit margin when making its decision on the issue. Mr. Hawkins, 15524 University - asked if the Council would consider approving the spec1al use permlt without knowing the elevations of the buildings. He was concerned that the City Council would consider approving such permits that could cause devalua- tion of surrounding property. Council stated that would be a valid reason for not approving such a permit, and again reviewed the legalities and minimum ordinance re- quirements the Council must follow when dealing with such requests. According to the Attorney, the ordinance does allow a smaller dwelling unit for multiple units. Councilman Orttel then noted the ordinance "allows townhouse development in any residential district following the issuance of a special use permit under a planned unit deve lopment." Under planned unit development it says, "such development will produce urban development and urban environment that is of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherance to the provisions of the ordinance. The variance shall not constitute a threat to the property values, safety, health, or general welfare of the owners of adjacent land, nor be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public." Councilman Orttel felt if the quality of that development is lower than what would result from single family development, the ordinance provides for that reason to deny the request. Councilman Lachinski suggested returning this to the Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider the density and property vafues on existing neighborhoods. Mr. Thomsen - stated the project has changed over a long period of time, and this is the fifth time they have been before the Council. The project is to the point that he has the right to develop this property to its highest an:d best use. He fe 1t that right is being jeopardized. He stated he was lead to believe if they wanted the quantity of housing, they would have to wait. They waited, and now it is time to move on it. Otherwise they will have to look at the existing ordinance and see if they are being compromised in any way. He would be happy to work with the City to come up with Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (Townhouse Development - J. Thomsen, Continued) something. But they are at a point where it is not feasible for them, given the raw land costs, sewer assessment, and engineering fees already put into this land, to change it completely. He purchased the land in 1976. Councilman Elling stated he felt there is no doubt it is an overuse of the land as laid out before the Council with 26 units. Mr. Thomsen - stated they would be glad to meet with the staff. It is a question of denslty and engineering costs. He asked what does the Council want. His engineering firm has stated the property is not conducive to the single-family configuration. He also noted the other issue is that this would be a model in the area, and most people going into that type of development do not want to do their own maintenance. So an Association is needed. He stated he is talking about good quality construction. They have tried to be good neighbors; they have allowed recreation and use of their property. If the City wishes to purchase the property for a park, he would be willing to sell. Mayor Windschitl stated the City is definitely not going to purchase that property, informing the residents of the development of a park off Xenia that hopefully will be done this year. Mayor Windschitl also stated the biggest problem is trying to find something that is acceptable to the Council and the neighborhood. And he felt the neighbors would be more amenab]e to a much lesser density, closer to the g units that would be allowed accordin~ to the ordinance. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we refer the Thomsen special use permit back to the P & Z to work with Mr. Thomsen to see if this plan can be reworked to come up with something more favorable with the neighborhood. DISCUSSION: Council generally felt the developer should try to work with the neighboring residents to develop an acceptable plan, and that he should also come back to the Council with the layout, a building tied to the proposal, and something from the County with respect to the traffic situation. Attorney Hawkins noted the Council has until January 13, 1985, to act on the request. It was felt the Planning and Zoning Commission would consider this item at its December 11 meeting and the Council would act upon it at the first regular meeting in January. Council was not sure what density should be allowed, noting the variables of soils, flood plain, etc. But single family zoned on three acres would be approximately 8 or g houses. A resident in the audience stated the neighbors would not have any problem with that density. Someone also asked if nine units would be built, would those assessments be in the same price range as the rest of the neighborhood. Mayor Windschitl stated it would be equated so they would be paying the same or a similiar amount. Council also noted the proposal shows con- struction over a drainage easement, which would need to be resolved. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:01; reconvene at 9:1~ p.m. VARIANCE/A. PALO MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, introducing a Resolution approving a variance request of A. Palo to convey a parcel containing less than five acres/300 feet width on the condition that the 4.17 acres be combined with the adjoining one-acre lot. , (See Resolution R125-84) Motion carried unanimously. WATERSHED DISTRICT - PONDING/DEVELOPMENT Al Sannerud and Ken Slyzuk from the Coon Creek Watershed Board were present. Mayor Windschitl reviewed the proposals that came out of several meetings with representatives from the Watershed, the County, and the City (Reference the Committee meeting Minutes of the Coon Creek Watershed District, November 6, 1984). The Watershed Board is asking for the Council's reaction to two concepts: 1) Regarding Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (Watershed District - Ponding/Development, Continued) the assessment of Ditch 57, the possibility of enlarging the drainage basis to include the addition of Ditches 20, 23, and 37; and 2) Regarding the regional ponding assessment, that a special levy be created for ponding that would permit 50 percent of the costs to be spread over the entire watershed benefitted area. The Mayor explained assuming the formula for determining regional ponding fees for developers is used, the Watershed Board would be willing to charge only 50 percent of those fees to the developer and the remaining 50 percent levied across the entire watershed. He also explained that by enlarging the drainage basis for Ditch 57, the costs are brought more in line with those of the other ditches done in the District. It is an attempt to keep some degree of uniformity across the neighborhoods. If the Council agrees to these changes in concept, the Board is willing to implement them and address some of the other concerns raised by the City as well. Mr. Sannerud - explained enlarging the drainage basis to include the addition of D1tches 20, 23, and 37 more than doubles the base, but the cost to repair those additional ditches is substantially less per foot. Including the additional three ditches only adds a 20 percent increase to the entire cost of the project. He also stated there will be a redetermination of benefits on all three ditches, after which more financial detail would be known about the project. There was a lengthy discussion with Mr. Sannerud over the proposed change to the assessment of the repair of Ditch 57, the law regarding the obligation of the Watershed Board to clean a ditch if it is found to be in disrepair, that there have already been petitions for cleaning on two of the ditches, and that this is an attempt to make the assessments for those projects more equitable to the residents. Councilman Orttel was concerned that approval of the concept not be an indication of the City's approval for the project. One of his objections was that no need has ever been demonstrated that Ditch 57 is in a state of disrepair, that the Council has not been shown where areas are flooding and how the cleaning will help. He also didn't think the cost of the ditch repair was a main concern of the residents, and he did not want it construed that the City is approving the addition of three specific ditches to the Ditch 57 project prior to any engineering research being done. Mayor Windsthitl explained the Council is being asked to address the problems with the financial aspect of the ditch repair, not with whether or not the City favors the project. He stated the viewers are again looking at those specific areas the City is concerned about where drainage was either handled by pond or drained out of the district because the Watershed Board would not allow drainage into the creek at that time. It is fairly certain those areas in Chapmans, Northglen, and Quickstrom that drain out of the District may be removed from the Coon Creek Watershed. There have been several suggestions as to how to handle those areas such as Red Oaks that hold their drainage in ponds, and the viewers will be making a recommendation on those specific subdivisions. Discussion was then on the proposed concept for financing the regional ponds. Mayor Windschitl stated the developer would be charged 1/2 rate of the present formula, and the other half would be made up by an ad valorum of 1/3 mill per year levied against the entire watershed until the funds needed to construct the ponds are acquired. Council discussed the concept and generally felt it was more acceptable than the original proposal; and it addresses the City's concerns of penalizing those who are developing now or in the future. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, that the Council go on record as being in favor of a concept whereby 50 percent of the cost of regional ponds be spread throughout the entire Watershed District; the other 50 percent would be assessed directly to the developers as proposed by the Watershed Board. DISCUSSION: Mr. Sannerud stated it Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 8 (Watershed District - Ponding/Development, Continued) is timely to be addressing this concept because they review their figures every December. If this concept is approved by Andover and the Board, they will present it to the other cities for their approval as well. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Windschitl stated the Board must still address the natural ponding areas within a given plat. The proposal is to allow credit for natural ponding within a plat, but a developer would not be allowed to build a pond in the plat. There was a brief discussion on the concern raised of how the ad valorum for regional ponding would affect those in the Watershed District, particularly those like Red Oaks who do not drain into the creek but who have paid considerably for ponding their drainage. No specific conclusion was arrived at. Discussion returned to the concept proposed for enlarging the drainage basin for the Ditch 57 project. It was finally agreed thatcthe concept for expanding the ditch basin would be acceptable and is more equitable than the original financial proposal. However, the Council wanted it made clear that this does not mean Council approval of the repair of the specific ditches mentioned. The Council indicated they believe they have the right to see the engineering data regarding the project prior to making a decision. And several Councilmen asked that a demonstrated need for the repair be shown, such as areas being flooded, etc. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council agrees with the concept of assessing the cost of any main ditch construction or repair against the entire basin of the Watershed in the City of Andover. DISCUSSION: was on how this would affect those off the main ditch. Mr. Sannerud stated if a ditch does not need repair, they would still get an assessment for the work done on the main ditch. Mr. Schrantz noted a person might be assessed for the repair of Ditch 57 and be assessed again for the cleaning of a secondary ditch. Mayor Windschitl likened the policy to the City's sewer and water assessment whereby everyone pays for the trunk (in this case, Ditch 57) and pays for the laterals as well (in this case, the secondary ditches). Motion carried unanimously. WATER SERVICE - GOOD VALUE HOMES/LANDFILL STUDY UPDATE Mayor Windschitl reported Good Value Homes felt, given the way property has moved in their present development, that the project as outlined in the report was something they could not afford at this point in time. TKDA has looked at servicing only one- half of Good Value's property south of Crosstown and Bunker Lake Boulevards, but Good Va lue Homes has not seen that report. Their preference now is to hold everything until next year. Tom May, Crosstown Boulevard - stated there is concern among the residents as to the water quality. He felt this winter might be a good time to hold neighborhood hearings, explain what is happening regarding the landfill and the South Andover Site, and get a feeling of what the residents would like to do about municipal water. He a 1 so noted with the well advisory placed on their area by the State Health Department, people are worried about the high cost of replacing wells. Council noted if petitions were brought in, they would definitely hold the required public hearings for municipal water. But at this point, it was felt it may be better to wait until the studies at the landfill are completed before doing anything with a water system. One of the biggest concerns is if municipal water is installed prior to the studies done or any "need" demonstrated, the City loses virtually all chances of receiving grant funds for the system. They also preferred the residents make a decision based on facts, and right now those "facts" are not yet known. Council also noted that all the preliminary work for municipal water has been completed. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 9 (Water Service - Good Value Homes/Landfill Study Update, Continued) Mayor Windschitl then reported the landfill study has run into a major problem, as the generators have run into problems with the QAQC testing approval for samples in Chicago. Councilman Elling stated the generators are at least a month behind, and it is virtually assured they will not meet their six-month time frame on the study as outlined in the agreement. Councilman Lachinski asked what the City could do to get the project moving -- passing a resolution that such delays cannot be tolerated, starting a lawsuit, or attracting media attention to the problem. Not only the health factor is a consideration here, but property values as well. The Council generally were frustrated with the continual delays, discussed the reasons for this delay and what action the City should take. Council directed the Clerk to set up a meeting with the engineer for the generators for the middle of December to discuss this matter further. ANDOVER ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the authorization for $148.50 to the Andover Athletic Association for 30 T-shirts from Sport About. Motion carried unanimously. NON-INTOXICATING OFF-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE/G-WILL'S LIQUORS MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve a Non-Intoxicating Liquor License for G-Will's Liquor. Motion carried unanimously. BOND SALE Attorney Hawkins stated he was not able to negotiate a quote from Juran & Moody for the sale of the $300,000 General Improvement Bond for less than 10 percent net interest because of the uncertainty in the market, the glut in the market over the next month or so, and the concern over the flat tax proposal añd its effect on municipal bonds. Because the funds are not needed immediately and because the City can always rely on the funds in the 80-3 project fund, he recommended reviewing the situation periodically in the hopes of getting a rate below g.g percent. Counoil agreed. CABLE FRANCHISE AMENDMENT MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, introducing an Ordinance amending the Cable Ordlnance regarding the franchise agreement between the City of Andover and Group W Cable as prepared. Motion carried unanimously. GARAGE FOR SECOND SHERIFF'S CAR Mayor Windschitl reported the County has agreed to park a second sheriff's car in the City if a garage could be found to store it in. This would mean about one more hour of coverage for the City. The alternatives he saw were to rent a place near the City Hall where it could be stored, have Mr. Stone take home a vehicle which will allow him to respond directly to the scene when called and would then provide a spot in the Public Works Building for the sheriff's car, or construct a cold stroage garage for a vehicle. Council discussed the alternatives and generally felt either allowing Mr. Stone to take home a City vehicle, constructing a cold storage garage, or storing a piece of public works equipment outdoors for the winter would be acceptable. Council generally did not favor having to rent a place for the vehicle. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we authorize Pat Lindquist to find suitable lodging for the sheriff's vehicle for the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 10 SEWER BILLING POLICY MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution amending Resolution No. 57-84, a Resolution setting forth sanitary sewer and municipal water billing aNd collection procedures and to be known as the utility billing and collection policy of the City of Andover, as prepared (See Resolution R126-84) Motion carried unanimously. TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT POLICY IN ANDOVER Council discussed the City ordinances as they pertain to townhouse or cluster developments within the City. It was felt this item should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as to whether or not they should be allowed; and if so, under what conditions should they be allowed, what size, density, etc. Councilman Orttel suggested the possibility of taking townhouse development out of the PUD section and only allow them in multiples. MOTION by Orttel that we send the entire question of townhouse and condominiums and where they should be located in the city, what their minimum size should be, and all matters relating to them to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Motion dies for lack of a Second. Discussion continued as to the concern that the new Ordinance 8 be completed as soon as possible and that this should be addressed in that ordinance. It was also questioned whether a moratorium on townhouse developn~nt should be implemented until this issue can be looked at more thoroughly, but no action was taken toward it. Councilman Elling stated he has been informed the draft of Ordinance 8 is completed and is being typed at this time. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the entire matter of townhouse and condominiums and their locations, their size, and all other matters relating to them be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for redrafting or review. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Knight, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Elling Motion carried. It was agreed the Council and Planning Commission should meet to discuss the new Ordinance 8 as soon as possible. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve Checks 8692 through 8741 for a grand total of $21,485.86. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 13, September 18, and October 2, 1984: Correct as written. October 11, 1984: Page 2, Second Paragraph: should show that Mayor Windschitl felt the Engineer, Clerk, and entire staff should all be put into the bonus pool. October 16, October 17, and November 8, 1984: Correct as written. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Minutes of September 13, September 18, October 11, and November 8 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Minutes of October 2 as Wrl tten. VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Elling, Knight, Orttel, Windschitl; PRESENT-Lachinski Motion carried. Regular City Council Meeting November 20, 1984 - Minutes Page 11 (Approval of Minutes, Continued) MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that we approve the Minutes of October 16 and 17 as presented. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Windschitl; PRESENT-Orttel Motion carried. CITY LOGO Ms. Lindquist asked the Council's opinion of having a contest with a prize of $50 for anyone who submits the winning logo for the City of Andover. Attorney Hawkins felt it would be an allowable expense for advertising. Council had no problem with the suggesti on. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfullv submitted. '"':<\~~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary