Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 5, 1985 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident FOlr'um 3. Agenda Approval 4 . Discussion Items a. Ordinance No. 8 - Multiple Units/Amendments b. street Lighting pOlicy c. Senior Citizen Center - Final Payment d. Ordinance Violations/Commercial Units e. f. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Approve Electrical Bids-Cold Storage Bldg. b. Approve Heat Pump Vent-Public Works Bldg. c. Approve Junkyard Licenses d. e. 6 . Reports of Commissions, Committees, Staff 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment ~-_. ------ ~ 01 ANDOVER M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: OUNCIL COPIES TO' ATTORNEY STAFF FROM: CITY CLERK A DA TE: FEBRUARY 29, 1985 REFERENCE: AGENDA COMMENTS - MARCH 5 MEETING Mayor Windschitl will not be present; Actg. Mayor Orttel presiding. Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval Please delete Item No. 4d (Ordinance Violations-Commercial Units) . Please add Item No. 5d (Logo Selection) Item No. 4a - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment Enclosed is the Planning & Zoning Commission's proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance now appears to cover all items of discussion by the Council. I would, however, still recommend that a statement covering the minimum requirements to be that of single family detached units (See final sentence, Section 4.19-my memo to P&Z dated February 4), otherwise 6.02 as proposed is not completely clear. The other option would be to change the "Multi-family Dwellings" neadings under 6.02 to correspond with the definitions in the ordinance amendment, i.e. , apartments and condominiums. Item No. 4b - Street Liqhtinq Policy You have received copies of the Policy recently adopted by the City of Champlin. This item is on the agenda for discussion purposes only. Item No. 4c - Senior Citizen Center/Final Payment The City Attorney and I met with representatives from Marcus Construction their attorney and Brad Lemborg from B.R.A. today to review the "Punch List", dated August 30, 1984. After considerable discussion and inspections, Marcus Construction agreed the one item needing immediate attention was the ceiling around the divider junctions. The other items had either been done or were done according to specifications (see attached). This was repaired and appears to be holding. Attorney Hawkins will have a further report at the meeting. Item No. 5a - Bids/Electrical Work-Cold Storage Building The City Engineer is still waiting for the quotations, therefore, if they are not received by the meeting, this item should be tabled. Agenda Comments March 5 Regular Meeting Page 2 Item No. 5b - Heat Pump/Public Works Building Enclosed is a memo from the City Engineer requesting approval to install a heat pump for the public works building. A motion is needed for approval. Item No. 5c - Junkyard Licenses All information and requirements are in order for Commercial Auto Parts (PIN 34 32 24 42 OOOS and 34 32 24 42 0009) ; and Andover Auto Parts (PIN 34 32 24 43 0004) . A motion is needed for approval. Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes This item to be tabled until a full Council is present. Enclosures ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 5, 1985 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Kenneth Orttel on March 5, 1985, 7:35 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 Hawkins; City Engineer, James Schrantz; Planning & Zoning Chairman, Don Jacobson; City ClerkjA. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist; and Others. RESIDENT FORUM Chet conåer, 450 156thc'Avenue - stated he is impressed with the quality of snow plowing one durlng the snow storm the last few days. His area was clearea approximately noon yesterday; and he felt it was an excellent idea to make one pass through just to open the roads first, then come back to widen the roads. He thought the Public Works Department could use a proclamation from the City Council. Ron Smith, 14942 Evergreen - owns land off 161st and Potowatomi. 161st deadends, and there lS a lot of traffic across his property. He wondered what could be done to stop it. After some discussion, the Engineer agreed to look into putting poles at the end of 161st as was done in Red Oaks, though he wasn't sure that would solve the problem either. Mr. Smith - stated the property off Hanson Boulevard, the 80-acre Vosika property, lS zoned industrial. The property is now in estate, and the owners would like to sell it as residential property. He asked the Council's opinion of rezoning that to residential and dividing it into five-acre lots. He stated there is a lot of industrial land in Andover which is not selling. He gets a lot of calls for residential in that area, stating that entire area is nice land for residential purposes. There was considerable Council discussion with Mr. Smith explaining why that property had been zoned industrial several years ago and that the City wouldn't encourage five-acre lots in the Urban Service Area. Sewer and water have not been brought into that area because there has been no demand for it; however, if it were petitioned for, the Council wQuJ,dconsider it. Council also noted the problem of rezoning it to residential would be obtaining the approval of the Metropolitan Council to expand or change the Urban Service Area. But wi thou t utilities, it was felt a developer would have difficulty getting financing for ~~idential because of its proximity to the landfill. Mr. Smith - asked how many years it would take to bring in utilities so it could be developed into city lots. Council didn't think it would take that long if the Metro Council would agree. Council directed the City Clerk to check with the Metro Council about expanding or changing the Urban Service Area for residential and to relay that information to Mr. Smith. AGENDA APPROVAL The following changes to the Agenda were suggested: Delete Item 4d, Ordinance Violations/Commercial Units; Add Item 4e, Rite-Away Auto Salvage Extension; 4f, North Central Franchise Ordinance Corrections; 5d, Logo Selection; and 5e, Park Lighting at the City Hall Park. Regular City Council Meeting March 5, 1985 - Minutes Page 2 (Agenda Approval, Continued) MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carrled unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.8 - MULTIPLE UNITS/AMENDMENTS Chairman Jacobson reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations to the amendment to Ordinance 8 - Multiple Units, plus the Clerk's February 4 memo. He noted two corrections on the Commission's recommendation: I) Section 3.01 should read "Section 3.02";and 2) Under M-l "...not to exceed either...", delete the word "either" . Chairman Jacobson stated there was virtually no input at the public hearing, stating it is mostly a policy decision by the Council as to how dense they want development in multiple and PUD situations. On the chart of Section 6.02, Mr. Schrantz felt the specific numbers under the R-4 area for multiples should be crossed out and "PUD" put in its place. In that way, the density would be controlled by the PUD. He felt this would provide more flexibility, and noted that single-family, 3-dwelling units or more are not allowed in the R-4 district except under a PUD. Curt Adams, Planner for Woodland Terrace - stated if this looks at the overall density of 4 units/acre, they would have no problem with it. Their plat would then fall within those guidelines. Council discussed Mr. Schrantz's suggestion of Section 6.02 showing PUD development only in the R-4 zone for three dwelling units or more, attached, with the notation below that in no case would a PUD exceed 4 units/acre, leaving out the minimum lot size requirement. Because only the width of the structure is owned in a townhome situation and the rest is owned by an Association, it was argued that it would be difficult to develop if the 8550 SF/lot minimum would be required. Without that minimum in the ordinance, the developer would still be limited to four units/acre with an Association owning the remaining open space. And if the minimum lot square footage were required, condominiums wouldn't be allowed because the ground under the unit is not owned by the individual. The Clerk suggested the words "privately owned or in common with adjacent units" be added, which is stated in the existing ordinance. Mr. Adams - stated in order to get four units/acre, one may have to go up to six or seven units/acre in some places to get that ~erall density. The Clerk asked if the ordinance is referring to net or gross acreage. Acting Mayor Orttel understood it to mean gross acreage. At this point it was generally agreed that under R-4 in Section 6.02, instead of a lot size placed in that column for single family, three dwelling units or more attached and remaining housing types, either a dash (-) or PUD be used instead. Discussion was then on the definitions, noting the words defined are not the same as those used on the chart in Section 6.02. The Clerk suggested on Section 6.02, instead of saying multi-family dwelling, three or more units, attached, that apartments/ condos be used instead. There was confusion as to how apartments and condos should be listed in Section 6.02, where they should be allowed, and whether their definitions are accurate. Attorney Hawkins explained for conversion purposes, the City must treat apartments and condominiums the same. However, there is already a definition of condominiums in the State Statutes as owning only the dwelling units. And townhouses generally are defined as also owning the land underneath the structure. He thought it would clarify matters to define those terms as to ownership -- own the structure with no land under it; own the structure with the land under it; own everything; or own nothing as in the case of apartments. Then it doesn't matter what it is called; it would come under the category of ownership. Regular City Council Meeting March 5, 1985 - Minutes Page 3 (Ordinance No.8 - Multiple Units/Amendments, Continued) Council agreed to table this item and have the Attorney work on the definitions as he suggested this evening. Mr. Hawkins is also to research the Statutes whether the City can have different requirements for apartments and condos from the outset. Council talked about the possibility of requiring an average minimum square footage per unit of 960 in multiple units, allowing some to be larger and some to be smaller but not below a certain amount. No decision was made on this item at this time. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we table this until Bill (Hawkins) can work on the definitions. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Adams - asked if they would be allowed to provide some single-car garages on some of their multiple units. Is the interpretation of the ordinance that all multiple-family units must have 440-square-foot garages? Council discussion noted that in M-l and M-2 zones, the requirement is 220SF plus one parkin9 space; however, there is no provision for less than a 440SF garage in an R-4 zoning district. There was some discussion as to whether a single-car garage would be appropriate for some multiple-family units. It was thought that though a PUD provides the Council with the flexibility to allow less than minimum requirements, the Council has generally upheld those minimum requirements. It was generally felt there may be a possibility tö vary from the garage policy for multiple family units, but no decision was made at this time. It was felt this item should be discussed further at some future date. STREET LIGHTING POLICY It was agreed to table the discussion on street lighting policy until there is a full Council present. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we table this item until we have a full Council. Motion carried unanimously. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER - FINAL PAYMENT Council noted the March 1, 1985, memo from the A/Administrator relative to the meeting with representatives of Marcus Construction and resolution of the problems at the Senior Citizen Center. Marcus Construction has repaired the ceiling around the divider junctions. The other items were done according to specifications, and the Council noted the specifications done by BRA may have been lacking the quality the City expected. Attorney Hawkins felt the final payment is due to Marcus Construction, that they have fulfilled their contract. The problem isn't with them. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, that we make final payment to Marcus Construction in the amount of $2,073.22. Motion carried unanimously. RITE AWAY AUTO SALVAGE EXTENSION Council acknowledged John Imre's note requesting an extension of the date of completion to June I because of the amount of frost in the ground which prohibits the pouring of the cement slab. The Clerk explained the special use permit allowed him until March I to complete the building and remove the junk from the yard. The City does have a bond for $8,700 for fencing, blacktop driveway, tree planting, etc. The bond is effective until June 15, 1985. Attorney Hawkins had no problem with the requested extension, noting progress has been made on this yard. Regular City Council Meeting March 5, 1985 - Minutes Page 4 (Rite Away Auto Salvage Extension, Continued) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, to amend Resolution No. 127-84 to extend the date for completion of the Rite Away Auto Salvage building as provided for by Special Use Permit to June I, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. (See Reso. 013-85) NORTH CENTRAL FRANCHISE ORDINANCE CORRECTIONS Councilman Elling stated he was disturbed over the letter to him from Thomas Gallogly of North Central Gas suggesting several changes to the franchise ordinance. Mr. Gallogly had assured Councilman Elling verbally that the ordinance passed by the Council was acceptable. Further discussion noted the ordinance has already been published. Attorney Hawkins had no problem with the changes suggested. Council agreed to rescind Ordinance No. 68 recently passed, and adopt the ordinance with the proposed changes, Ordinance No. 70, and to send the publication of both ordinances to North Central Gas Company. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Knight, that we repeal Ordinance 68, Franchise for Natural Gas Ordinance, to adopt Ordinance No. 70, a Franchise for Natural Gas. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 9:25; reconvene at 9:34 p.m. APPROVE ELECTRICAL BIDS - COLD STORAGE BUILDING Council reviewed the March I, 1985, memo from Mr. Schrantz on the electrical bids for the cold storage building. Acting Mayor Orttel was concerned with what was being bid, as no specifications were provided to the bidders; and he wondered if then only minimums would be used. Councilman Elling also wanted to see some specs for the type of fixtures to be used. I t was generally agreed tha t possibly the work should be delayed a few weeks when the frost is out of the ground, thereby eliminating the charges for trenching through fros t. Mr. Schrantz was asked to get a breakdown of costs and material from all three bidders. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knigh t, that we reques t the Ci 1;y Engineer to go back to these people and I) ask them to take any charges for frost work out; 2) to give us spec sheets on lighting fixtures that they are proposing; and 3) provide a materials list. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE HEAT PUMP VEN T - PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Mr. Schrantz reviewed his March I, 1985, memo to the Mayor and Council requesting an expenditure to ventilate the heat pump for the Public Works and Fire Departmen t building. He explainej how objects are heated in the Public Works building, and those objects then heat the air. But it is cold for those working in there. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve $1,280 to be funded from the General Fund, Public Works, to correct the heat pump system in the public works bu il ding. Councilmen Lachinski and Elling WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve up to $1,280 to correct the heating and cooling problem in the Public Works garage, and direct the City Engineer to obtain a second opinion and second bid for correction. Motion carried unanimous ly. Regular City Council Meeting March 5, 1985 - Minutes Page 5 APPROVE JUNKYARO LICENSES MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, approving Junkyard Licenses for Commercial Auto Parts, PIN No. 34 32 24 42 0008 and 34 32 24 42 OOOg; Andover Auto Parts, PIN No. 34 32 24 43 0004; and Minnesota Recycling, PIN No. 34 32 24 31 0002. Motion carried unanimously. PARK LIGHTING BID AT CITY HALL PARK Councilman Elling noted a bid for engineering and construc tion of ligh ting for the City Hall park from Egan McKay. Phase I would be $119,600 which would include design, service construction, etc., except for the house. Phase II would be $67,800; and Phase III would be $61,900, for a total of $258,300 for the entire park. In discussing the bid and the' cost of ligh ting for the park, several Counci lmen stated they had not realized it would be that costly to light the park. The main concern was how would it be paid for. Councilman Elling stated there is a possibility some grant funds could be obtained, the one being investigated is to get half of the first phase under a grant. But it is only a one-time grant. Antoehr suggestion is to bond for it, and he has suggested the Park Board worR on a package to present to the residents for a referendum to bond for various park improvement projec ts. The Clerk also noted another expense would be the electric bill for these lights, which comes out of the General Fund. Council suggested these figures be given to the Park Board and asked that they tell the Council what they would like to do. It was asked that the Park Board provide a priority lis tof park development, and where on that list does the lighting of the City Hall park lie. LOGO SELECTION Council looked at various possible logos for the City submitted as a result of the contest asking for logo suggestions. No decision was made at this time; tabling the item until there is a full Council. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, that we approve Checks 7957 through 9256 for a total amount of $88,891.94. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1\ ~~Q~~ Marc 11 a A. Peach Recor g Secretary