HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 16, 1986
CITY of ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-DECEMBER 16, 1986-AGENDA
7:30 l. Call to order
2 . Resident Forum
3 . Agenda Approval
4 . Discussion Items
a. Revocation of Special Use Permit/Tonson, Inc.
b. Hills, Inc. , Rezoning, Cont.
c. Hills of Bunker Lake preliminary Plat, Cont.
d. Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Amendment, cant.
e. Transient Merchant Ordinance, Cont.
£. Dehn's Pond/86-19
g. R. Sonsteby Sketch Plan
h.
5. Commission, Committee, Staff
a. Junkyard Land Acquisition
*b. Fire Department
c. License Renewals -Non-Intoxica~ing Liquor, Intoxi-
cating Liquor, Cigarette
d. Junkyard License Renewals
e. Animal Control Contract
*£. Salaries
9:00 Closed Meeting with Attorney
6 . Non-Discussion Items
a. Award Bid/Computer
b. MnDOT Agency Agreemènt
c. Designate 133rd Avenue/MSA
d. Public Utility Budget
e. Reoeive Feasibility Report/Ward Lake Bluebird Stroot
A..Lt::::a/86 18 I
£. Petition for Improvements/Hidden Creek'East/87-1
,
g. Receive Feasibility Report/Hanson Blvd:/86-5
I
h. Proposed Assessments/Andover-Coon Rapids Joint
Project/86-21
7. Approval of Minutes
8. Approval of Claims
9 . Adjournment
*Not on published agenda
CITY of ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 16, 1986
MINUTES
The Regular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was cal led
to order by Mayor Jerry Wlndschltl on December 16, 1986, 7:30 p.m..
at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover,
Minnesota.
Councilmen present: EI I lng, Knight, Lachlnskl, Orttel
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; Planning and
Zoning Commission Chairman, Don Jacobson; City
Engineer/Administrator, James E. Schrantz; and
others
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was agreed to delete Items 4b and 4c, Hills of Bunker Lake Rezoning
and Preliminary Plat; and Add Items 4h, No Parking/Round Lake
Boulevard and 5g, School Site Discussion. Because of the length of
the Agenda, Councilman Knight suggested setting an end-of-the year
meeting to finish the agenda and to adjourn the meeting at 11 o'clock.
Mayor Wlndschltl asked for a motion to approve the Agenda.
I
MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, to so move. Motion carried
unanimously.
REVOCATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT/TONSON. INC.
Chairman Jacobson reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to cancel the Special Use Perml t for the tire recycling
operation at 2050 1/2 Bunker Lake Boulevard to take effect February 1 ,
1987. The additional time al lows the operator the opportunity to
enter Into an agreement with the MPCA for the cleanup of the site.
I
I
Chairman Jacobson noted no one was present to represent Tonson, Inc. ;
but there were representatives from the State, MPCA, Anoka County, and
the City's legal representative. A subsequent motion clarified the
Intent that al I the conditions of the Special Use Permit beibrought
up to date by February 1 , 1987. If the agreement with the State takes
place and the conditions of the permit are met by that date~ then the
Intent would be not to revoke the permit.
i
Chairman Jacobson also noted there were seven violations listed that
were found to be a true and accurate reflection of the record. They
did not have the drafts from the MPCA but had the Information
available.
Regula. CIty Council Meeting
Decembe. 16. 1986 - Minutes
Page 2
(RevocatIon of Special Use Pe.mit/Tonson. Inc. . Continued)
Andv Ronchek. MPCA - stated they have been wo.king with Tonson.
Inc. , to get the Stipulation Ag.eement signed fo. final app.oval at
the Janua.y 27 Boa.d meeting. Cu..ently eve.y one of the outstanding
p.oblems of the Ag.eement have been take ca.e of. and the only thing
they a.e waiting fo. befo.e signing is a fi.e plan .equi.ed f.om
Tonson, Inc.
Councilman Elling was conce.ned that the CI ty Is giving up almost all
of its cont.ol to the MPCA.
M.. Ronchek - stated the Ag.eement isn't to ove..ide o. p.e-empt
any local o.dinances. Because the PCA is going to be .eimbu.sing and
Is mandated by the State Leglslatu.e to do these actIons, the
Ag.eement is designed to do so. Councilman Knight noted the
p.ovlsions made by the Planning Commission to meet the .equI.ements of
the Special Use Pe.mit a.e not mentioned in any of the documents
befo.e the CouncIl.
M.. Ronchek - explained the Ag.eement Is not meant to be set up the
same way as the CIty's pe.mit. The Ag.eement is set up to meet the
PCA .equl.ements. and hopefully the City's .equl.ements will not be
cont.adicto.y to what the PC1\ wants. Thei. plan is not based on an
ope.ating .atlo but on a th.ee-yea. clean-up plan.
A lengthy discussion continued between the Council. M.. Ronchek. and
the Atto.ney on the te.ms of the StipulatIon 1\g.eement to eliminate
the existing ti.e pile. the City's conce.ns that its inte.ests a.e not
beIng .eflected In that 1\g.eement. on the p.oposals made by the
ope.ato.'s atto.ney .ega.dlng modifIcations to the SpecIal Use Pe.mit
and County license, and on the .eimbu.sement schedule to Tonson, Inc. .
fo. the ti.e .emoval.
1\tto.ney Hawkins explaIned the PCA 1\g.eement Is Just to e! Imlnate the
existing ti.e pile. The City still has cont.ol ove. the .epo.ting
.equl.ements. .atios. etc. , that conce.n the CIty.
M.. Ronchek - stated the Agency is legally bound by the dates In
the Ag.eement, and they would not be able to change anythIng within
the 1\g.eement wIthout amendIng It by app.oval of the MPC1\ Boa.d. The
th.ee-yea. .equest was what Tonson, Inc., p.esented to them, as they
could have taken up to five yea.s acco.ding to the law. If Tonson
does not meet one of the abatement inc.ements. they a.e elIgIble to
.eceive an extensIon within the th.ee-yea. time pe.lod that Is left.
M.. Ronchek stated the .eason it was sp.ead ove. a th.ee-yea. pe.lod
Is because they a.e stIll .eceivlng new Incoming ti.es and they need
to be able to p.ocess those ti.es and stay within Anoka County
licensing conditions.
Regula~ City Council Meeting
Decembe~ 16, 1986 - Minutes
Page 3
(Revocation of Special Use Pe~mlt/Tonson, Inc. , Con tI nued)
Counc II thought the th~ee-yea~ pe~lod was too long. Mayo~ Wlndschltl
thought that with the Waste TI~e Bill, the existing tl~es wi I I be
eliminated one way o~ anothe~. The plant In Babbitt Is supposed to be
ope~atlonal ve~y soon, feeling just hauling them up the~e would
eliminate the tl~es faste~ than the p~oposed sh~eddlng on site.
M~. Ronchek - explained the scheduled ~emoval of tl~es, noting
A~eas 1, 2, and 3 will be cleaned up In 1987, and the wetlands a~ea
was given top p~lo~lty. The MPCA has estimated the~e a~e only 500,000
tl~es ~emalnlng on the site. They a~e not add~esslng the on-going
business up f~ont unde~ the Ag~eement. That Is soley unde~ the
ju~lsdlction of the City and County. Councilman Knight felt that
Indl~ectly they a~e add~esslng the on-going business because the time
f~ame fo~ ~emoval of the tl~e pile Is extended to th~ee yea~s In o~de~
to accommodate that on-going business.
M~. Ronchak - stated the dolla~ amount Tonson, Inc., will be
~elmbu~sed fo~ the tl~e ~emoval Is based on estimated cost to ~emove
those tl~es based on the least cost to the State. It takes Into
conslde~atlon what It would cost to deJlve~ them to Babbitt, which Is
app~oxlmately $30 a ton. Councilman Elling felt It would be easle~
and possibly less expensive to use the ~all~oad.
Rlcha~d Sundbe~q. Atto~nev fo~ Milton LaPanta - explained they a~e
asking the City and County to suspend fou~ of the conditions In the
Special Use Pe~mlt and license only du~lng the enactment of the
cont~act with the PCA. One of the limitations limits the f~ont
~ecelvlng a~ea to 25,000 tl~es, and they a~e not asking to modify
that. The PCA Ag~eement gives M~. LaPanta an economic Incentive to
get ~Id of the tl~es In the back as soon as possible. If the PCA
schedule Is not met, he does not get paid. Mayo~ Wlndschltl stated
the~e was testimony at the public hea~lng that the~e a~e many tl~es
that cannot be sh~edded with the existing machine.
M~. Sundbe~q - stated his client advises that all of those a II eged
violations of the pe~mlt a~e false, and they a~e In a position to
p~ove they a~e false. The~e a~e some hugh tl~es which p~obably will
have to be hauled to Babbitt. He stated they a~e hesitant to ente~
Into any ag~eement with the PCA when the~e a~e potential conflicts
with the City conditions and the PCA Ag~eement.
Discussion continued on the ope~atlon, why new tl~es need to continue
being b~ought onto the site, estimated costs fo~ ~emovlng the tl~e
pile and on the Ag~eement Itself .
Rlcha~d Johnston. MPCA - stated they will only ~elmbu~se Tonson,
Inc., fo~ the costs of doing It. The~e Is no p~oflt ma~gln built Into
the costs. The maximum was calculated on what the cost would be to
dellve~ the tl~es to the plant In Babbitt. He also pointed out the
Regular CIty CouncIl MeetIng
December 16, 1986 - MInutes
Page 4
(RevocatIon of SpecIal Use Permlt/Tonson, Inc. , ContInued)
Agreement Includes a stIpulatIon that the operator shall comply wIth
all applIcable ordInances and operatIng condItIons Imposed by the CIty
of Andover, County of Anoka, and other regulatory authorItIes. They do
not Intend to overrIde any local ordInances. They would be wIllIng to
work with the City on any of Its concerns.
Mayor Wlndschltl asked why the City would want to agree to thIs when
there Is a way of gettIng those tIres out of the CIty In less than
three years. He felt there should be some tImetable that would be
comparable wIth sendIng the tIres up to BabbItt.
Mr. Johnston - explaIned the process Intends to provIde due process.
Mr. LaPanta Is runnIng a busIness, and they cannot order hIm to do
thIs. From theIr perspectIve, the tIme perIod Is reasonable, because
he can have up to fIve years accordIng to the law, and they must
afford hIm that due process. If Mr. LaPanta refuses to sIgn the
Agreement to get the tIres out, then they have the abIlIty to take
control over the tIres and make some arrangements to get them out.
Counc 11 questIoned what Is expected of the FIre Department.
Mr. Ronchek - explaIned there are certaIn requIrements that need to
be met regardIng wIdth of fIre lanes, technIcal requIrements, method
to report a fIre, etc. Plus they want to coordInate wIth all
governIng fIre department authorItIes of any potentIal emergency
sItuatIon out there. That fIre plan Is stII I outstandIng because the
PCA, Tonson, Inc., and the Andover FIre Department have not been able
to meet on 1 t.
MIlton LaPanta - passed aerIal photographs of the area taken In
June, 1983, and agaIn In October, 1985, to IndIcate the amount of
progress made In the removal of the tIres from that sIte. He then
revIewed the hIstory of the tIre shreddIng on that sIte and the
problems that have occurred, especIally wIth the shreddIng machIne.
They have removed approxImately one mIllIon tIres from the sIte to
date and wIdened the fIre lanes. He has also had a lot of problems
wIth the property owner whIch has resulted In many lengthy court
problems. Those have fInally been resolved. He also noted the changes
In the laws over the last few years and how that has affected hIs
busIness, notIng he Is only guessIng how the new changes wIll affect
the busIness.
Mr. LaPanta stated In order for the machIne to functIon to meet the
schedule, quIte a few new parts would need to be rebuIlt for 1 t.
Some of the delays have been hIs unwIllIngness to Invest further In
the shreddIng machIne wIth the uncertaInty of the legal prob I ems. The
machIne Is capable of goIng on lIne In mIddle January and Is capable
of grIndIng approxImately 1500 tIres an hour.
Regular CIty Council Meeting
December 16, 1966 - Minutes
Page 5
(Revocation of Special Use Permlt/Tonson, Inc. , ContInued)
Mr. LaPanta also stated the $30 per ton fIgure does not Include the
loadIng nor the unloading of trucks or train cars. Also, nothing was
mentioned about the problem of removIng the remaining tIres from the
wetland, contaminated soil, etc.
Mr. Lapanta stated he would not comment on the alleged vIolations,
fee 11 ng there is no JustIfIcatIon for any of It. Up until two weeks
ago, he didn't know the status wIth Cecil Heidelberger. The courts
have now ruled In his favor. As a busInessman, he has to look at
putting costs and Improvements Into the shreddIng machIne, trucks,
loaders, etc. , to claIm the tires In the back. They are now In the
process of checkIng theIr numbers versus that of the PCA In the
estimated number of tires still remaIning.
Mr. LaPanta stated he dIdn't know how any busInessman could make a
decisIon on a busIness Investment based on what has gone on in the
past regarding the County of Anoka and the CIty of Andover. But he
was not goIng to relInquIsh hIs right to remove those tIres. He
recommended thIs partIcular actIon be closed at thIs tIme, and In turn
he can successfully deal with the MPCA along wIth changes that wIll
have to be made wIth the County of Anoka.
Mayor Windschltl stated Mr. Lapanta could spend 16-hour shIfts for the
next 46 days and make $166,000. Mr. LaPanta stated that is a
possibilIty but the factor not fIgured In Is the tIme lost to
uncontrollable problems such as machIne breakdown, Inclement weather,
etc. He also stated at this poInt he dIdn't feel It is fInancIally
feasIble to have that type of operatIon located on that site, notIng
he has not yet made a decIsIon on the five-year optIon to lease the
land at the end of thIs lease agreement. He understands once the
existing tIres are gone, they are no longer elIgible for a SpecIal Use
Permi t for the tire shreddIng operatIon.
Mr. LaPanta also stated the extremely large off-the-road tIres will
have to be cut down to run through the machIne. If such tIres are
accepted by the BabbItt plant when it opens, they Intend to start
ImmedIately shippIng those tires to that plant. Also, many of the
tires have been dIsposed wIth the wheels and rims on them, plus there
is a lot of scrap intertwined with the remaining tIres. All of that
will be time consumIng in recovering the tIres and preparIng them for
the shredder.
Mr. LaPanta explaIned there Is a lot of red tape in the permIt and
lIcense by the CIty and County that could be elImInated. The County
has a stIpulatIon that If the quotas are not met for 30 days, they
wIll be shut down. It Is not a good economIc sItuatIon to put a
mIllIon dollars worth of equIpment on a sIte and predIcate It on one
particular Item. Plus they have the problem wIth parts for that
shredder. Mr. LaPanta also noted he has a purchase order calling for
Regular CIty CouncIl MeetIng
December 1IS, 1986 - MInutes
Page 6
(RevocatIon of Special Use Permlt/Tonson, Inc., ContInued)
24,000 tons per year of shredded tires, which Is approxImately 2.5
mil lion tires per year. He stated he would not be able to meet that
amount. He also felt that within the next 18 months the tires will be
gone; but given the history of the machine and other problems, he has
three years to complete the project. As far as ratios, he views It
simply as more paperwork to do.
Councilman Orttel stated to this point the actual violations of the
Special Use Permit have not been discussed, reviewing those Items
listed by the Planning Commission. The Agreement with the PCA will be
a separate agreement. He felt the City should act In concert with the
County, though he understood the dilemma of dealing with three
different entities. He felt It would be nice I fall three could draft
the same conditions In the Agreement so Mr. LaPanta wouldn't have to
deal with all three agencies.
Councilman Elling stated In talking with the County today, they are
willing to meet with the City to Jointly reach an agreement to present
to the PCA on this matter.
Mr. Sundberq - stated the County lIcense Is In the revocatIon
process, but they have appealed It.
Discussion continued with those present as to proposals to reach an
an agreement that would meet the concerns of the PCA, the City, and
Mr. LaPanta. Several Councilmen stated they would be more In favor of
It If the time frame were reduced. Councilman Lachlnskl observed that
most of the things Mr. LaPanta Is In violation of are I terns he Is
asking to eliminate from the future permit.
Mr. LaPanta - also noted a provision of the I ease that the property
reverts back to the Heldelbergers as It Is cleared.
MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, that the CI ty Councl I and
County of Anoka and PCA sit down at a Joint meeting for our Input on
the draft, and we reach an agreement that Is acceptable to all four
parties; set a special Joint meeting for December 22 at 7:30 p.m.; and
to table this Item to that date. Motion carried unanimously.
Counc I I recessed at 9:12; reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Regular City Councl. Meet! ng
December 16. 1986 - Minutes
Page 7
ORDINANCE 8. SECTION 6.02 AMENDMENT
Several developers were before the Council with house plans to
Illustrate the problems they have on various lots because of the
City's 10-foot sldeyard setback. Tony EmmerIch stated they try to
avoId loadIng up the front garages. They get Into a lot of the
70-foot houses. whIch do not fit on an 80-foot lot wIth the 10-foot
sldeyard setbacks. Also. the sizes of houses continue to Increase. as
they'd lIke to attract the $150,000+ houses In theIr project.
Ron SmIth noted his best selling house for thIs year cannot be buIlt
In Andover because of the setbacks, feeling Andover should be
competItIve In the construction market. A reduced sldeyard setback
would make the City competitIve.
John Peterson explained a situation where an Individual purchased a
lower prIced lot and decIded to buIld a 1124 SF house valued about
$90,000 to $100.000. It Is a 40-foot house wIth a 22-foot garage.
That wI I J not fit on an 80-foot lot and st III meet the 10-foot
sldeyard setbacks on either side. So the Individual has decided to
reduce the sIze of the garage to make It fIt. He asked If that makes
any sense.
Mr. Peterson also stated they have 80-. 85-. 90-. 95-. and 100-foot
lots where It would be desIrable to have a lesser setback to save the
trees on the lot. If the objective Is bIgger houses and more expensive
developments. the way to do It Is to go with the fIve-foot setbacks.
An 85-foot lot costs about $1500 more than an 80-foot lot. He also
felt If the CI ty Increased the minImum lot size to 85 feet that the
end result would be slIghtly I ess house. leavIng the $1500 off the
cost of the house.
Darrel Ful ts, realtor of vacant lots. also noted Instances where It
would be advantageous to reduce the sldeyard setbacks to accommodate
the house, asking If the Counè II would rather have the setback or a
three-car garage on the house.
CouncIlman EI lIng was not In favor of a reduced setback. thinking a
lot of people like the open space and larger lots. And he didn't thInk
that $1500 would be the deciding factor In whether or not a larger lot
or larger home would be acquired. He also dIdn't like the aesthetics
of houses placed closer together. He thought If there Is a problem on
a lot that It could be dealt wIth through the varIance procedure.
The developers argued the varIance procedure would not be effectIve
because the new home owners would not or could not take the tIme
required to go through that process, whIch can take up to six weeks.
Councilman Knight was concerned that wIth a fIve-foot setback and wIth
one- or two-foot eaves. theoretically there could only be six feet
between houses.
Regular City Council Meet! ng
December 16, 1986 - Minutes
Page 8
(Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Amendment, Continued)
Mayor Wlndschltl then suggested the amendment to Section 6.02 Minimum
Requirements for the R-4 district state: Resl dent! a I Garage or
Carport over 20 feet wide, from Interior lotllne or to save trees, 6
feet. The Mayor emphasized the setback would then be measured from
the foundation, which Is what Is normally done.
MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachlnskl, an Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 8, known as the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Andover
as suggested by the Mayor.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Knight, Lachlnskl, Orttel, Wlndschltl;
PRESENT-Elling
Motion carried.
Counc II then discussed a problem regarding the placement of a house on
the corner lot In Hidden Creek Addition on Hidden Creek Drive and
136th Avenue NW. The City Engineering Technician drew several
sketches proposing several alternatives for the layout, all of which
require some variances. Because of the uniqueness of this Jot, a
35-foot setback Is needed on two sides.
,
Counc I I discussion was the original thought for the 35-foot sldeyard
setback on corner lots was to align the house on both streets. Since
there Is no house fronting on the side street, there Is no need for
that great of a setback.
The Counc II generally preferred the layout which was also preferred by
the owner, that being the house facing the west, the garage five feet
from the north lot line, and a slight Infringement on the southern
35-foot setback. A variance would be needed on the southern
curvilinear side.
R. SONSTEBY SKETCH PLAN
Rosella Sonstebv - presented a sketch plan of property west of
RoseJla's Addition. She explained the middle lot, No. 2, wou I d be an
area that would be utilized by everyone and owned Jointly. If the
Counc II does not like that concept, she could make the other lots
bigger.
Mayor WlndschltJ noted the most significant problem Is determining
whether or not the City has the ability to get the sanitary sewer to
service that property. This Is In another sewer district, and It
would be an engineering decision as to whether the property could be
serviced.
Regular City Counc. ,1eet I ng
December 16. 1986 - Minutes
Page 9
R. SONSTEBY SKETCH PLAN
Ms. Sonstebv - stated the Good Value property Just south of thIs was
not In the sewer area, but the Counc II allowed them In and servIced
that property. So she dIdn't see why she couldn't be served as well
because that property Is Isolated from any other area. She saId thIs
could all be served by gravIty from Rosella's AddItion. She has a
20-foot utIlIty easement for that very purpose.
Mr. Schrantz stated that hasn't been checked Into yet. He also
revIewed a color-coded map showIng many of the lots are In the General
Flood Plain.
Ms. Sonstebv - stated that land has been In soil bank for 10 years
and another area was not put In soil bank because there were too many
trees on It. That was all farmable land. Mayor Wlndschltl asked how
much of thIs land Is beIng acquIred by the County. because that should
not be part of this sketch plan.
Ms. Sonstebv - stated the County hasn't acquired anythIng yet. It
would be taking fIve acres of her high land. She has not negotIated
anythIng wIth the County yet and there Is no condemnation proceedIngs
against any of her land. She felt she would be able to remove the peat
from the lowland and fill It wIth the dirt from the high I and with I n
the plat. The hilI Is over 10 to 12 feet hIgh. which she felt was
plenty of dirt to fIll In the lowland.
Because of the questions raised. the Counc II suggested Ms. Sonsteby
delay her appearance before the PlannIng CommIssion on the proposed
plat untIl after they can be answered. It was agreed to put thIs Item
on the January 6. 1987. agenda to answer 1) whether the property can
be serviced with sanItary sewer out of the Coon RapIds Interceptor;
and 2) the question of any condemnation proceedIngs under way whIch
would affect the platting process.
DEHN'S POND/86-19
Mr. Schrantz reported the CIty of Anoka has not yet approved the
agreement to allow Andover to use theIr storm sewer system to drain
the Dehn's Pond area. He felt there Is some misunderstanding on theIr
part regarding the overflow from the County pond to the pIpe In the
county road. He will meet with representatIves from Anoka to explain
there wIll be no Impact to Anoka from that overflow and to explain the
controls Andover wIll have to prevent damage to the Anoka system.
Because of the problems with this proJect and because of the
advantages of draIning the pond during the winter months, he suggested
the possIbility of ordering the project subject to constructing only
the north/south pipe now. The east/west pIpe would be constructed
after the County has acquired the right of way.
Regula~ City Council Meeting
Decembe~ 16, 1986 - Mlnute6
Page 10
(Dehn's Pond/86-79, ContInued)
Ms. Sonstebv - stated the County had a 27-lnch pipe going south.
Andove~ Is now agreeing on an 18-lnch pipe. Mr. Sch~antz stated It
Is a 21-lnch pipe.
Ms. Sonstebv - stated that pipe Is supposed to d~aln approximately
200 acres to the south. Then why dId Good Value have to put 1 n four
dlffe~ent sto~m sewe~ pipes to d~aln thel~ 20 ac~es, but you expect a
21-Inch pIpe to drain over 200 acres.
Counc II asked that M~. Sch~antz try to ~esolve the problem wIth the
City of Anoka so they can act on the bid at the SpecIal Meeting set
for December 22.
JUNKYARD LICENSE RENEWALS
Counc II noted the Agenda material Indicates the bond has not yet been
receIved for Wilber's Auto Parts.
JoAnn Wilber - stated her Insu~ance ca~~le~ told he~ I t was mailed.
She wI II check with the offIce staff tomorrow.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by LachInskl, to app~ove the 1987
Junkyard License for WIlbe~'s subject to the site review by the
BuIlding Inspector, the FI~e Department revIew, and ~ecelpt of the
bond. Motion car~led unanimously.
MOTIONby O~ttel, Seconded by LachInskl, that we approve the Junkyard
License ~enewal fo~ Mom's Auto Salvage subject to the receipt of the
site ~evIew by the CIty Building OffIcIal, the approval of the FI~e
Department, and the receIpt of the Insurance certificate. Motion
ca~rled unanimouslY.
ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
FI~e Chief Bob Palmer and Assistant Chief Glen Smith explained the
problem with the fire truck, 4881, and the cost of repair. The cost
Is app~oxImately $1475 to $1600. Though there was some concern as to
whether a II the Injector nozzles needed to be replaced, It was fInally
ag~eed the Depa~tment should proceed with the repairs as recommended.
Counc I I then ~evIewed the p~oposed equipment purchases.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by EJllng, that we approve an expenditure
of $5,579.80 for the FIre Department for large equIpment purchases as
detaI led In the ~eports presented on 12-16. Motion ca~~led
unanImously.
Regula~ City Counc.. Meeting
Decembe~ 16, 1986 - Minutes
Page 11
(AVFD, Continued)
Chief Palmer asked the Council's feeling about the Depa~tment electing
two Assistant Chiefs. With the p~oposal to go with two stations, a
lot of p~epa~atlon needs to be done and the a~eas would be assigned to
elthe~ dlst~lct chiefs, station chiefs, o~ assistant chiefs. He felt
the~e was enough money In the budget to cove~ It.
Counc II asked him to p~esent a p~oposal fo~ conslde~atlon.
ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD/NO PARKING
MOTION by Knight, Seconded by O~ttel, ~equestlng the County to
Install no pa~klng signs on Round Lake Bouleva~d adjacent to the lake.
(See Resolution R204-86) Motion ca~~led unanimaously.
Counc I I also dl~ected the City staff to info~m Met~o Spo~ts that a DNR
pe~ml t Is needed fo~ the ~ada~ ~un on Round Lake next Sunday.
LIGHTS FOR SKATING RINKS
Public Wo~ks Supe~vlso~ F~ank Stone stated a ~esldent In Ceda~
C~est has ~equested lighting the skating ~Ink. It amounts to $250 a
pole plus $7 pe~ month fo~ maintenance. Plus the Pa~k Boa~d would
like to put two In the P~al~le Knoll pa~k. Counc II noted the light
standa~ds should be followed.
Councilman EI ling stated the ~ecommendatlon was to ~emove the light In
Ceda~ C~est that Is In the hole because It se~ves no one, and put some
high p~essu~e sodium night watch units on the two poles to light up
the pond In that a~ea. That would be the most cost effective. The
Counc i I ag~eed.
MOTION by O~ttel, Seconded by Knight, that we autho~lze the Pa~k
Depa~tment to Install up to th~ee lIghts subject to the City's
lighting standa~ds In the pa~ks. Motion ca~~led unanimously.
JUNKARD LAND ACQUISITION
Atto~ney HawkIns ~epo~ted Ma~lan Heldelbe~ge~ called him statIng she
Is not willing to sell he~ p~ope~ty fo~ the p~lce the City has been
talking about. That p~oposal amounted to $20,000 pe~ ac~e, o~ about
$182,000 plus assessments. He felt the next step may be to contact
othe~ p~ope~ty owne~s. He had talked with M~. Batson. who Indicated
a willingness to sell; but he didn't know what his p~ope~ty was wo~th.
He has not ~ecelved the app~alsal fo~ the M.R. Olson p~ope~ty. He has
also spoken to Cecil and Pat Heldelbe~ge~ who Indicated they would
think about It and get back to him.
Regular City Council Meeting
December 16. 1986 - Minutes
Page 12
(Junkyard Land Acquisition, Continued)
Ceci I Heidelberoer - stated they own a 33-foot easement on
Nightengale and on Raven Street. He has over 15 acres with the
easements. It is also accurate that once an area is cleared of the
tires, it reverts back to him. There is a three-year lease on the
property for $1188 per month with an 8 percent increase every year of
of the lease. Mr. LaPanta has an option on the front four acres, not
on the back. Mr. Heidelberger also stated he would contact the
Attorney tomorrow morning regarding the sale of his land to the City,
Counc il advised the Attorney to pursue with the land acquisition,
thinking the Batson property should be pursued. I dea I J y, the Sonterre
property should be looked into. continuing eastward along the area.
No further Council action was taken.
REFUND/$4.6 MILLION BOND ISSUE
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling. a Resolution providing the
General Ob i i ga t i on Improvement Bonds of 1980 Series B. cal ling for the
redemption and prepayment of certain bonds as prepared. (See
Resolution R205-86) Motion carried unanimousJy.
MOTION by Lachinski. Seconded by Elling. to continue the meeting to
Monday Night, December 22. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting continued to Monday, December 22. 1986. 11:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
",I\~~~
Marcella A. Peach
Recording Secretary