Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC September 5, 1989 ,tJi···"·..í CITY of ANDOVER ,"r\" ,~,' Regular City Council Meeting - September 5, 1989 7:30 P.M. Call to Order Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Discussion Items 1. Assessment Hearing/IP88-14;uplander St. 2. Assessment Hearing/IP88-18/Dehn's Addn. 3. Woodland Creek Parking Lot 4. Woodland Terrace Outlots 5. Heidelberger Variance 6. Crosstown Blvd. Storm Drain 7. Kirby Estates Park Dedication Staff, Committee, Commission 8. Approve Lot Purchases 9. Selection of Comprehensive Plan Consultant 10. Computer Discussion 11. Approve Joint Powers Agreement w/Ham Lake lla. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Cr.Lk. Playground Equip. Non-Discussion Items 12. Accept Petition, Order Feasibi1ity/89-22/ Wandersee Addition 13. Approve Composting Resolution 14. Release Grading Escrow/Red Oaks 5th 15. Accept Easements 16. Adopt Resolution/Humane Society Month 17. Approve Change Orders/89-1¡ 89-2 18. Approve Final payment/Old Colony Est./88-8 19. Approve plans & Specs/88-16/173rd & Navajo Approval of Claims Adiournment - ----- - n'· f~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 - REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 MINUTES The Regular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jim Elling on September 5, 1989, 7:30 p.m., at at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councllmembers present: Jacobson, Kn I gh t , Orttel, Perry Councllmembers absent: None Also present: City Attorney, WI111am G. Hawkins: Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas; City Planner, Jay Blake; City Finance Director, Howard Ko01lck: City Administrator, James Schr-antz: others RESIDENT FORUM Hubert Smith. 13309 Jav Street - stated at the August 15 meeting the Counc i ] tabled the public hearing for storm drainage In Watt's Garden Acres to September 5. But now he is told the Council approved It at a special meeting last month. Attorney Hawkins advised that the hearing was set for today and that the Counc II shou I d move to reconsider the item, reopen the hearing, and hear additional Input before making a final decision. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. This Item was added as Item 8 to the Agenda. Rosella Sonstebv - said she Is appealing the decision of August 1 , 1989, by the Andover City Council to submit an amendment to the Comprehensive P]an for only the land noted In the court order. She stated her property can be served by gravity, plus It was asked to be included by the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Sonsteby also read a letter from Anoka County In which they paid $9,300 for ProJect 85-03, County Road 116. She said that should have been taken off the assessment of the storm water In that area. She stated the City did not assess the park for that proJect as required by Minnesota Statutes and the City's own ordinances. Plus Ms. Sonsteby stated she was assessed for all of her land when only 6 of 26 acres Is buildable, and she showed a survey map to make her point. Mr. Hawkins advised Ms. Sonsteby has appealed the assessment and lost in both District Court and the Lower Court of Appeals, noting these points should have been brought up In those trials. Ms. Sonsteby stated they had been, and the City's engineer should have known that she was being assessed for property that does not contribute to Dehn's pond. She stated she Is also taking the assessment appeal to the Supreme Court. -- ReguJar City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) Mayor EJ ling stated the staff would go through each of the I terns but didn't feel further discussion was appropriate since the matter Is going to the Supreme Court. Michael Kelner. 15478 Prairie Road - asked to apply for a permIt to work with outboard motors In his home. His profession Is a marine engineer, but he got laid off from work last year. So he would lIke to work on outboard motors. His yard Is completely hidden by pine trees and he Is 300 feet off the road, so It should not bother anyone else. Counc II recommended he go through the normal process of making app]lcatlon with a hearing held by the Planning Commission. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconed by Perry, the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, approval of the August 15 Regular Meeting as written. Motion carried unanlmousJy. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, approval of August 17, the Continuation of the Regular Meeting. Motion carrIed on a 4-Yes, l-Present (Orttel) vote. ASSESSMENT HEARING/IP88-14/UPLANDER STREET Glen Cook, Bonestroo, Rosene, and AnderJlk, revIewed the proJect of 24-foot wide street with bituminous curb. The total project cost was $44,893.81, which amounts to an assessment of $2,993 for each of the 15 lots. The larger lots were only assessed one unit because they are not subdividable. Also, Parcel 1 on the south end only received one assessment at this time. It Is an Ag Preserve; however, it Is assessable for streets. Dave LaFlamme. 16001 Uplander Street. Lot 11 - stated the assessment Is $300 more per lot than what they were told. Mr. Cook explained the or i ginal figure was an estimate; this is the actual cost of the proJect. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Perry, the Resolution adopting the assessment rol I for the Improvement of street construction for Improvement ProJect 88-14, Uplander Street for certification. as prepared. (See Resolution RI51-89) MotIon carried unanimously. The hearing closed at 7:47 p.m. Regular City Counci] Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 3 ASSESSMENT HEARING/IP88-18/DEHN'S ADDITION Glen Cook, BRA, reviewed the street construction In Dehn's Addition for a 24-foot wide street with berm curb. The total proJect cost was $72,695.68, which amounts to an assessment of $2,596 for each of the 28 assessable units. Robert Dehn. 1445 Guarani. Lot 2. Block 2 - noted his Jetter to the Mayor and Council regarding the assessment of Lot 3. That lot Is not buildable and cannot be f II led. The DNR stopped the fll Ing of that lot, so It is too low for a septic system. David Almgren, Building Official, agreed Lot 3 is too low and too small to build on. The Engineers also noted the City park Is being assessed, but Lot 10 Is not being assessed because I t Is not buildable. Counc II generally agreed Lot 3 shouJd not be assessed either, but deliberated as to whether the amount of that assessment should be absorbed by the bond Issue or spread out among the remaining 27 assessable parceJs. The assessments would become $2,692.43 for 27 units. Attorney Hawkins advised the assessments cannot be Increased without renotifylng the Individuals. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, that the City Council not adopt the proposed Resolution for ProJect 88-18, and renotlfy the residents of the increase In prices of approximately $90, to $2,692.43; and explain In a letter to the residents why the Increase; and place It on the next appropriate Agenda for Council action. Dr SCUSS ION: Counc II asked If there would be time to renotlfy and st ill get the roll certified this year. Mr. Koollck fel t the Item could be heard at the first meeting In October and stl11 be certified this year. Motion carried unanimously. WOODLAND CREEK PARKING LOT Lawrence Carlson. Woodland Development - Invited everyone to the open house of the golf course, hoping It can be opened In about one week. Grave1 has been placed on the driveway and a portion of the parking lot. Only a portion of the parking lot was done at the approval of the Building Official. The rest wil] be done after the building Is constructed. He has no obJection to putting in asphalt but would rather walt until next spring when the construction Is finished because of the heavy trucks coming In. The use of the facility Is very little, and the asphalt would undergo a lot of unnecessary stress from the trucks. Mr. Carlson stated he did obJect to the concrete curb requirement. He made the Counc I ] aware of the cost overruns due In part to fallowing the requirements of the City. Between $25,000 and $30,000 has already - Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 4 <Woodland Creek Parking Lot, Continued) been spent on engineering fees alone, questioning whether they or the City are getting theIr money's worth. As a result, they have downgraded the building and hope to break even on the facility by the third year. It is a seasonal facility and wi I I not be open In the winter months. Maximum use of the facility would be from the last half of April through the middle or end of October. It Is strictly a golf facility basically for the neighborhood. Mr. Carlson noted in checking with other cities, none require concrete curbing on the parking lots of golf courses. He reviewed his findings of what other cities do -- either no ordinance requirement for curbing or zoning the golf courses as residential. One City deliberately did not require curbing because the use of the curbing relates to snow removal. Since they will close down for the winter and the facility will be vacant, there will be no snowplowlng. Mr. Carlson proposed meeting the asphalt specifications with an asphalt curb, feeling that they should not have to have the added cost burden of the concrete curbing. The difference In cost Is about $6.000 for concrete versus $1,000 for asphalt. They have thought about how to keep the cars from parking on the grass, feeling they would be able to control It with concrete blocks or posts. Counc II discussed the Issues of postponing the laying of asphalt and of concrete curbing. The genera] consensus regarding the asphalt was it made more sense to put It down in the spring after the construction of the building, though a specific deadline should be agreed to. Mr. Blake stated Ordinance 8, Section 8.08, noted there must be curbing on all parking areas In commercial areas, but It does not call for the type of curb. Mr. Almgren noted the concrete curb has been required In al I commercial areas to control the traff I c and drainage. Mr. Blake though t the original drawings Indicated concrete curb and gutter, and that Is what they based their recommendation on. Mr. Carlson stated the reason the drawings showed that Is because the Ci ty told them to do It that way. As they reviewed the costs, they have looked at alternatives that are suitable to al I concerned. Because the ordinance does not specifIcally state concrete curbing, the Counc II generally did not have a problem with asphalt curbing. Councilmember Orttel suggested the ordinance be clarified to differentiate between year-round retail businesses as opposed to seasonal or recreational facilities. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Counc i J direct the P & Z to consider the parking lot standards for the City of Andover, In particular the difference between commercial and reta i I uses as opposed to commercial recrea tl ona I or recreational type. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-No (Jacobson as he didn't think the City should differentiate between 12-month or 6-month businesses; commercial Is commercial. ) vote. Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 5 WOODLAND TERRACE OUTLOTS Lawrence Carlson. Woodland Develoment - had always assumed the out Jots belonged to the City and did not realize that was not so until he received the tax statement on them. He has been unable to find his file on the plat because a former employee worked on It. But he thought the City has maintaIned that property, it has been put to the required use. It Is drainage for the purpose of retaining the water for a period of time if there Is a heavy rainfall, and he has no use for the outlots. Mayor El ling stated the Minutes were researched, but any reference to the City taking over the outlots was not found. But apparently the outlots are part of the overa I I storm drainage system for the area. Councilmember Orttel also noted that the property was buildable ground before It was graded for pondlng. In March of 1985 It seems clear that It was the developer's Intention to dedicate the out lots to the City. Discussion was then on the letters assigned the three ponds In the plat, noting there was some confusion on Just what Mr. Carlson wanted the City to accept. Mr. Carlson noted a change was made at Lily Street after the preliminary plat, which changed the numbering through the plat. He said there are only two out lots which he wants the City to accept. Counc II then reviewed the final plat, trying to determine the specific out lots In question. Councilmember Jacobson suggested the Council concur with accepting the outlots but asked that the specific legal descriptions be provided by the developer to avoid any further confusion and for Council action. Mr. Carlson agreed. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move, contingent on the approva] of the legal counsel that they are the correct parcels. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson stated he will provide the legals to Mr. Hawkins. This Is to be added to the September 19 Counc i I agenda for Council action. HEIDELBERGER VARIANCE Attorney Hawkins explained after the Council denied this, his office began prosecuting Mr. Heidelberger for violating the Zoning Ordinance. No resolution was reached at the pre-trial. In the discussions, the Court Indicated that it could require Mr. Heidelberger to remove these by imposing a Jail sentence; and if it is removed, the sentence wouldn't be served. It they are not removed, the sentence would be served. The Court also stated there Is no guarantee that i t wou I d solve the problem nor a guarantee that It would Impose that type of Regular City CouncIl Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 6 <Heidelberger Variance, Continued) sentence If convicted. The agreement was to bring It back to the Counc i I to look at it again. If the previous CouncIl decision stands, the matter will be tried In court. Mr. Hawkins stated he is not making a recommendation. It is mereJy on the basis of the comments of the Judge sitting that he mayor may not Impose any Jai I time. The other aJternatlve would be to bring a civil InJunctive action to force removal of It: but that Is normally a longer and more costly process. Councllmember Orttel stated he wasn't thinking of the ordinance provision, Section 4.05, that the accessory building shal 1 not be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure unless it matches the styJe of the residentIal structure. He didn't think that even required a variance. Mr. Blake didn't feel the structure matched the residentlaJ home, but it is not signIficantlY dl fferen t. Councilmember Orttel recal led the other concern when this was discussed was It would be an expansion of a nonconformIng use, that being a residential use In an Industrial district. But he knew of one Instance In that same district that was gIven a building permit to make a substantial Improvement on their house, his thought being that the City should be consistent In what it is doing. Mr. Blake stated since he has been here they have Interpreted that section of the ordinance to mean no additions to structures or no new structures nor expansions to the Junkyard businesses. Mr. Almgren, Building official, stated the building permit was on]y a 12-foot addition to the house. He said he talked to Mr. Hawkins about it, who advised it is difficult to restrict homeowners from making Improvements If the zoning is changed. Councllmember Knight had a problem with It because It was started 15 years ago, not knowing if putting a roof on those walls Is that much of a problem. CounclJmember Jacobson felt the ordinances must be enforced. CounclJmember Perry feJt the roof Is the issue; and putting the roof on changes the structure and therefore should not be allowed. However, she did not feel the blocks needed to be removed. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that we reinstate or continue with Resolution 093-89 that we previously passed and concur again. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-No (Orttel, feeling the Resolution denies the request solely on the fact that the buiJdlng Is closer to the front of the principal structure, which Is allowed by ordinance) vote. Attorney Hawkins felt the THEREFORE clause deals with both issues of nonconforming accessory structure and In front of the prlnclpaJ structure. Rick Heidelberoer - asked if he would use the buildIng as a part of the business, would it be a conforming use. Mr. Blake stated no because the ordinance does not al low the expansion of a Junkyard business. There was no further Council action. - Regu]ar City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 7 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN Counc i I agreed to discuss this item at the next regular meeting on September 19. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. KIRBY ESTATES PARK DEDICATION Kay Olson. Klrbv Estates. 13251 Jav Street - explained on August 14 the Park Department asked that an appraisal be done for the amount to be paid for park dedIcation on their plat. The appraIsal came in at $5,520; but she felt It is very inaccurate. Some of the pictures have been taken of the Coon Rapid's land and the arrows on the maps are pointed In the wrong location. She also showed two pictures of their property. Mr. Haas noted some errors In the report: Page 7, arrow pointed to the wrong property; Page 8, park area chosen by the Park Board should be In the area of Lot 3, Block 2; Page 9, should be .6 acres, not .62 acres; and Pages 11 and 19, arrows pointed to the wrong property. He stated those errors would not change the comparables. Ms. Olson - stated there are a total of six lots In Kirby Estates, and the appraisal for park dedication Is about $900 a lot, feeling that Is very extravagant. They are only paying $385 per lot for parks on the Coon Rapids side. She thought the Intent of this procedure was not to have high park fees or to push developers away. She also questioned whether the City would want the outlot appraised at $9,600 since the City will be purchasing that for pondlng. Marc McMullen, Park Board Chairman, stated $900 a lot is misleading because the outlot Is taken Into consideration for the appraisal. Curtis Larson. Appraiser - stated his assignment was to value the overa II property as raw land prior to any subdivision. He looked for comparables in the market and applied the 10 percent park dedication fee based on the overall land. He took pictures of the raw land from 131st. He stated he discussed the procedure he used with Ms. Olson. Ms. Olson - stated Mr. Larson was standing at 132nd when the pictures were taken, which Is 330 feet away from where the plat Is and Is in the City of Coon Rapids. Mr. Larson - noted a typographical error In the report, as it should read from 132nd. He also aCknowledged he did not walk into the woods of their property in Andover. He used the soils maps and half-section maps to determine topography. Regular City CounclJ Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 8 (Kirby Estates Park Dedication, Continued) Ms. OJ son - stated there Is c]early a big difference in topography between their property .In Coon Rapids, which Is 888.9 and 889, and that in Andover, which Is 881 and 880. She questioned the value of the lowland. Mr. Larson - realized the difference, again noted he valued the overall land. There rea II y isn't a lot of unusable lowland unless I t Is designated a conservation district. Many times plats are designed to take the lowlands into account, and then the lowlands Increase in value as people want the prIvacy and natural surroundIngs behind their lots. He again emphasized that the appraisa] is based on the overa II raw land. Mr. and Ms. Olson - stated no one would pay them $9,000 for the pond and noted all the comparable sales were in Coon Rapids. Mr. Larson - agreed that aJI comparable sales were in Coon Rapids, as there were no comparable saJes of property In the City of Andover. He stated he used the best sales avallabJe. Attorney Hawkins noted the park dedication is based on high, dry, usable land; and If the City chooses not to take the land, the fee Is to be an equIvalent amount In cash based on the fair market va]ue. Ms. OJson - argued a lot of that hIgh, dry, avalJable land wi] I have to be filled In order to get six lots. Attorney Hawkins also noted the developers have to dedicate high, usable land for parks; however, the CI ty will be buying 10wIand, so there may be a dIfference In value. He hasn't seen the appraisal of the out Jot. Councllmember Orttel noted Coon Rapids area assessed for utlJities years ago, which is reflected in the va]ue of the land. Andover does not assess until the proJect Is in. He felt that does affect the land values between both cities, as that In Coon RapIds would be several thousand do]lars higher because of the assessments. He a]so questioned Including the outlot In the overa II value. In the rural areas the low]ands are generalJy Jeft out of the plat; but In this case the City asked that It become an outlot.. Mr. Larson - agreed to check with Coon Rapids regarding any area assessments that may be over the comparable properties he used. If there Is, he wi J I review the values. It may change the values, but not necessarlIy. He said he would report back on his findings. Counc II agreed to continue the Item until the appraisal Is reviewed. The Item is to be placed on the September 19 Council Agenda along with an update of negotiations for the City's acquisition of the ponding area in Kirby Estates. Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - MInutes Page 9 WATT'S GARDEN ACRES STORM DRAINAGE HEARING. CONTINUED Hubert Sml th. 13309 Jav Street - stated In July, 1986, the same storm sewer proJect that was Just approved was estimated at a cost of $93,000. That same system Is now $153,000. He felt Andover Is at the mercy of Coon Rapids and that Andover Is the loser. He noted a pond has been moved out of Coon Rapids and into Andover so Andover loses lots: Coon Rapids gains two. He wanted to know why the costs have doubled. Mr. Schrantz noted one of the costs have doubled, and Coon Rapids has explained the cost overruns to the Council. Attorney Hawkins advised that the hearing was held over from August 15 and must be reopened, hear whatever additional public testimony there is, then act on the proJect. Mayor EJJlng asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we rescind the motion for Improvement 89-19, the Improvement of Watt's Garden Acres. Motion carried unanimously. (Motion made at the August 29 Special Council Meeting which orders the Improvement and directs preparation of the final plans and specifications) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to reintroduce that Resolution. (See Resolution R149-89) Motion carrJed unanImously. Mr. Schrantz asked If the Council wishes to assess Mr. Smith at this time or to walt. Counc I 1 agreed to walt since the Improvements are the result of someone else's development. Counc II recessed at 9:45; reconvened at 9:54 p.m. SELECTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSULTANT Mr. Blake reviewed the recommendation from the Planning Commission to contract with Urbanalysls to work with the City to update the Comprehensive PJan. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that the City Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and that the firm of Urbanalysis be selected to work with the City to update its Comprehensive PJan at the bid price given to the City by Urbanalysls. Dr SCUSS I ON : Councllmember Orttel didn't think the firm had any experience with the Metropolitan Council and cities the size of Andover. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-No (Orttel) vote. Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 10 COMPUTER DISCUSSION Mr. Koollck reviewed the background work he has done to arrive at a recommendation for hardware and software for the City. He noted that he did not take cost Into consideration when looking for the best solution, acknowledging the system that Is proposed Is expensive. But he felt It Is also one of the better systems and will do the Job. Mr. KooJock reviewed the proposal by Business Records Corporation. The scaled back proposal would cost about $71,000, asking for direction from the Council at this point. Counc I I discussed the proposal by BRC noting the advantages and disadvantages of the system. Mr. Koollck also noted IBM has a State contract, which is about a $6,000 difference In the hardware. Councilmember Jacobson felt there Is a lot of room for negotiations in the prices quoted. Mr. Koollck stated this Is not a forma] bid from BRC but a close estimate. Because of the budget concerns, Counc i I agreed no decisions can be made un tll after the September 20 budget meeting. In the meantime, Mr. Koollck was asked to look Into acquiring a used System 36, Into the costs of leasing for three, four or five years, and the costs If the color station is eliminated. Those figures are to be discussed at the September 20 meeting. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH HAM LAKE Mayor Elling stated he did talk with Ham Lake's Mayor Schuitz, and she had no specific reason for wanting University Avenue Improved between 157th and Constance Boulevard other than for convenience. Also, Anoka County does not care when University Is put through to Constance. Because the City's road Improvement plan does not cal I for this project until 1991 and there are no funds to do It this year, the Counc II generally agreed It would not enter Into the Joint powers agreement with the City of Ham Lake at this time. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/CROOKED LAKE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT Attorney Hawkins explained the School DIstrict's concern Is If the City has a community schoo] program, why should they be responsIble if someone gets hurt. The Agreement is that that School District is responsible for children during school functl ons, and the City is responsible during Its programs of community school, etc. He stated the City does have Insurance to cover this, and he didn't see a real probl em wi th It. Otherwise the Agreement covers the poInts the Counc il was concerned with, and he is comfortable with it. Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 11 <Joint Powers Agreement/Crooked Lake Playground Equipment, Continued) MOTION by Ortte], Seconded by Perry, to approve the Joint Powers Agreement for the Joint construction of Crooked Lake Elementary School playground, and authorize the Mayor and Administrator to sign It. Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT PETITION. ORDER FEASIBILITY/89-22/WANDERSEE ADDITION MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry. the Resolution as presented. (See Resolution R152-89 declaring adequacy of petition and ordering prepartatlon of feasibility report for the Improvements of watermaln, sanitary sewer, storm drain, and streets with concrete curb and gutter, ProJect No. 89-22 In the Wandersee Addition) DISCUSSION: Bill LeFebvre. 14278 Undercllft - has someone Interested In buying his lot adJoining the Wandersee Addition. He asked if he would have access to water from the Wandersee AddItion or should he telI the buyer to drl I J his own well. Mr. Schrantz exp]ained the difficulty of serving the Wandersee Addition with sewer and water, as It must come In from Round Lake Boulevard through a road that Is proposed to be bu I I t In the future. It will Impact the Hagens. Council felt Mr. LeFebvre's lot should be able to be served from the Wandersee Addition, but recommended waiting to see what the feasibIlity report says. It was thought the feasibility report would be on the September 19 Council Agenda. Motion carried unanlmous]y. NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we approve Item No. 13, Approve Compostlng Resolution (See Resolution R153-89); Item 15, Accept Easements <from Reynolds and McGary for TuIlp Street ProJect and from Brlchacek on UpIander); Item 16, Adopt Resolution/Humane Society Month (See Resolution R154-89); and Item No. 18, Approve FInal Payment/Old Colony Estates/88-8 (See Resolution R155-89). Motion carried unanimously. RELEASE GRADING ESCROW/RED OAKS 5TH CounclImember Jacobson was concerned that the note from TKDA suggesting the grading escrow be released was not very specific, the note stating the site Is "generally in compliance" with the drainage and grading plan. Given the recent grading problem In another p]at, he wanted to make sure that such problems do not happen again. . Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 12 (Release Grading Escrow/Red Oaks 5th, Continued) Mayor Elling noted the Building Official will 100k at the lots when the house permIts come In to see that the grading on each lot Is In compl iance. Councllmember Orttel felt that there should be assurances that the drainage system works, and the rest of It shouldn't be of concern as long as It doesn't Impact the drainage. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that we release the grading escrow for Red Oaks Manor 5th Addition. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-No (Jacobson) vote. APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS/89-1: 89-2 Harlan Olson, BRA, reviewed the two change orders for the Ward Lake Drive and Tulip Street projects. Change Order No. 2 for Ward Lake Drive is for the retaining wall to save the roots of the oak trees and for additional gradl ng on 166th Avenue onto Ward Lake Drive that was not graded according to the plans several years ago. That portion on 166th wi II be charged back to the developer. Mr. Olson also noted on the fIrst change order approved last month, they were not able to obtain the easements according to the plan, so they had to change some of the easements resulting In the removal of many trees. Mayor Elling felt the time to address these problems Is before the proJect Is begin, not after the bids are Jet. Mr. Schrantz explained one of the problems is rushing to get the proJect done before a] I the easement Is dedicated. The policy aJso forces them to negotiate with everyone for easement, which can put them In a bind. Mr. Olson stated he did not anticipate any further change orders on this proJect. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve Change Orders Numbers 2 and 3 for ProJects 89-1 and 89-2. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS/88-16/173RD AND NAVAJO Mayor Elling noted the last petition with four signatures asking for NavaJo north to be paved and that the assessment against Mike Knight be deferred. Staff has said It Is an adequate petition. This would be at a different rate and a different project number from 173rd. The Mayor also noted the assessment policy needs to be reviewed wIth consideration gIven to deferring an assessment to avoid forcing premature development. He aIso told the petitioners that the proJect probab1y couJd not be done this year. The problem Is then it will probably be too expensive to do. Mr. Schrantz didn't think It was possible to do it this year because the hearing process needs to be started over again. Regular City Council Meeting September 5, 1989 - Minutes Page 13 (Approve Plans and Speclficatlons/88-16/173rd and NavaJo, Continued) Mr. Schrantz stated the only way NavaJo could be less is If It Is combined wi th 173rd and those on 173rd pick up more of the costs. Because that hearing Is already closed, the Counc II didn't feel that was an option. MOTION by Orttel to approve the ResolutIon with the alternate of the area of NavaJo St~eet north to 175th. There was no Second. DISCUSSION: Discussion noted the only advantage to doing the 173rd and NavaJo north together would be for mobilization costs, etc. Also, NavaJo Street cannot be included with 173rd at this time because none of the hearings have been held yet. Mr. Schrantz also noted 173rd Is not on the secti on line, though the Attorney has said the City has the required easements. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson. the Resolution without the alternate. (See Resolution R156-89 approvIng fInal plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for ProJect No. 88-16, 173rd Avenue for street and storm drainage construction) Motion carried unanimously. No further action was taken on the NavaJo Street north petition. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, to authorize payment of Checks Numbers 17152 through 17257 In the amount of $357,514.58. Motion carried unanImously. MOTION by Jacobson to adJourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adJourned at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~~=-~\/?~L Mar .1 a A. Peach Recording Secretary