Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 20, 1990 ,.,--- CA , '.L ... CITY of ANDOVER , REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Certificate of Appreciation Presentation Discussion Items 1. Scott Foyt Discussion 2. Andover Wheel & Frame Special Use Permit 3. Coon Rapids/Andover Joint Powers Agreement/Site Q 4. MSA Designation 5. Park Security Light Discussion 6. SAC Rebate Discussion 7. Assessment Manual Staff, Committee, Commission 8. Approval of Water & Sewer Budgets, Cont. 9. Approve Sewer User Rates, Cont. 10. CDBG Discussion, Cont. 11. Reduce Special Assessments/Forfeit parcel, Cont. 12. Establish Perm. Impro. Revolving Fund, Cont. 13. Ordinance 24 Amendment Non-Discussion Items 14. Approve Plans & Specs/90-3 15. Payment of Taxes/Outlot A, Kirby Estates 16. Receive Feasibility, Order Public Hearing/ 163rd/Jonquil/90-2 17. volunteers of America Proclamation Approval of Claims Adjourn ~, -- ----~ (J CITY of ANDOVER A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 20, 1990 MINUTES The Regularly Scheduled Andover City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Elling at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 20, 1990 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN. Councilmembers Present: Jacobson, Knight, Orttel, Perry Councilmembers Absent: None Also Present: James Schrantz, City Administrator; Todd Haas, Assistant City Engineer; Jay Blake, City Planner; Dave Almgren, Building Official; Howard Koolick" Finance Director; John Burke, City Attorney; Becky Pease, Planning Commission Chairman: Jeff Kieffer, Park Board Chairman; Frank Stone, Public Works Supervisor; others AGENDA APPROVAL It was suggested that the following items be added to the agenda: Item 7a, 1990 CDBG Budget; 13a, Overlay Projects. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Knight to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Knight seconded by Orttel to approve the minutes of February 6, 1990 as written. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Orttel to approve the minutes of the February 8, 1990 continued regular meeting and the minutes of the Executive session meeting of February 8, 1990 as written. Motion carried on a 4 yes, 1 present (Knight) vote. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION PRESENTATION On behalf of the City, Mayor Elling presented a certificate of appreciation to Bob Palmer, former Fire chief, thanking him for his years of service as a firefighter and Fire Chief. SCOTT FOYT DISCUSSION Jay Blake reviewed his memo regarding Mr. Foyt's request that the lot split on his property be recorded. Mr. Foyt has agreed to pay the park dedication fees and provide new legal descriptions. The problem with this request is that there is a pole barn on the property that would not meet the building code for a 2.5 acre lot. Scott Foyt, 14424 prairie Road stated that the main issue is that the lot split was approved. Before he purchased the property he came to the city and asked questions regarding the parcel. There was an existing pole barn Regular City Council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 2 (Foyt Discussion, Cont.) on the property but Mr. Foyt wanted to tear it down and build a new one. Because the property was approved by the city for a lot split, Mr. Foyt thought the city knew there was a pole barn on it. There are now two pole barns on the property, but one will be torn down. Dave Almgren stated that when Mr. Foyt came in for the building permit for the pole barn it was shown on a five acre parcel of land. John Burke noted that the property was five acres when the pole barn was built and the ordinance should be enforced as is. He suggested that the city either deny the lot split, have the pole barn removed and then record the lot split, or have the pole barn brought into compliance as an accessory building and record the lot split. Mr. Foyt felt the city should have investigated this lot when he came in for the building permit. If that had been done, they would have found that there was a lot split on the property and he could have built the pole barn to code. What it comes down to is that the pole building has the wrong kind of siding. Councilmember Orttel noted that the biggest confusion is that the lot split was not recorded. Other cities put a "sunset" clause on lot splits and if you don't provide all of the information within six months, it's null and void. Councilmember Perry questioned why the survey provided for the pole barn permit was for the five acre parcel rather than two 2.5 acre parcels. Mr. Foyt explained that time was of the essence because winter was approaching. He also noted that he held off on the lot split until he refinanced the property because he wanted to have one parcel to be free and clear. Mayor Elling asked if siding modification is the only thing he has to do. Dave Almgren stated yes. Jay Blake noted that the resolution approving the lot split has a clause that states it is contingent upon the receipt of park dedication fees and new legal descriptions being provided. Mayor Elling suggested that the Planning Commission look at a "sunset" clause for lot splits, special use permits, etc. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by art tel that the City council reaffirm the lot split decision as originally moved in July 1985 which was at that time subject to park dedication fees and the receipt of new legal descriptions. Since that time certain conditions have occurred that make the lot split invalid, but Council reaffirms this subject to Mr. Foyt coming into compliance under Ordinance 8, Section 4.05, which deals with siding on a pole barn on a lot of 2.5 acres or less. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, seconded by perry to refer this situation to the Planning Commission in regard to "sunset" clauses. Motion carried. - . - -~- ._- . -.... Regular City Council M. i ng February 20, 1990 - Min~tes Page 3 ANDOVER WHEEL AND FRAME SPECIAL USE PERMIT Becky Pease noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request of Andover Wheel and Frame Alignment building expansion. No negative comments were received. The Commission discussed possible locations of Commercial Boulevard and found they had no impact on the expansion. The Commission recommended approval with the conditions that the building and the site plans be approved by the Andover Review Committee prior to construction, the exterior storage of vehicles under repair be limited to the rear storage area west of the proposed building and the Special Use Permit be reviewed after the first year to ensure compliance with all city ordinances. MOTION by Knight, seconded by Perry introducing a resolution approving a Special Use Permit for the expansion of Andover Wheel and Frame Alignment as presented. (See Resolution 02~90.) Motion carried unanimously. COON RAPIDS/ANDOVER JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/SITE Q Maurice Dorton stated that they are responsible for coordinating the six member consulting team to review the EIS and to assist Coon Rapids and Andover. They initially decided to try to put together a single agreement to provide for their services. Legal counsel advised them that there was some concern that some of the work would not be eligible for reimbursement. They then decided to accomplish as much as they could in Phase 1 so the work done in Phases 2 and 3 will not require a large amount of work. This process will not involve the whole team. Mayor Elling stated the major concern of the Council is Phases 2 and 3. He asked what the cost would be for these two phases. Mr. Dorton felt Phase 3 would be approximately $20,000 which would leave $20,000 for Phase 2. Attorney fees are not eligible for reimbursement. Councilmember Knight asked that Mr. Koolick explain his memo regarding the costs incurred. Mr. Koolick noted that the $13,608 is strictly attorney fees through December and the $18,215 is through February 6, 1990. Mayor Elling requested monthly reports regarding the expenditures. Mr. Dorton explained that estimated hours were put in the agreement so that their time can be accounted for and they won't bill for anything not eligible for reimbursement. Councilmember Jacobson expressed concern over the fact that we are paying for everything up through the EIS and the $200,000 does not include the siting process. He felt we will run out of money after Phase 1. Mr. Dorton was sure that there would be sufficient funds left for Phases 2 and 3. Councilmember Orttel hoped that Phase 1 will resolve the technical issues. Phases 2 and 3 are political issues. Mr. Jacobson noted that we have told people here that if this site is selected we will go the the Supreme Court. He asked what the date is when the site has to be selected. Mr. Dorton noted that it is 1990. Mr. Jacobson asked when we will be reimbursed. Mr. Dorton explained that Coon Rapids is the financial agent and they will handle the reimbursement. .- -~" ._- . .' Regular City Council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 4 (Joint Powers Agreement, Cont.) Mr. Dorton's group will be billing monthly. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by Perry that in the matter of the financing of the Site Q review, that the staff obtain no less than monthly reports of detailed billing information from our representative on the project including the legal representative and report to Council. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Perry to approve the amendment to the joint powers agreement between Coon Rapids and Andover, which was faxed to the city on February 1, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. MSA DESIGNATION Mayor Elling noted that trains are taking 20 minutes to cross the tracks which is against the law and he is receiving complaints that the school buses are late. The Road Committee suggested a grade change and Bunker Lake Boulevard should be the top priority. Mr. Orttel questioned the choice of Bunker because there is no develop- ment there. Mr. Schrantz noted that the county's first choice would be Bunker Lake Boulevard. MOTION by Knight, seconded by Jacobson that we designate 3.44 miles as available for MSA funding and designate the six pieces of roadway shown on the attachment to the minutes as the appropriate areas to designate. Discussion: Mr. Jacobson asked why l67th was designated when it's such a short distance from another one. Todd Haas explained that it's only a recommendation to the State and they will let us know if they accept it. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, s~conded by Perry introducing a resolution as presented. (See Resolution 024490). Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Elling asked that the word overpass in the resolution be changed to grade separation. PARK SECURITY LIGHT DISCUSSION Jeff Kieffer, Park Board Chairman, explained that the timers are $150 each, which would bring our cost to $23 from the $83 we are now paying. The Park Board feels that the lights provide for security for the parks; however, they do not have money allocated for this expense. Mr. Knight didn't feel a need existed for the lights and no action was taken by the Council. SAC REFUND DISCUSSION Mr. Koolick noted that at a previous meeting Council asked several questions regarding the SAC charges. The accuracy of the li,;t was questioned and Mr. Koolick stated that according to the records, it is. - . ~ -~. ---- . Regular City Council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 5 (SAC Refunds, Cont. ) Mr. Koolick stated that there was a $25,000 difference between the building department records and the finance department records. The Clerk noted that prior to 1979 when the SAC charges were sent to MII'CC, they were sent without addresses for the properties that paid them, This could account for the discrepancy. Mr. Orttel noted that there was some sort of legal action that required us to send the SAC charges to MWCC. Research of the old minutes would indicate this. Jerry lI'indschitl explained that the old Clerk/Treasurer records will show what was paid to the old Sewer Board. Another questions asked by Council previously was regarding the interest and where the SAC charges held in escrow were put. Mr. Koolick stated that the SAC charges, along with the interest, were put in the General Fund. Mr. Knight felt that the properties outside of the MUSA boundary should be issued a refund. Mr. Orttel suggested putting an ad in the paper asking whoever built a house and paid a SAC charge outside of the' old SAC area contact us. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Orttel to table this to the first meeting in April. Motion carried. Ms. Perry suggested using the list we have and put an ad in the paper as suggested by Ken (Orttel). MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Orttel to wi thdra.; the previous motion. Motion carried. Mr. Orttel felt that the SAC charges within the city's current year 2000 MUSA line be retained and the ones outside the line would be refunded without option. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by Perry to retain all SAC charges within the city's projected year 2000 sewer district and refund the original amounts paid outside of that district. Discussion: Jack McKelvey asked if interest .vill be paid on the money paid. Council stated no. Mr. McKelvey stated that if he is given a refund of $375 and in 2 years he has to pay $800 he will be upset. Mr. Orttel felt those property owners should be given the option of receiving a refund or leaving the money with the city. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Orttel, seconded by Perry that in the area outside of the city's projected year 2000 district, the property owners be sent a letter giving them the option to receive the original amount paid or to have the city assume the responsibility for their SAC charges. Motion and Amendment carried unanimously. .,- ._- . Regular City council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 6 MOTION by Knight, seconded by Jacobson to approve the following items: Approve Plans and Specs/90-3 (See Resolution 025-90); Payment of Taxes/ Outlot A, Kirby Estates; Receive Feasibility, Order Public Hearing/163rd/ Jonquil/90-2 (See Resolution 026-90); Volunteers of America Proclamation. Motion carried unanimously. (Recess 9:30 - Reconvene 9:41) ASSESSMENT MANUAL Mayor Elling suggested going through the material provided page by page for corrections and suggestions. Assessment Period - temporary bonds are not addressed and should be inserted. Mr. Orttel suggested that at the end of the sentence beginning with "new commercial..", it should say "unless otherwise requested". Mayor Elling asked that after "A Senior Citizen deferral is permitted" we add "per State Statute". Interest Rate - Councilmember Jacobson asked what or who would determine if we use the average rate of interest on all bonds issued in the previous calendar year or the current market rate. Properties Not Assessed - Mr. Schrantz asked Council to make sure they want #5, City Park Land, left in as we have previously assessed park land. Council didn't feel we should assess parks. Storm Drainage Mainline - Mr. Jacobson didn't feel we should be using 4¢ per square foot for residential and 8¢ per square foot for commercial but instead use the cost of the project. Jerry Windschitl didn't feel the large parcels of land need to be served by storm sewer; parcels with county ditches would have no need for trunk. He felt that if this is adopted as written, one developer would be subsidizing another developer. He further noted that there are cities who have well written storm sewer pOlicies. Streets: MSA/County Roads - Mayor Elling asked if it would help to clear this up if an example was put in the policy. Discussion centered on benefit with Mr. Knight expressing concern over assessing for a farm road. It was suggested that "except for the driveway permit" be inserted after the first sentence in the 5th paragraph. Rural Street Development With a Mixture of Large Agricultural type Lots and Smaller Residential Lots - a better description needs to be found for Large Agricultural Type Lots and Smaller Residential Lots. Trunk Storm Drainage in the Urban Development Area - Mr. Schrantz noted that some cities send utility bills for storm drainage. Ms. Perry asked if we would be creating problems if we don't use cost per square foot. She felt that this would establish a basis for taking care of problems when they come up. MSA Streets and County Roads - Mr. Knight noted that there is nothing in the policy regarding existing homes. Staff should do a survey of other cities to see what they do on MSA streets. !t was noted that Blaine Regular City Council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 7 (Assessment Manual, Cont. ) assesses a residential equivalent and Ham Lake assesses within a quarter of a mile. Street Overlay Projects - Mayor Elling noted that it doesn't say anything on how to do this. Is this something that will have to be ordered by Council and not have the property owners petition for? Mr. Orttel was not sure we should assess overlay projects or sealcoating. Assessments for Subdivision Improvements - Mr. Koolick stated that the city hOlding the assessment rolls saves the developers interest but it involves more staff time. This item will be continued at the next regular meeting. 1990 CDBG BUDGET Mr. Blake explained that staff is proposing two items for consideration for use of the 1990 CDBG funds. The first would be the completion of the Comprehensive Plan process. The second project would be grants to community service agencies such as the Alexandra House. Mr. Blake suggested the amount for these agencies be between $12,000 and $14,000. Mr. Jacobson asked why we don't use the funds to buy blighted properties. Mr. Blake noted that staff recommended not doing that. Mr. Orttel noted that one thing that was asked about was putting in a sprinkler system in the Ci ty Hall. Mayor Elling called the pUblic hearing for the 1990 CDBG budget to order. MOTION by Knight, seconded by Orttel to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by Perry to accept staff's recommendation on the 1990 CDBG budget. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF SEWER AND WATER BUDGET MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Knight introducing a resolution to adopt the sewer and water budgets. (See Resolution No. 027-90). Motion carried on a 3 yes, 2 no (Orttel, Perry) vote. APPROVE SEWER USER RATES MOTION by Knight, seconded by Jacobson introducing a resolution estab- lishing se1,er user rates. (See Resolution 028-90). Motion carried on a 3 yes, 2 no (Perry, Orttel) vote. 1988 CDBG BUDGET Mr. Blake stated the sprinkler system could be done with these funds. Blight removal is also a possibility. There is $67,000 left that we can spend. Mr. Blake spoke to JoAnn Wright regarding fencing of blighted property and hasn't heard back yet; however, he didn't believe we could do that. ~ " .-- Regular City Council Meeting February 20, 1990 - Minutes Page 8 (1988 CDBG Budget, Cont. ) Ms. Perry suggested that staff come back with a list of specific blighted properties and if there are none, \,e don't use the funds. Mr. Jacobson asked about the pig farm on Bunker Lake Boulevard. Mr. Orttel noted the hog operation is actually in Ham Lake. REDUCE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS/FORFEIT PARCEL It was noted that the parcel in question is suitable for a double and Council felt the county should advertise it as such. Council was not in favor of reducing the assessments. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Perry to do nothing on the request and ask the county to rebid and advertise the lot properly. Motion carried unanimously. ESTABLISH PERM. IMPRO. REVOLVING..FUND MOTION by Knight, seconded by art tel to table this item. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 24 AMENDMENT MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Perry that the City Council not increase salaries as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. OVERLAY PROJECTS Mayor Elling noted that the costs for the proposed overlay projects are as high as the costs for new streets. Mr. Orttel asked why they are coming out so high. Mr. Schrantz explained that the crack filler and joint filler costs are included as we don't have time to do the crack sealing. Frank Stone stated that one thing we have to look at is that the streets are going to break up if nothing is done. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by Jacobson to terminate the public hearings scheduled for March 6, 1990 and ask the consulting engineer who did the feasibility reports to attend the next Council meeting. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Perry to approve claims 18090 through 18151 for a total of $149,552.37. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Orttel to adjourn. Motion carried. I Meeting adjourned at 11:37 P.M. R~f~y submitted, ,"~ Vicki Volk Acting Recording secretary ~ --- ,-- -