Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 6, 1990 CA' -ii, CITY of ANDOVER ".L .:¡ Ro,.", CÜy C....,l 'oot,.,-Fob,..,y 6, 1990 7:30 PM Call to Order Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Senator Greg Dahl Discussion Items 1. Continued Assessment Hearing/87-3B 2. Public Hearing/89-25/Moore's Estates 3. Lund's Evergreen Estates Building Permits 4. Declare Adequacy of Petition/Hidden Creek East 3rd 5. Coon Rapids/Andover Joint Powers Agreement/Site Q 6. Home & Business Alarm Ordinance 7. Accept Feasibility Reports/Order Public Hearings/ 89-19; 89-26; 89-27 8. Ordinance 44 Amendment Staff, Committee, commission 9. TIF Procedures 10. Recycling Joint Powers Agreement 11. CDBG Discussion 12. Approve Sewer User Rates 13. Approve Fire Department Election Results 14. Day Rescue Request 15. Fire Department Equipment Repair 16. Reduction of Special Assessments/Forfeit Parcel 17. Establish Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund Non-Discussion Items 18. Approve Resolution/Establishing Permit Fees 19. Release Escrow/Red Oaks Manor 5th Addition 20. Approve Water & Sewer Budgets 21. Accept 157th Lane N.W. 22. Approve Resolution/88-1/Crosstown Storm Drain 23. Approve Change Order/Tower #2 Approval of Claims Adjournment -. -~ .. '-"',-" <" :'" 'CA CITY of ANDOVER ¡ . 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 ' , .I.. ./' '_ _~_,.r, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 6, 1990 MINUTES The Regular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was cal led to order by Mayor Jim Elling on February 6, 1990 : 7:30 p.m.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Jacobson, Knight. Ort te I , Perry CounclJmembers absent: None Also present: City Attorney. William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineer, John Davidson: Planning and Zoning CommissIon Chairperson, Rebecca Pease: CIty Planner. Jay BJake: City Finance Director, Howard KooJlck; Building Official. Dave Almgren, City Assistant Engineer. Todd Haas; City Administrator/Engineer. James Schrantz: and others RESIDENT FORUM Rosella SonstebY - stated the budgets in the previous years have - shown $8.000 to $10,000 for the Senior Citizen Center. but at the budget hearing the Senior Citizens indicated they did not receive any money to buy Items. She asked what happened to the money that was budgeted but not spent. Counc i I explained the money was spent for such items as teJephone, electricity, heat. etc. If there were funds that were not used. the money returns to the General Fund. Also. the Senior Citizens are now involved in preparing the budget each year. Ms. SonstebY - stated the assessment for ProJect 86-19 includes interest dating back to 1986. She gave the CouncIl a copy of the map originally used by the City to assess her for 20 acres: but using that same map. her engineer and surveyor have stated only 12 acres contribute to Dehn's Pond. Ms. Sonsteby also pointed out that she was assessed 10 acres for County Highway 116, yet Anoka County paid Andover $9,300. Finall y. she noted when the Good Value property east of Round Lake Boulevard was diverted out of the Coon Creek Watershed to west of Round Lake Boulevard, it was said the water would go north. In her lawsuit it was said it goes south. She presented al I of her documentation to the Counci I. Mayor Elling noted the Staff is looking at these i terns and wi II get back to her about them. Carroll Abbott. 2917 142nd Lane - reported an incident that happened last Saturday regarding ATV's and snowmobiles racing up and down 142nd. Yet whenever the police were called, they stopped before the deputies arrived and started up again once they left . He was concerned about potential accidents, stating It cou1d be very dangerous. Counc i I discussed the ordinance provision where the deputies can take acti on if a lIcense number on the ATV or snowmobile is taken down. Mayor EllIng also stated he would talk with the deputies about spending more time In that area. -. -- - Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 2 (Resident Forum, Continued) Scott Foyt. 14424 Prairie Road - bought his property 2 1/2 years ago with the assumption tha t a lot spilt requested by the former owner was approved by the City. But when he went to file the lot spl it. It was denied because he didn't have the right type of siding on the bui Iding. He wondered If it was normal procedure to let a homeowner Invest In his property and then deny a lot spilt previously approved by the Counc II . The lot spilt was approved with a pole barn on it. Mr. Almgren expJalned the lot split was approved contingent upon a park dedication. which has never been paid. Mr. Blake explained the site plan indicated the old pole barn, but it did not indicate the new one. The new pale barn meets the requirements for a 5-acre parcel, but not for a smaller parcel. After the barn was constructed. he came in wi th the lot sp II t. Mr. Fovt - stated he bought the property as two lots. Before he purchased It. he talked wi th the City about It and explained he intended to upgrade the property by tearing down the smaller pole barn and building a nicer looking building. He asked how that would affect the lot split and was told that there was no tIme I imi t but that the park dedication fees had to be paId. He didn't think the problem is wl th the sIze of the parcels but with the type of siding on the bui Iding. Time Is a1so important to him, as he Is In the process of refinancing and wants to do that on a 2 1/2-acre Jot, not the en ti re parce I . Counc i I agreed that to al low tIme for the Attorney and Staff to research the item thoroughly. I twill be placed on the February 20 Regu I ar Counc 11 Agenda. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor EI ling suggested the addition of Item 17a. Recording Secretary for the Comprehensive Plan Meetings, and Item 24, Mayor's Report. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Perry, to approve the Agenda as changed. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 10 and January 16 Counci I Meeting Minutes: Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve both. MotIon carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 3 SENATOR GREG DAHL PRESENTATION Senator Dahl reviewed some Items coming up In this Legislative Session that have local significance. Including the equity funding for K-12 education, the "2 + 211 program at Anoka-Ramsey Community College, recycling of household batteries. reguJation of Chlorofluorocarbon. the Task Force on Local Water Management, abolishing the current Inventory of I andf ill si tes in Anoka County, radon research and remediation act, and resources for urban and community forestry and oak wilt programs. Mayor Elling stated one threat to the Ci ty is possible legislation on Tax Increment Financing, which Is a useful tool available to Andover. Radium in the water is also a problem, notIng the City just signed a contract with the Health Department to clean up the water by 1994. It is a big issue, and very costly. AJso, the tax bi 11 passed In the last special session created a real problem for Andover with regard to local government aid. Senator Dahl stated before he voted on that bi II he was given assurances that it wouldn't be a massive revamping of 10caJ government aid. He thought he was given some bad Information in that area. CounciJmember Jacobson hoped the legislators wouJd use some fiscal constraint rather than always raising taxes and programs. Senator Dahl stated there Is no other member of the Senate that is more fiscally conservative than he is. His philosophy is to spent every penny as I f it were his own. though he pointed out that he cannot a1ways control the outcome. Councilmember Orttel asked If the remedial program for radium is more intense than originally thought, is there any consideration to establishing some loan program to help pay for it. This problem will have a major Impact on the City, and it is something over which the City has no control. Senator Dahl understood they will be looking at ways to remedy the problem more economically, though he fe It it Is best to wait for the final report, which is due in the next three to four months. If it wi II be a major financial problem for the residents. he wi J I do everything he can to provide some assistance. Councilmember Knight was concerned that the Jevels at which radium is acceptable will be raised In the future. He would like to see more careful consideration given to this Item before the City spends all that money. Senator Dahl noted the irony of radon being much more prevelent and more hazardous to the residents yet the priority right now Is on the radium In the water. Mr. Davidson pointed out another consideration of the radium problem is what to do wi th the concentrated radium residue once the water is treated. No Counc 11 action was taken. .. -~--~. -.- .- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 4 CONTINUED ASSESSMENT HEARING/87-3B Mr. Davidson reported they viewed three Jots that were questioned at the hear I ng and lessened the area of each which contributes to this drainage area. As a resuJt, the per-acre cost of the trunk storm sewer for Project 87-3B is $1,239.12. Mr. Davidson also noted the pro-rated assessments in the Shady Knol I area for the pond which coJJects the storm water drainage was $160 per lot. Five lots from the Shady Knoll area actually draIn to this project area and are proposed to be assessed as a part of this project. He stated the Council has the option of reducing those per-lot assessments by $160 as their proportionate share of being previouslY assessed. Or the Counc ¡ J could consider the discharge point for this subdivision as the pond and no further assessment for storm sewer would be levied. Then if any remedial work would be done on the pond. such as providing an outlet or grading it for more capacity. a] ] of Shady Knoll. incJuding these five Jots. would be assessed for it. Attorney Hawkins advised that everyone within this project should pay a uniform rate. If those In Shady Knoll paid $160 previously and are now being put into this district. they should be given a credit to reduce the first assessment by the amount paid. Mr. Schrantz recommended the simp iest method would be to reduce this assessment by $160 for those five parcels. Mayor Elling asked where the funds would come from If the assessments were reduced for those five lots. Mr. Schrantz thought there is some money left in the fund. Mr. Koolick stated the construction funds are st i I ] open for this project, though he did not know the balance of them. CouciJmember Orttel questioned it those Jots south of Thursh Street in Kensington Estates also paid the $160 for storm sewer. Mr. Davidson stated no. Those in Kensington Estates were assessed separately at one-half the excavation and grading costs for Thursh Street. Ken Nystrom. 2245 South Coon Creek Drive - stated on the first proJect he voted on the project and was assessed for it. Now he is being asked to pay again 2 1/2 years after i t is done, and he had no right to vote on whether he wanted it or not. He understood the benefit, but was concerned about the procedure and coming back to the residents after-the-fact for the money. Many people didn't even live in the area when the project was done, yet now they are being asked to pay for it. Counc i I discussion noted the originaJ assessment for those Jots in Shady Knol J wi II be reduced by the amount of the original storm water assessment. Jerrv Windschitl - understood the Council took action two weeks ago to assess the parcels along Crosstown in ProJect 88-1 onJy $100 regardJess of alJeged benefit. He wondered If the Counc i I wi J I treat , . ' -- --- .-- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 5 (Continued Assessment Hearing/87-3B) all residents on an equal basis. not seeing how those in IP87-3B can be assessed such horrendous amounts when another group in an identical project is only being assessed $100. Mr. WI ndsch It I pointed out several parceJs along Crosstown in this project that wi 1 J pay $800 to $1600 for storm water. yet parcels along Crosstown south of this area will on]y pay $100 each. He noted the Council asked the Staff to see If there was money available to pay for Project 88-1. asking why wasn't the same direction asked for in IP87-3B. Mr. Windschi tI went on to say he didn't see how the City could sustain these assessments and noted the horrendous amount of moneY that wi J I be spent In lawsuits. He felt the City could stop this by treating everyone the on the same basis, but it is not reasonable to assess one person only $100 and another $1,600. He fundamentally disagrees with the numbers, feeling the residents should not be primarily responsible for the road. It shouJd be the county or the city. He has never seen a county road project done In this city were the residents have to pay for it. Mayor EI ling didn't think that was the case here. Mr. Windschltl disagreed. He felt It gets down to the question of I f the Counc II feels an assessment of $100 is adequate in one end. how can they argue for anything over $100 on the other end. Karen Arnold. 14385 Raven - understood the reason the other project only paid $100 Is because they had a chance to vote on it first. Those residents have been around a ]ong time, whereas she and her husband have onJy lived in Andover for less than a year. She argued when the project was done. they didn't even Jive here. and yet they are being asked to pay something they couldn't even vote on or for something that mayor may not have been the responsibility of the developer. She didn't understand what Is going on here. Mayor EI ling agreed the timing of the assessment Is not good and that It Is a difficult situation. The policy has always been that the benefitted property owners pay their share of the costs. One of the reasons for the delay was because of the on-going negotiations with the county. Rick Llnnqren. 2127 142nd - felt the agreement shouJd have been more clear between the developer and the City Council. Now this wi J I go to court between the City, the developer. and many of the residents: and only the I awyers wi]] come out ahead and the residents pay the bi]] anyway. He asked if there isn't any way the Council and the developer can come to an agreement to settJe this. One of the reasons many of them moved out there was because they were told all the assessments were paid. They checked with the City, the county, and the developer. and nothing was ever said about the possiblJity of another assessment. Mayor EIJing stated some of that information was availabJe. Mr. Linnqren - stated it wasn't available when they checked; everything was paid and there were no liens. He again asked if I t is possible to negotiate some settlement with the developer; otherwise nobody wins. .. ---~ ReguJar City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 6 (Continued Assessment Hearing/87-3B) John Arnold. 14385 Raven - asked how the $100 was arrived at for the other project and where will the balance of the IP88-l money be taken from. Mr. Schrantz exp]ained the baJance wi I I be taken out of the construction fund. It amounts to about $8,000. It is a different project in that a] I of the benefitted properties faced Crosstown Boulevard. This is different because it affects not only properties facing Crosstown but includes an entire subdivision. He stated the developer knew about the storm sewer trunk since the beginning. Mr. Arnold - asked as a new homeowner, why should he be penalized for the deficiency of the past or present Councils, when it is they who should be responsible for paying this. He stated this has cuased him to not have a very high opinion of Andover. Mr. Wlndschti J - stated he has been told there are documentations about what is being said by Staff and Council. yet neither he nor his lawyer have been able to obtain them. Mayor EI ling stated they have just been sent. Mr. Windschti I - stated he has looked through all the documents at City Hall relating to this project and found no mentIon of storm sewer trunk assessments in the feasibilIty studies for IP87-3. Kensington Estates 1st. 2nd or third Additions. Shady Kno]]. Woodrldge Acres. nor The Oaks. He alleged no documentation exists that this was known abou t . CounciJmember Jacobson reviewed the reasoning for the CounclJ decision two weeks ago to assess not more than $100 per parcel for IP88-1 based on the action of the previous Council. Mr. Nystrom - stated he was originally told what he was going to pay on his assessment, yet he is back here being assessed again. It was his point that the same thing is happening to him as did those in IP88-1. Mr. W i ndsch I t I - c]arlfJed that Thursh Street was not done in the Kensington Estates project but was done entirely in the Shady Kno II project. It the Shady Kno II project is reopened, it shou]d apply to those lots east of Thursh as well. since they paid for one-half of the costs. Mr. Schrantz stated the costs to the Kensington Estates Jots were only for the grading. not for the ponding. Mr. Wlndschit] - stated there are 25 or 26 other parcels besides himself. the developer, being assessed in this project. Mayor E] ling understood that, not I ng if i t is not assessed. the costs wi lJ have to come ou t of the General Fund. That is not something that has ever been done in this City. Discussion with several in the audience was that the costs not being assessed in the IP88-1 project will come from the project fund, not the General Fund. ,- ._- .-- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 7 (Continued Assessment Hearing/87-3B) Mr. Davidson then reviewed the events leading up to Project 87-3B and why It ended up being a project separate from the Kensington Estates projects. This is being treated the same as any other subdivision or developer in the City In that they pay their fair share of storm sewer facilities. Mr. Windschitl - read from the Minutes of June 2, 1987, when IP87-3B and C were awarded which indicated the Council was made aware of the fact that a public hearing must be held if any of the project was to be assessed. He didn't think it made any sense to hold public hearings now, when It was known back then that they were required. He surmised the reason the public hearings weren't held is because Andover has had the policy for years of not assesslng for these types of projects. He again noted the people In this project never had a chance to vote on it. and pointed out other projects in the City where costs were not assessed, such as Tulip Street. University Avenue. Nightengale, and Ward Lake Drive. Mr. Schrantz stated the policy was developed in 1982 to not assessed for Municipal or State Aid roads, but storm sewer assessments were never discussed. Councllmember Orttel felt the decision to assess only $100 In IP88-1 was consciously done based on the City's policy of not assessing existing homes along county and MSA roads. He assumed the intent at the time the bid was awarded in this project was to not assess the existing property owners based on that policy and that the assessment to the undeveloped land would be done through the documentation typically written for developers. He felt there Is room for negotiation between the City and the developer, hoping some agreement could be reached to avoid encumbering any of the exIsting property owners and to void the cost of the appeals. Attorney Hawkins said the developer's attorney indicated today they would be wil]ing to talk about this further. He suggested continuing the hearing. then meeting with the Council to find out which direction they want to take. He wi lJ then negotiate wIth the developer and his attorney and bring the matter back to the Council for the March 6 meeting. Counc II a]so suggested Mr. Koolick research the balance of the funds for this project. Mr. Wlndschitl stated he is unable to attend the March 6 meeting. Discussion with some of the residents noted the City's attorney wll I negotiate with the developer and his attorney. the understanding being there would be no assessment to any of the homeowners. It was agreed to bring the item back to the second meeting in March. MOTION by Orttel. Seconded by Knight. that we continue the matter of Project 87-3B assessment hearing to March 20 at 7:30 to al low time for neogitations with the major property owner in the area regarding the assessment. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, i-Present (Jacobson) vote. .. Regular City Council Meeti ng Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 8 (Continued Assessment Hearing/87-3B) Mayor EI] ing noted objections to the special assessments fiJed with the City from VioJet Erickson for Lot 1 . Block 1 , The Oaks. and from Doug Johnson. Lot 2. Block 1 , Kensington Estates 2nd. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER/TOWER NO. 2 MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry. to so move on the Change Order. (Change Order No. 2. adding $3,067 to operate the entire water system at a higher pressure J eve] ) Motion carried unanimously. Counc i I recessed at 9:30: reconvened at 9:38 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING/IP89/25/MOORE'S ESTATES BRA Engineer Shawn Gustafson. reviewed the feasibi]ity study for bituminous streets in Moore's Estates and 158th Avenue area. The estimated cost for all streets exc]udlng Redwood is $80.500 for an estimated unit assessment of $4,450 for 18 units. If Redwood Street is done as a cui de sac. It would cost $16,910 more and add one more assessable unit. If Redwood is done as a driveway, the addltlona] cost would be $4,380, and the entire project cost would be about $4.450 for each of the 19 units benefitted. He also pointed out the nonbuildabJe or nonassessable parce]s in the project area. Counc i I discussed the cuI de sac on the north end of Sycamore. Ray Orstad - stated he has 40 acres, but it Is a big swamp at the end of Sycamore. Mr. Gustafson stated they proposed not assessing the Orstad property, assuming Sycamore wiJI be extended when that property develops. Discussion was then on the aJternatives for Redwood Street. Sa I I y K] oos . Lot 13. Redwood Street - stated they would like to build a garage and would prefer to take care of the road themselves and leave it as i t Is to be used as a driveway. Jerry Menqelkock. 15710 Sycamore - stated he originalJy took the petition around. He was comp]aining to Public Works about the water standing in Sycamore off Crosstown and was advised to get a petition to find out the costs of paving. Now that they know what It costs, they have decided it is too expensive and do not want It. Mayor Elling asked for a show ot hands In favor at the project. There were none. - -~- ..- .-- ReguJar City Council MeetIng Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 9 (Public Hearlng/IP89/25/Moore's Estates, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry. that we cJose the PublIc Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight. Seconded by Jacobson, that we discontinue the project. (See Resolution R018-90) Motion carried unanimously. LUND'S EVERGREEN ESTATES BUILDING PERMITS Jim Ne I I son . Attorney from Babcock. Loecher. and Manl J la - representing Jim Lund. developer of Lund's Evergreen 5th Addition. Mr. Neilson exp]ained the City is denyIng building permits on Lot 4, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 3. noting the issue is the interpretation of Ordinance 10C. Section 9.06, Subsection 3 requiring 39,000 square feet of bul]dabJe land area in the nonsewered area. He reviewed 11 items that had been presented to the Council on this matter, Including letters from TwIn City TestIng of their findings on the soi I borings and topographlca] surveys of the lots and tests done on the buIJdlng pads. Mr. Lund has been tryIng to seJI one of the lots for over 1 1/2 years. The buyer has hired a builder to construct a house. Mr. Neilson explained the the testing company does not actually test 39,000 square feet of land to determine its buildability, so the question becomes what Is buildable and what is not. He stated TwIn City Testing understood they were to find an area that cou]d be built on for a single family home. which is what they aJways do: but they do not actually do the testing for the entire 39.000-square-foot area. which would be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Neilson pointed out that the size of a bUilding pad for any single-family home is considerably less than 39,000 square feet. Mr. Neilson stated the City's Building Official is requiring Mr. Lund to meet the buildabJe square-foot requirement by digging out an area that is In a drainage easement and that cannot be built on plus another 5,000-square-foot triangle to come up wi th the 39,000 square feet on Lot 2. Block 3. He stated that simply makes no sense. The developer is wiJJlng to make a restrictIve convenant showing that the building can only be placed on an exact location. Mr. Almgren stated the developer knew he needed to have 39,000 square feet of buildable Jand on each lot and knew the ordInance requires the organic material to be removed before adding fill. Mayor Elling aJso noted one of the reasons for the requIrement Is to accommodate on-site seWer systems, Mr. Neilson argued three on-site sewer systems only require 3.500 square feet. , -- -.-. - I ReguJar CIty Council Meeti ng Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 10 (Lund's Evergreen Estates Building Permits, Continued) Mr. Almgren said another reason for the requirement is to be able to place accessory buildings on the lot without having to worry about the underJylng soils. Mr. Neilson stated with a restrictive convenant, the buyer would realize exactly where those buildings couJd be placed. Mr. Almgren explained the ordinance requirement has existed for about 19 years and there has never been a problem with it before. He again stated Mr. Lund understood exactly what had to be done with the plat. Also, the City has no documents showing a drainage easement through there. Mr. Neilson stated it is on the approved plat. CounciJmember Jacobson pointed out that in the development agreement done in October. 1988. it appears there was some concern over six lots because it specifically discusses them stating there will be 39.000 square feet of contiguous buildable land on each lot. He asked if the developer is now not wishIng to do that. Jim Lund. Developer - stated prior to drafting the contract. he went out with Mr. Almgren and Mr. Haas to view the plat, particularly those six lots. He felt it was very specific about what needed to be done on those lots. that all agreed there would be a 100- by 100-foot building pad on each of them. There was peat on some of the lots. and he said he would test the questionable ones with a backhoe with the engineering company there to verify that everything was all r I gh t. Mr. Lund stated that is what he did, and verified everything with the City. Mr. Neilson stated the document was prepared at the request of the City Staff. It refers to 39,000 square feet of buildable Jand, alleging that in fact the City has not required exactly 39,000 square feet of building land on al I lots in the past. Councilmember Orttel stated If that is true. It has been a mistake. To his knowledge the 39,OOO-square-foot has always been strictly enforced. Attorney HawkIns agreed with the Staff's position that the CIty has always considered buiJding property something that can be built upon. In this case there was concern about the bad soils because of another situation. The bad soils were to be extracted, and that has not been done. He felt the Ci ty Is wi thin its rights to require the bad soils to be excavated and to have proof that there is 39.000 square feet of contiguous building property on those lots. Mr. Neilson argued a septic system would be built on that 39.000 square feet, yet It cannot be built on compacted Jand: it must be porous. Mr. Almgren stated according to the State Statute a septic system can be installed in compacted ground. Mr. Lund expJained he worked with Mr. AJmgren on his other pJats and nothing like this has ever been requested before. He proceeded with the understanding of that working relationship and was clear about what had to be done. Discussion between Mr. Lund and Mr. Almgren was what took place In the past, on the City's requirement at this time, and on the grading plan approved by the Council In 1984. - --- --- .-- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 11 (Lund's Evergreen Estates Building Permits. Continued) Counc i J indicated one problem is that sand has been filled over some organic materials, which is not al lowed. They also felt that the signed Development Agreement Is the control ling document, and that It and a] I ordinance requirements must be fo]Jowed. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry. that the City Council agrees to the position held by Staff in the lots In Lund's Evergreen Estates 5th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. HOME AND BUSINESS ALARM ORDINANCE Chairperson Pease explained the ordinance was drafted in an attempt to reduce the number of false a1arms to which the deputies must respond. An ordinance is needed to allow police to fine property owners for the third and subsequent false alarms in a year. Mayor E11ing fe1t the concept is a good one but was concerned about the administration of it. Mr. Blake explained they proposed registering all home and business alarm systems so it wi II be possible to shut off systems that are falsely ringing continuously. He didn't feel it would take much staff time to set up and maintain the records. Discussion with Mr. Blake was on whether such detai1ed information is really needed by the City or whether residents should have to provide that information. There were questions and suggestions on the following provisions of the ordinance: SectJ on 2, B: requires the registration of all alarms and that it be instalJed by someone who is licensed. Counc II pointed out that many people instal1 their own systems. SectJ on 2. E: questioned if there are two fees. Section 2. G: questioned whY both the deputy and the City C1erk would contact the property owners. Why can't just the deputy do it? SectJ on 5: questioned whether the Information given to the City can reallY be kept confidential and whether this creates a whole new bureaucracy. Jack McKelveY - stated they have a slmillar ordinance In Minneapolis for businesses only. The State Electrical Board al lows anyone to do their own personal e]ectrical wiring: therefore, anybody can put in an alarm system and it becomes impossible to collect a fine from people. He felt the Noise Ordinance would cover a situation where an a1arm is going off all day long. Councllmember Jacobson felt this defeats the reason people put in alarms, that this discourages It when it should be encouraged. He agreed. however. with this ordinance covering alarms for businesses. , . Regular City Council Meeti ng Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 12 (Home and Business Alarm Ordinance, Continued) After further discussion, it was generally agreed that the ordinance should regulate alarms for businesses, but Individual homeowners shouJd not be regulated. It was suggested the ordinance be rewritten to al low the deputies to fine individual homeowners for the third and subsequent false alarm in a year. but that the City would not become invoJved adminIstratIvely. Mayor Elling asked if false fire alarms should be included. FIre Chief Glenn SmIth fe]t It would be a good idea. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Knight, that we refer the Home and Business Alarm Ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, ask them to consider amending the ordinance as presented so that there is a section that deals with business alarm systems and one that deals with home alarm systems, and one that deals with the fire and pOlice false alarms within the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 44 AMENDMENT Mr. Blake asked for Council reaction to a rough draft amendment to the Junkyard Ordinance to prohibit the outside storage of more than ten vehicJes. This wouJd force the junkyards to conduct their businesses entirely within permanent structures. Mayor EI ling stated there are more problems with FHA financing for those developments around the junkyard areas. He suggested the City request FHA to provide a written statement of their policy on whether or not they are going to redllne the houses in that area. Attorney Hawkins advised there is some precedence in other states for removing obnoxious material from areas. explaining the time period over which the yards would be required to comply would be amortIzed over a reasonabJe period of time. Mayor Elling again suggested drafting a letter to the FHA for a written statement of their policy position regarding that neighborhood before this amendment is considered. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Perry. to so move. Motion carried unanimously. Council directed Mr. BJake to present the draft ordinance to the P & Z when the letter from the FHA Is received. RECORDING SECRETARY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETINGS Mayor ElJing suggested the Planning Commission Recording Secretary be authorized to take the Minutes for the Comprehensive Plan Meetings. MOTION by Knight. Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. , . . - -~- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6. 1990 Page 13 DECLARE ADEQUACY OF PETITION/HIDDEN CREEK EAST 3RD MOTION by Orttel. Seconded by Jacobson. declaring adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility report for the improvements for P~oject No. 90-5, Hidden Creek 3rd Addition, as prepared. (See Resolution R019-90) Motion carried unanimously. COON RAPIDS/ANDOVER JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/SITE Q Questions were raised about the proposed $20,000 expense for attorneys fees. feeling that is quite high. There was also some concern about the entire proposal in general. Because of those conce~ns and the late hour. it was agreed to tabJe the item. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson. to continue this to the next meeting. Motion carried unanimousJy. (moved to February 8, 1 990 ) ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORTS/ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS/89-19: 89-26: 89-27 MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel. to approve a II three ResoJutions as presented. (See Resolution R020-90 - Receive feasibility and order pubJic hearing for street construction overlay, IP89-19, Rum River Forest area: R021-90 - Receive feasibility and orde~ public hearing for street construction overlay, IP89-26. in Lakeridge area: R022-90 - Receive feasibility and order public hearing for street construction overJay. IP89-27, in Njordma~k-Dale area) DISCUSSION: Jerry WindschitJ stated there Is no reason for overlaying the streets in Lakeside and the people should not be called In. Mr. Schrantz agreed, recommending Lakeside be left out. Council agreed. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE FIRE DEPARTMENT ELECTION RESULTS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to so move. (Fire Chief - Glenn Smith: Assistant Fire Chief - Dale Mashuga; Secretary - Maris Schilling) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Ortte], that we direct City Staff to get an appropriate plaque for Bob Palmer (former Fire Chief). Motion carried unanimously. DAY RESCUE REQUEST Firefighter Dave Reitan asked the Council's opinion to provide day rescues In the City. This would be done by the firefighters using a fire t~uck, but they would only respond to 1lfe-threatenlng , . ,- --- . - Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 14 (Day Rescue Request, Continued) situations. There have been about 75 calls per year during the day time between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The Item is not provided for in the 1990 budget. Frank Stone. Public Works, has said he would allow one Public Works person to respond to those situations. Council asked that an estimated budget be presented and possible sources of funding. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry, that we consider the Idea wi th the proviso that the Fire Department come back to us at the next regular meeting with the cost of the service and the manpower they estimate it would take to staff it and where the funds to fund this day-time operation would come from. Motion carried unanimously. FIRE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT REPAIR Fire Chief Glenn Smith and Firefighter Roger Noyes reviewed the bids received for repairs and refurbishing of the pumper tanker 4886 and 4881. Mr. Noyes explained $23,000 has been budgeted for 4881. but they would Jlke to transfer $10,290 to have 4886 repaired irnmmediateJy. In the repair bid for 4886. they wou]d like to Include Opt i on 1 . repJace the pJating in the back for $900. and the option to cover the hosebed, all of which are included In the cost of $10.290. In addition. Mr. Noyes asked for permission to have the pumper tested. Discussion was also on the repairs needed for 4881 and the need for a new 6 by 6 to go on the grass rIg. Counc II was concerned about the funding. Chief Smith though t the optIons were to put it on the bond referendum if It comes to be or to go out for equipment bonds. Mr. KooJick stated he wi I] have a proposal ready for the next meeting regarding capital equipment purchases for 1990. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Counc i ] authorize the transfer of funds budgeted for fire truck No. 4881 to be used on No. 4886. in the amount of $10.290, to make those repairs as specified by Custom Fire Apparatus in their letter dated February 5, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. It was agreed the Fire Department wiJ] Jook at their needs and options available and come back with their requests. CONTINUE MEETING MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we continue the meeting of Tuesday. February 6, to February 8. 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. , . ,- Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1990 Page 15 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry. approval of Checks 17997 through 18089 for a total amount of $876,847.24. Mot ¡ on carr! ed unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned to February 8, 1990. 11:43 p.m. RespectfuJly submitted. ~~~- ~Ia A. Peach Recording Secretary - --- -+- .-- I