Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 15, 1990 ~) CITY of ANDOVER ,,' Regular City Council Meeting - May 15, 1990 8:01 P.M. Call to Order Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Discussion Items 1. Public Hearing/90-6 2. Ordinance 62 Amendment, Cant. 3. Ed Fields Lot split, Cont. 4. Special Use Permit/Jeff's Outdoor Furniture 5. Special Use Permit/Hokanson Development PUD 6. Ordinance 8 Amendments/Home occupations 7. Gene Brown park Dedication Fee 8. Approve Resolution/MWCC Refund program Staff, Committee, Commission 9. Capital Budget 10. Lot purchase/Northwest Steel Fabrictors 11. Recycling Agreement 12. Revised Recycling Budget 13. Close Equipment Funds/Authorize Addn. Terminal 14. Strootman Park Parking 15. Schedule Meeting: City Council & Park Board 16. Approve $2,500,000 Bond Sale 17. Receive Quotes/AAA Bldg. Electric Service Non-Discussion Items 18. Accept Deed/Troy Olson 19. Water Surface Use Management 20. Request Speed study/133rd Avenue Approval of Claims Adjournment , - -. ~~ -- - ."'''-".".-. .fj\ .', .,'" i' CITY of ANDOVER " i 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 , , REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 15, 1990 -,-"._,- MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was ca] led to order by Mayor Jim El ling on May 15. 1990: 8:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover, Minnesota. Counci¡members present: Jacobson, Kn Ight, Orttel Councilmembers absent: Perry Also present: City Attorney, Wi I liam G. Hawkins: TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and Rick Odland: Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, Rebecca Pease; City Planner. Jay Blake; City Finance Director, Howard KooIlck: City Assistant Engineer, Todd Haas; City Administrator/Engineer, James Schrantz: and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, the Agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 1 , 1990 - Correct as written. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approval of the Counc II Minutes for May 1 , 1990, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING/IP90-6 Counc i I discussed whether or not they had a legal petition. Mr. Schrantz Indicated the petition was signed only by Mr. Haluptzok and represents more than 50 percent of Phase I of the project. It Is not a majority petition if the entire project is ordered at this time. Attorney Hawkins advised the petition only changes the vote from 3/5 to 4/5 vote to order the project. Mr. Davidson reviewed the proposed project to bring sewer and water lines across Bunker Lake Boulevard to serve the developable properties on the south side. They plan to bore casing from the south side across Bunker Lake Boulevard into the manhole and put an inside drop Into the sewer line. Because the sewer line is 22 feet deep at that point. this method wi¡ 1 eliminate the expense of having to go that deep for this project. A separate casing for the watermain wi I 1 be augered to service the properties to the west. The Jines also have the potential of serving the property to the south between this area and the proposed Commercial Boulevard. ,- -- ,. .- -- ReguJar City Councli MeetJ ng May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 2 (Public Hearlng/IP90-6, Continued) Mr. Davidson also explained that because of the wetlands to the west. It wi II be less costly to run another ilne across Bunker Lake Bouievard to serve the Tonson property than to include it In this proj ect. He aiso noted that this proposal potentialiy serves four lots and is more economical than to just serve the Haluptzok property. Mr. Schrantz reported Mr. Haluptzok Is aware of the cost estimates and st III wants the utiJities, but he Is not able to attend tonight's hearing. Mr. Batson has not responded to the hearing notices and is not in attendance this evening. Mr. Davidson then reviewed the estimated costs for Phases I and II of the proj ect. noting after Phase I is compJeted with no assessment to Mr. Batson, the City would be carrying a balance of $33,000. When Phase II Is completed, the net City's share will be about $13.000. Phase II is to serve the property east of the line. which has the equivalent of two lots. Counci I member Jacobson wasn't comfortable with the large cost the City wouid have to carry nor with acting on this without hearing from Mr. Haluptzok and Mr. Batson. He also questioned the validIty of the petition. Councilmember Orttel noted the petition is about 60 percent to do Phase I ; but he was concerned about the health issue of the rentaJ dweillng on one lot not having sanitary sewer and water, especiaJly in I ight of the hazardous wastes found in that area. He also felt I t is a heal th issue that the one junkyard business does not have any facilIties at alJ. He thought the Ci ty may be in a position to order the improvement based on a hea]th issue. Orttel noted the City would not be encumbering pUblic funds. because the City's share would come from the trunk, source, and storage fund specially set up for Instances such at this. Mr. Davidson also stated the property owners wii I be asked to dedicate the balance of the right-of-way needed along Bunker Lake BouJevard. No costs have been determined, anticipating the easement would be dedicated at the time of the improvement. After further discussion, It was agreed to table the Item until there is a full Counc I ] and to allow for imput from the affected property owners. Mr. Davidson was also asked to determine a cost for right-of- way. Mayor EJling asked for a motion to continue the public hearing. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried unanimousJy. Mayor EI ling asked for a motion to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting. June 5. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight. to so move. Motion carried unanimously. 8:26 p.m. ,. --- -- ReguJar City Council Meetl ng May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 3 ORDINANCE 62 AMENDMENT - HUNTING MOTION by Knight. Seconded by Orttel, the Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 62, regulating the discharge of firearms and bow and arrows within the City of Andover. as presented. Motion carried unanimously. ED FIELDS LOT SPLIT. CONTI NUED Mr. Blake reported Mr. Fields came into the office and presented a redescrlbed parceJ that has included an additional 33 feet on the eastern edge of the property so it would be 2.5 acres in size. He also included a description for a 33-foot easement on the western edge of this lot and 33 feet on the eastern edge of the adjacent lot, for a totaJ easement width of 66 feet for the future extension of Uplander. A variance on lot frontage would stil I be needed, because the lot has only 17 feet of frontage on the cui de sac. Mr. Fields has also agreed to combine the southerly lot with his farm property. Mr. Hawkins saw no probl em wi th the proposa I . CounciJmember Jacobson felt that increasing the size to 2.5 acres takes away some of his objections, but he was stil 1 bothered wi th the huge variance from the required 300 feet to 17 feet of frontage, especiallY since It could easily be sp]it Into a five-acre parcel without coming before the Counc i I . Mr. Schrantz stated the lot will have 337 feet of frontage on the unbuilt road. CounciJmember OrtteJ believed one intent of the platting ordinance Is to control density and space between homes. He feJt that Including the street easement and increasing the lot size meets that Intent. He thought It would not be detrimental to the City to allow the variance since it would be al lowed under a metes and bounds split anyway. MOTION by OrtteJ. Seconded by Knight, di recti ng Staff to prepare a resolution approving the Lot Sp]lt with the fol10wing conditions: that the property size be increased so that net of the street there Is a 2 1/2-acre ] ot ¡ that the parcel south of Lot 3 be recombined with the AgrlculturaJ Preserve property that Is owned by the same individual In the area: and that the street right of way for Lots 3 and the proposed new lot. on the west side of the easterly parcel and the east side of the westerJy parcel, be dedicated for permanent road purposes at the time the split is approved. The Issue of park fees should be Included as we]1 as a note that at such time as the road is constructed that the adjacent property owners wllJ pay for the road: and note that a variance wouJd be required for frontage and that the hardship would be based on the fact that the adjacent street and cui de sac were built to the property within the last 12 months. Motion carried on a 3-Yes. l-No (Jacobson) i-Absent (Perry) vote. Counci Imember Jacobson again stated he felt going from 300 to 17 feet of frontage Is too much of a variance: and he didn't see the hardship. Mayor EI ling noted the probJem disappears when Uplander is extended. .h ReguJar City Council Meeti ng May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 4 SPECIAL USE PERMIT/JEFF'S OUTDOOR FURNITURE Chairperson Pease reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve a Special Use Permit for Jeff's Outdoor Furniture for retail sales in a leased building at 13650 Hanson Boulevard. Al I the provisions stipulated by the Planning Commission have been met except the removal of the waste and other material in the bui Iding. Mr. Blake reported the owner had agreed to have the place cleaned up by Apri 1 30: however, that deadJ!ne has not been met. He estimated a cost of about $10,000 to remove the debris and hazardous fence. The owners have been notified that the matter has been referred to the City Attorney. He expected that through legal action that area wil] get cleaned up. Attorney Hawkins aJso felt it wi I 1 get cleaned up; It is a matter of what procedure will be the quickest. After some discussion. Counc I I did not feel It was proper to hold up this business because of the behavior of the property owner. Councllmember Jacobson was concerned about allowing the outdoor display after business hours, thinking it looked a 1 it tie shabby. Chairperson Pease stated the P & Z talked about that but fe1t that It was his option. The pieces left out are fairly large. Counc II member Knight thought that it it had to be moved Indoors. it would take two grown men to cJose up the business every day because the furniture Is heavy. Mr. Blake noted the ordinance does not limit outdoor displays to the hours of operation only. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight. the Andover City Council approve a Special Use Permit for Jeff's Outdoor Furniture to allow retail sales in an Industrial District and outdoor display and sales on the property described as: lot 1 . Block 1 , Pankonin Addition, Anoka County Minnesota. with the following conditions: that retai I sales shall be I iml ted to items associated wi~h or constructed on site: ourdoor display shal I be conducted at least 20 feet from the property line: the Special Use Permi t shall be subject to an annual review and shal J be declared nul I and void if significant progress is not made within one year of approval of this permit: and delete Item 5 on the prepared Resolution. (See ResoJution R061-90) Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT PUD Chairperson Pease reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the Special Use Permit request for a Planned Unit Development on 40 acres at 17361 University Avenue. Mr. Blake explained when a representative from Hokanson Development approached the Staff severa] months ago. he Informed them that deveJoplng the property under a PUD would allow them flexibility to cluster homes Into sma I ler areas and protect the wetland area under common ownership. But he also erroneously told them that they would be allowed to increase the density under a PUD. -- Regular City Council Meeting May 15. 1990 - Minutes Page 5 (Special Use Permit/Hokanson Development PUD, Continued) Mr. Blake went on to explain when the developer redrew the plan, It was simillar to what is before the Council. The Staff feels the proposal is not a PUD In the true sense in that they are not using it to protect the unique features in the plat. The overa 11 density of their proposal is one per 2.35 acres. The City's minimum requirement is one per 2.5 acres, and the Staff Is recommendIng that be preserved. Mayor EI ling was concerned about the proposed structures on the island off Butternut Street, wondering if they would meet the 39.000 square-foot requirement for the septic system. Mr. Blake stated the Staff had the same conce.n and Is suggesting the homes be pJaced cJoser to the road and not on the Island. Kirk Carson. representlncr Hokanson Development. Inc. - stated they have talked to the DNR and to the Corps of Engineers. Using the topographic maps from the City and information from the DNR, they determined the approximate location of the DNR wetlands. In conjunction with the county's soils map, they found that the marginal soi Is between the island and the street can be corrected by permit from the Corps of Engineers; so there would be no island remaining. Mr. Carson pointed out the tax exempt property which will be necessary to connect Butternut to 173rd Avenue. They would prefer to have the City condemn the property to move the process along, rather than Hokanson purchasing the property. Mr. Blake stated the easement for University Avenue exists only on the Andover side. It did not appear reasonable to bring University all the way up because of the wetlands. Mr. Carson stated their original plan was to extend 173rd Lane to the property line for future connection to University, but they were told I t wou I d be too long for a cu] de sac. CounciImember Orttel felt it should go all the way through. as it would be a temporary turnaround if the road goes to the property line. Council discussion was on the difference between the proposed PUD and a substandard plat. Mr. BJake stated a PUD would al low flexibi]lty in lot size and frontages, etc. , to accommodate and protect the natura] features of the J and. but I t does not increase the density. Councilmember Orttel noted PUDs have never been alJowed In the rural area. In other rural plats, the wetlands have not been counted toward the number of buildable lots. Under the normal pJattlng process, one could not get more than 13 lots on 40 acres that Is al J bu i I dab Ie: yet this proposal is for 16 lots on 40 acres with wetlands. He felt if this Is allowed, a] 1 future rural developments would simply circumvent the platting requirements because a PUD does not have to meet the minimum requirements and density increases immensely. This was not the Council's intent when the PUD provision was put in the ordinance, as there never was any variation from the 2.5-acre lot size In the rural area except in very unusual circumstances. .- ,- Regular City CounciJ Meeting May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 6 (Speclal Use Permit/Hokanson Development PUD. Continued) Mr. Carson stated they were told by Staff not to leave the wetlands in common ownership. Mr. Blake explained Staff felt the original PUD did not meet the Intent of the ordinance after it was discovered the density could not increase. Hokanson was asked to submit a revised drawing. and a sketch came back slmlJlar to what Is before the Council where the outlot area was platted. After future discussion. the Counc i I generally agreed that the intent in the past has been the provision of a PUD was for the urban R-4 areas only: and clustering, etc., would not be allowed In the rural area. The interpretation of the ordinance of "urban development" has always meant in the urban a~ea only. One of the ~easons for not usIng the PUD in the rural area was for sewer and water. Andover has exc I uded a J J wetland when determining density. The Counc i J a]so generally did not feel that wetlands on the property constituted a unique feature that would warrant consideration of a PUD development. Mr. Carson stated they worked with the ordinances and the Staff thinking they would get 18 lots on the property. They are willing to plat It, though it wi 11 be a difficulty for them to drop down to 7 or 8 lots. He suggested the possibility of a refund on the SpeciaJ Use Pe rm I t fee and then pJat the property. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight. that since the consensus of the Counc I J Is to deny this Special Use Permit for the PUD and to di rect Staff to prepare an amended Resolution for the next meeting out I Ining the points in the Resolution we have before us plus the addi tlonaJ ones that were not addressed and bring it back for our action at the next meeting: and the fee be refunded. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Knight noted an additional point would be that PUDs are not allowed In the rural area. Councllmember Orttel felt the reasons listed should be either on the merits of the ordinance or that it was never aJlowed and the money should be refunded. They are two separate items, and he feJt they shouJd not be used together. Attorney Hawkins had no problem I isting both that i t is the City's interpretation that PUDs are not allowed in the rural areas and also that it does not meet the criteria even if i t was a 1 lowed. Motion carried on a 3-YES. i-PRESENT (Ortte]). l-ABSENT (Perry) vote. Counc i ] generally felt it would be to Mr. Hokanson's advantage to acquire the tax-forfeit properties, as it would be quite costly to have the City obtain it. A resident asked if another landowner could buy that property. Counc i ] stated the City has bid to acquire the one piece for street purposes. The City would have the right to condemn the property for the street if necessary. Dave Haupert - was concerned about the PUD concept. seeing It as an oppo~tunlty to~ developers to circumvent the codes of Andover and bui Jd in an area where harm Is being done. He encouraged the CounciJ to amend the PUD provision so something like this does not happen. .- .. Regular City Counci] Meeting May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 7 (Special Use Permit/Hokanson Development PUD, Continued) This land is very low and a lot of logging would have to be done. He didn't feel this property Is being protected under a PUD. as it would be putting a lot of houses and drain fields Into a very minimal amount of high ground. He appreciated the support in turning down this request and asked that the Counc II consider amending the ordinance so this doesn't come up again. He's concerned that as profit motives Increase. more and more builders are going to try to use this method. Mayor EI lIng noted this has been an interpretation problem: that the intent has always been that PUDs are not al lowed in the rural area. ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENTS/HOME OCCUPATIONS Chairperson Pease stated the basic change has been allowing businesses In accessory buiJdlngs on lots of three acres in sIze or larger by Special Use Permit. Also, the number of employees, In addi ti on to fami] y members, has been limited to one person on site. Even i f there is more than one home business being conducted In a home, the restrictions noted in the ordinance apply -- 800 square feet for an accessory structure. one addi tional employee. etc. Council was concerned about opening up the residential neighborhoods to the automobile repair business. Mr. Blake noted the ordinance does not allow auto repair businesses. even with a SUP. The IIrepair businesses" noted in the ordinance are not auto repair: they are for repair and servicing of musica] , scientific or medical instruments, photographic equipment, jewelry. watches. clocks. sma] I household app I i ances, office machines. and clothes. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight. the Amendment to Ordinance 8 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson. to move the issue of garage sales to the P & z. Motion carried unanimously. GENE BROWN PARK DEDICATION FEE Mr. Haas explained Gene Brown had a Jot spJit approved in 1988 for property at 135th Lane and Round Lake Boulevard sUbject to park dedication fees. He has now approached the City about recording the fees. The Park Board suggested hiring an appraiser to determine the park dedication fees per the current procedure. The fee was determined at $2,465. Mr. Brown is disputing how that fee was determined. Councilmember Orttel noted he is being charged for a developed Jot because the lot sp II t took place when municipal sewer was Instal led. .-- .. ReguJar City Council Meeting May 15. 1990 - Minutes Page 8 (Gene Brown Park Dedication Fee, Continued) Though CounciJmember Orttel agreed wi th the interpretation. he was concerned about the high fee. Counc i I again discussed the procedure used to determine park fees, noting this method is causing some unusually high amounts for lot splits. Gene Brown - disagreed with the InterpretatIon of the ordinance. He felt i t is very clear that the value should be placed on the cost of the J and wi thout the improvements. He said that means without sewer and water, as those are improvements. The assesser has stated he thinks it means with the City improvements but without buildings. If that is what it means, why doesn't it say that? Attorney Hawkins explained the ordinance is based upon the State Statutes. which allows the City to take a reasonable portion of the land or require cash equivalent. He felt the land and cash dedication needs to be treated equa I I y. The City shouldn't be getting any more cash than it can get based on the land dedication. This si tuatlon is unique because the improvements are there. He felt that wi thout Improvements means those improvements that would be constructed as a result of the platting that is now taking p1ace. not relating to back and pretending a11 the Improvements aren't there. Any land dedication wouJd incJude those improvements: the cash should reflect the same cost. Mr. Brown - disagreed. noting that is not what the ordinance states. He said he'd love take this to court but cannot because he needs to get this recorded. In discussing the procedure used to determine park dedication fees, Attorney Hawkins advised the Jaw aJlows the City to take a reasonable portion, but it does not specify how much. The City can take a Jesser percentage than the maximum reasonable portion of 10 percent -- whatever the Counc II feels Is reasonable. Counc i I dIscussed the possibility of changing policy, either determining rationale for taking a lesser percentage of the land value or determining land value less al J Improvements, including City improvements. It was then suggested that since Mr. Brown has some time constraints in recording the lot spl it, that he escrow the $2.465 with the City. The Counc I I can then discuss the entire matter with the Park Board in an attempt to correct the problem. If i t is determined that the park fee should be less, the balance would be returned to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown - stated he would be very happy to do that. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, that we continue thIs item and ask the property owner to escrow the amount until such time as the question Is resolved at a future meeting; and give authority for the Mayor to sign the lot sp II t. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 10: 17: reconvene at 10:26 p.m. " .- Regular City Council Meeti ng May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 9 APPROVE RESOLUTION/MWCC REFUND PROGRAM MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. (See Resolution R062-90 requesting the MetropoJitan Waste Control Commission refund to the City of Andover all Sewer AvaiJablJity Charges paid for properties located outside the City anticipated year 2000 Municipal Urban Service Area boundary) Motion carried unanimously. CAPITAL BUDGET Mayor EIJing asked for a motion to table the i tern to a fu I J Council. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight. to so move. Motion carried unanimously. LOT PURCHASE/NORTHWEST STEEL FABRICATORS Mr. Blake reviewed the proposal from Northwest Steel Fabricators to purchase Lots 2 and 3 in the Commercial Park for $70,000, which comes to about 50 cents per square foot. It also requires the City to close the ditch between the lots, which he estimated would cost $14,000. The net result of the sale would be about 40 cents per square foot for the two lots. CounclJrnember Jacobson reported the consensus of the Economic Development Committee was not to go below 50 cents a square foot. Including al J extra costs. Mayor EI ling aJso noted the medical company looking at two other Jots has told him they are receiving substantial financiaJ Incentives from other cities, asking if Andover wants to consider further help such as Jandscaping. etc. Councllmember Orttel though t that it could be argued that the covered drainage pipe for the lots being considered by Northwest Steel Fabricators should have been put in at the time of the plat. It was generaJ]y agreed the Staff and City Attorney shouJd negotiate with Northwest Steel Fabricators, but they did not want to go below 50 cents per square foot, including the cost of the covered drainage pipe. Mr. Blake noted there are construction funds remaining from the project that could be used to put in that pipe. Counc I J also suggested that when ]ooklng at the medical dl str Ibutl on company, that any further financial Incentives be tied to the number of new jobs being created. They suggested the EDC Jook at that item further. - .- ,- Regular City Council Meetl ng May 15. 1990 - Minutes Page 10 RECYCLING AGREEMENT Cindy DeRuyter, Recycling Coordinator, explained this is a one-year agreement to experiment with landspreading leaves and grass clippings In the fields. It is an alternative method to dispose of yard waste. The City's only obligation Is to pay the OLEO farmers when and If It uses them to dispose of yard waste. The waste will be debagged at the curb to be sure It is cJean waste. The City wi 11 only have to pay for whatever it arranges to have hauled to the farmers. The residents would have to pay the hauler if this program ever gets going. The Agreement does not obligate the City to do this: it al lows the City to participate if it chooses to do so. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight. that the Municipal Agreement between the OLEO and the City of Andover be authorized for approval by the Mayor and note that an addendum be made that any leaves delivered to OLEO would only be paid for If delivered through a hauler authorized by the City of Andover. for a period of no longer than one year. Motion carried on a 3-Yes. i-No (Jacobson), l-Absent (Orttel) vote. Ms. DeRuyter was asked to track the program noting costs Incurred, times it is used, etc. REVISED RECYCLING BUDGET Mr. BJake explained the City has secured additional grants for the recycling program. The City's share that it wi II not expend for recycl ing wi II be transferred to the City's Contingency Fund. AJso five percent of his time will be shifted from Economic Development to recycling. wi th the excess funds from Economic Development also to be transferred to the Contingency Fund. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, the Resolution amending the 1990 Genera] Fund Budget. (See Resolution R063-90) Motion carried unanimously. CLOSE EQUIPMENT FUNDS/AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL TERMINAL Mr. Koollck explained his memorandum to the Council to close the equipment funds and to purchase two additional terminals for the accounting system. funds to come from the equipment funds prior to closing. He reviewed the bids for the terminals. noting he would like to get color monitors. The cabling costs would be extra. He also noted an error for the Computerland bid, which should be $1,335 per color terminal. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Orttel, to authorize the purchase of two IBM color termIna]s for the prIce of $1.120 approxImately per terminal, with funds to come out of the Equipment Fund, which has somewhere between $11,000 and $13,000 remaining in it: and allow for cabling and connectors. Motion carried unanimously. . - Regular City Council Meeting May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 11 (CJose EequipmentFunds/Authorlze Additional Terminal, Continued) MOTION by Orttel. Seconded by Knight. that the Equipment Fund be Jiquldated and paid over into the General Fund Revenue to reimburse for prior repairs on the road grader that it was intended for. Motion carried unanimouslY. STROOTMAN PARK PARKING MOTION by Knight. Seconded by Orttel. a Resolution designating No Parking on Kiowa Street NW from 154th Avenue NW to 155th Avenue NW. as presented. (See Resolution R064-90) Motion carried unanimously. SCHEDULE MEETING: CITY COUNCIL & PARK BOARD Counc i J agreed to meet with the Park Board at 7 o'clock p.m.. on Tuesday, May 29. 1990. APPROVE $2.500.000 BOND SALE Mr. Hawkins requested authorization to solicit bids for $2.500.000 bond sales to finance the portion of the 1987 temporary bonds. He recommended that the bonds be rolled over one more time. issuing temporary bonds one more time. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight. a Resolution providing for the issuance and saJe $2,500.000 Genera] Ob]igatlon Temporary Improvement Bond Series 1990A as prepared by Jegal counse J . (See Resolution R065-90) Motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE QUOTES/AAA BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE Counc i J discussed the quotes from Anoka EJectrlc to instal] single phase overhead or underground service to the Andover Athletic Association building. Mayor EIJing noted there had been discussions in the past about putting in a three-phase service so the athletic fields could eventually be lighted. He wondered if that shouJdn't be done at this time. It was agreed that the Mayor, Mr. Haas. and Mr. Stone wi I I meet with AEC to consider a]J the options. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to continue this to the next meeting. Motion carried unanimous]y. ..- .. Regular City Council Meeting May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 12 ACCEPT DEED/TROY OLSON MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Counc i I accept the Quit Claim Deed from Troy D. Olson for road purposes on 181st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT Mr. Schrantz stated the Anoka part of the Rum River will probably be regulated by Anoka. He asked if the Council wants to regulate Round Lake or any of the other lakes In the City. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Knight, that we send It to the P & Z to have them consider whether or not the City should look at passing an ordinance which would reguJate the surface use of various waters In the City such as Round Lake. Motion carried unanimously. REQUEST SPEED STUDY/133RD AVENUE MOTION by Knight. Seconded by Jacobson. to so move. Motion carried unanimously. FIRE DEPARTMENT BOND/BROCHURE Firefighter Bob Peach noted the draft for a brochure to be sent to Andover residents on the proposed Fire Department bond Issue. The format for proposed costs to the residents was adopted from the school district's brochures. He also noted the figures that were missing In the proposa I : For a $75,000 house, the average annuaJ cost would be $48.71, average monthly cost of $4.06. and average weekly cost of $.94. For a $100.000 house. the average annual cost would be $78.41, average monthly cost of $6.53, and average weekly cost of $1.51. Counc i I generally approved the proposed draft, but asked that the term of 10 years for the bond Issue be noted In it. Mr. Peach stated the names and phone numbers of the members of the Fire Department Committee will be listed for residents to call wi th their questions. QUAD CITY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mayor E]Jlng reported the Commission has asked if the Counc 11 Is wi I ling to do a recap of the Counc I I meetings on an hour program a day or two after the meetings. This would be In addition to the program done by Mr. Schrantz on City activities. Council had no difficulty with the concept but felt that it should be done by Staff. not by the Council. Regular City Council Meet I ng May 15, 1990 - Minutes Page 13 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, approve payment on Schedule of BilJs on a computer printout dated 5-15-90 with one correction. under Anoka Electric Cooperative. subtract $15 for a service to the Andover Athletic Association Building, for a total amount of $168,986.51 minus $15. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11: 41 p.m. RespectfuJly sUbmitte~ ~~~ Mar IJa A. Peach Recording Secretary / ,.- 0-- _~