Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 7, 1992 CA. CITY of ANDOVER Regular City Council Meeting-July 7, 1992 7:30 P.M. Call to Order Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Discussion Items l. Public Hearing/92-l4/FOx Meadows - 7:30 P.M. 2 . Public Hearing/92-9/176th Lane - 7:45 P.M. 3. Public Hearing/92-l2/0ak Hollow - 8:00 P.M. 4 . Approve Preliminary Plat/Leeman Lake Estates 5. Discuss Plan/92-5/Co. Rd. 58 & CSAH 7 6. Poppy street Improvement Discussion 7 . Tree Ordinance/29C 8. Tree Preservation Policy 9. Approve Extension of SUP/Continental Development 10. Authorize Sale of G.O. Improvement Bonds 1l. Certificates of Indebtedness Discussion Staff, Committee, Commissions 12. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Recycling 13. Approve Kennel License Renewal/Rescue St. Bernards 14. Rescind Ordinance 78B, Adopt 78A 15. Approve Temporary Non-Intox. Liquor Lic./Lions Club 16. Safety Shoe Discussion Non-Discussion Items 17. Approve Revised Site plan/Kelsey-Round Lake Park 18. Award Bid/91-27/Street & Storm Sewer/Meadows of Rd.Lk. 19. Approve plans & Specs/92-3/Pinewood Estates phase I 20. 2l. Order Feasibility Report/Watt's Garden Acres/92-18 22. Accept petition/92-17/Country View Est/Hawk Ridge/Verdin Ac. 23. Accept Feasibility Report/92-17 24. Approve Revised Grading Plan/Cedar Hills Estates 2nd 25. Approve Resolution Expending PIR Funds 26. Accept petition/Njordmark-Dale/91-5 Mayor-council Input Approval of Claims Adjournment REGULAR ANODVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 7, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA APPROVAL . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 PUBLIC HEARING/IP92-14/FOX MEADOWS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 Resolution Rl08-92 to abandon project · · · · · · · · · 2 PUBLIC HEARING/IP92-9/176TH LANE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 Motion to approve project/dies for lack of a Second · · · · 4 Resolution R109-92 approvIng project/formulate senior citizen assessment policy · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 PUBLIC HEARING/IP929-12/0AK HOLLOW · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 ResolutIon Rll0-92 terminating project · · · · · · · · · · 6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT/LEEMAN LAKE ESTATES Res01ution RIII-92 approving plat · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 DISCUSS PLAN/IP92-5/COUNTY ROAD 58 AND CSAH 7 Motion to table for more information · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7 POPPY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION . ~ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · , Motion to al low the construction of private drive on easement. 8 TREE ORDINANCE/ORDINANCE 29C · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8 Motion to approve . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS Approve extension of SUP/ContinentaJ Development · · · · · · · 10 Approve Joint Powers Agreement/RecyclIng. · · · · · · · · · · 10 Approve Kennel License Renewal/Rescue St. Bernards · · · · · 10 ResoJution R112-92 awarding bid/92-27/Meadows of Round Lake · 10 Resolution R113-92 approving Plans & Specs/92-3/Pinewood Est · 10 Resolution Rl14-92 accepting feaslbllity/92-17 . · · · · · · · 10 Resolution R115-117 Void ResolutIon Rl18-92 approving revised grading pJan/Cedar Hil Is. 10 Resolution R119-92 approvIng expenditures of PIR Funds. · · · 10 TREE PRESERVATION POLICY · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 1 Motion to approve Policy · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 12 SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS Resolution R120-92 authorizing saJe of $4.8 million GO Bonds. 12 CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS DISCUSSION Motion to soJicit bids of $180,000 of Certificates. · · · · · 12 Motion to rescind Ordinance 78B and adopt Ordinance 78A · · · · 12 SAFETY SHOE DISCUSSION Motion on safety shoe standard. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 13 Regular Andover City Council Meeting - July 7. 1992 Table of Contents Page ii EMINENT DOMAIN/SEWER EASEMENT/COON CREEK Resolution R121-92 authorizing actIon · · · · · · · · · · · · 13 FEASIBILITY REPORT/WATT'S GARDEN ACRES/92-18 Resolution R122-92 ordering feasIbility · · · · · · · · · · · 13 PETITION/92-17/COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES/HAWK RIDGE/VERDIN ACRES Res01utlon R123-92 acceptIng petition/ordering feasibility 1~ · · 0 PETITION/NJORDMARK-DALE/92-5 Motion to refer roto-mil 1ing process to Road Cormnittee · · 14 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · 14 ADJOURNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · 14 CA. CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY ì. 1992 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Ken OrtteJ on July 7. 1992. 7:30 p.m.. at at the Andover City Hal I. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Jacobson. McKeJvey. Perry. Smi th Councllmembers absent: None Also present: City Attorney. WiJ liam G. HawkIns BRA Engineer. Shawn Gustafson Assistant City EngIneer. Todd Haas City Planner, David Cariberg City Finance Director, Howard Koo 1 i ck City Administrator. James Schrantz Others AGENDA APPROVAL Add Item 20. Eminent Domain/Sewer Easement/Coon Creek. MOTION by Perry. Seconded by SmIth, approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING/IP92-14/FOX MEADOWS 7:32 p.m. Mr. Gustafson reviewed the proposed street improvement of Fox Street. Dakota Street. 160th Lane and Enchanted DrIve in the Fox Meadows AddItion. Two feet of the shoulders would be sodded. and culverts would be Instal led where needed for storm drainage. No extra dItching will be done. as the water wi I I be al lowed to run off to where it has always gone and percolate into the soil. The estimated assessment would be $5,400 for each of the 36 benefitting units. The hearing was then opened for pubJic testimony. Brad Zimmerman. 15900 Dakota Street NW - questioned the use of only two inches of asphalt because of the number of garbage trucks, school buses. and construction trucks on the streets. He called five asphalt companies. and aJ J said that two inches of asphalt is insufficient. He did not want to have to pay for repaving or maintenance costs within a few years because the work was not done properly in the first place. Counc i ] and Mr. Gustafson explained that the City standard is a mInimum of two inches and noted there have been no problems with any of the streets in the City that have been bullt to that standard. Mr. Zimmerman - expiained when the petitIon was originally sent around. the residents were leery about the cost but wanted to know what they were. The petition was to obtain bids to determine exactly Regular Andover CIty CouncIl Meet! ng Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 2 (Public Hearing/IP92-14/Fox Meadows. Continued) what it wi 1 1 cost. He felt $5.400 per lot is only a guesstimate. and everyone is concerned with the rising taxes. addItional school bond Issues. etc. He then presented a petItion to the Council wIth 21 No Votes on the project. asking that the project be denied. He stated the residents are upset because they did not realize they had to either be here this evening or write to the City if they were opposed. Pat Larson. 4121 160th Lane NW - was angry about the process. The petition was specifically to obtain an estimate of how much it would cost. It was not a vote to be used on determinIng whether or not they wanted the project. Other residents also expressed anger about the process. Mayor Ortte] then explained the process that must be gone through by law and the costs involved. also noting the City's policy has been to allow the residents a choice and that a majority In favor Is needed to approve a project. He suggested a way to avoId this In the future would be for Staff to provide an estImate of costs prIor to the petition process. The petition would then be for or agaInst the project. not to determine costs. The Mayor also felt the estimate given Is very close to what the actua I costs will be based on past experiences and simillar projects done in the City this year. Mr. Zimmerman - asked about the process if the actual cost exceeds the estimate. Mayor Orttel explained the CIty's poJlcy of recalling the residents I f the bid price is 5 percent more than what the residents were told. Someone asked if one street could be done i f a maJ or i t y Is in favor without having to do the remainder of the subdivIsion. Mayor Orttel stated probably yes: however. it is unlike]y it could be done this year. He also pointed out the difficulities in doIng Just one street at a time in terms of costs and assessment procedures. In response to another question. the Mayor stated the unit method of assessment is done as long as the area is somewhat the same. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by SmIth. to c]ose the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Wi th the petition and various letters received this evening, Counc i I noted an overwhelmIng majority are opposed to the project. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith. that the City Council abandon action on the proposed project. (See Resolution Rl08-92) Motion carried unanimously. 7:52 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING/IP92-9/176TH LANE 7:52 p.m. Mr. Gustafson reviewed the proposed street improvement of 176th Lane NW between Round Lake Boulevard and Orchid Street. It is estimated that each of the five benefIttIng units would be assessed $5.394. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - JUly 7, 1992 Page :3 (Public Hearing/IP92-9/176th Lane. Continued) The hearing was then opened for publIc testimony, Ralph EII iott. 33208 176th Lane NW - stated this Isn't the fIrst time this has come to the Council. Since the last time. Lot 1 has roped off his driveawy to 176th and changed his driveway to Round Lake Boulevard. so he Is not included in the project, And Lot 32 was planned so i t faces Orchid Street and also is not included in this. The Basel's on Lot 2 are retired. livIng on Social Security and cannot afford this cost, He is also retired living on only $700 a month and cannot afford this. He was not aware of this petition. stating how Mr. We i 1 gosz got two other signatures in favor. He didn't think it was right that with just three votes. he wi 11 be forced to pay for this. He's lived there since 1974 and has no problem with the road as it is. He asked that the Counc i J deny the project. RiJevBasel. 3235 176th Lane NW - didn't think this is fair. He votes no for the project. statIng he lived there since 1968 and does not have a problem with the road as it is. Mr. El 1 iott - feJt if this Is to be done that Orchid Street should be done as wel I. as the overa I I costs may then be lowered. If thIs is postponed. he'd be wIlling to petition those along Orchid Street. Counc i I and Staff discussion was that It makes sense that Orchid Street be included. but realistlcal Iy the chances are those along Orchid wi 1 I be opposed. Based on the feasIbility done for the entire area in 1983 and the number of sideyards affected. the overa I I cost per unit probably would not change much If Orchid Street was included in the project. The estimated cost for the entire area In 1983 ,·,as $4.930/unlt for 12 Jots, r1r. EJ Ilott - asked if he would be excluded from the project if he closed off his driveway to 176th and exit onto Round Lake Boulevard as was done on Lot 1. Mr. Schrantz stated the house on Lot 1 faces Round Lake Boulevard and has Its address on that street. John Weilcosz, 3309 176th Lane NW - stated the petition was based on majority vote. When he obtaIned that majority. he did not think i t was necessary to involve anyone else and submitted It to City Hal I. One of the signatures Is Debbie Behrendt. who could not be here this evenIng but who is sti I I in favor of the project. Those on Lot 1 were not invited to this hearIng because the asphalt driveway faces Round Lake Boulevard. They must drive over their lawn to use 176th. Lot 32 Is not Involved because that address is on OrchId Street. leaving only five parcels to be assessed for this project. He stated he met the requirements as set out by the City by obtaining a majority In favor, For the safety of their children. because of the dust. and for other reasons. tht'ee of the lot owners have voted yes. They feel they have satisfied the requirements of the City, aSking that the project proceed. He felt any effort to delay the project to petItion those along Orchid Street is just a ploy to stop the street. Regular Andover CIty Council Meeting Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 4 (Public Hearing/IP92-9/176th Lane. Continued) Mike Deschenes. 3230 176th Lane NW - moved out there three years ago. He was concerned about the costs increasing even further i f this is delayed. He'd like the blacktop road and asked if the $109/month estimate Is close. Mayor Orttel stated it should be fairly accurate: however. there Is also the option of spreading the assessment over a 10-year period which would be about $69/month. Several residents indicated a ten-year assessment would be acceptable. Several residents argued about whether or not the Behrendt/s were sti II In favor or whether Mr. Behrendt was real1y opposed. Mrs. Weilgosz stated they are in favor because of their concern over their daughter getting dirty while waiting for the school bus. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Smith. to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Staff indicated In 1978 the Council enacted a provision to defer assessment payments with Interest to senIor citizens: however· . there was a cap on the value of the home of $65.000 which has never been indexed. That provisIon has never been used. Counc i 1 discussed the need for a provision which would not force senior citizens livlngon fixed Incomes out of their homes. No decision was made as to whether they should simply update the current provision or change i t i n some manner. possibly to defer assessment payments with no penalty until the house is sold. There was a]so some concern on the part of the Counc i I relative to the proJect area. Some felt it is not wIse to do Just the one street and leave Orchid as the only road in the area to be graded. On the other hand. the requirements have been met to pave 176th Lane only. MOTION by Perry introducing the ResoJution ordering the improvement of Street ProJect 92-9 as presented and ]ook at the possibility of including Orchid Street with it. MotIon dies for lack of a second. After further discussIon. It was genera]ly agreed to proceed with the proJect vIi th the understanding that prior to the assessment in the faJ 1. the Staff and Attorney wlll recommend a po]icy to protect the senior cItizens who would find these assessments a hardship. Suggestions were to defer payments or let the assessments rest with the property until I t is sold. possIbly usIng both age and income as criteria. Staff noted the decIsion on whether the assessment for this proJect should be spread over five or ten years can be made at the time of the assessment hearIng. Counc i 1 had no problem wIth a ten-year assessment period. Mr. Weilqosz - had no problem with the ten-year assessment period. nor with giving special consideratIon for the elderly and retired. either deferrIng or deferring with no Interest. Regular Andover City Council Meeting MInutes - July 7. 1992 Page 5 (Public Hearing/IP92-9/176th Lane. Continued) MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Perry. reintroducIng Councilmember Perry's motion with the understanding that Staff and City Attorney wi II look at some method of easing those payments for senIors on a City-wIde basis and brIng it back for adoption prior to assessment. (See ResolutIon Rl09-92) MotIon carried unanimously. 8:43 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING/IP92-12/0AK HOLLOW 8:43 p.m. Mr. Gustafson reviewed the proposed street construction of Ilex Street. 158th Avenue. and 159th Avenue within the Oak Hol ] ow AddItion. The rural road section is estimated at a cost of $5.660 to each of the 16 benefitting parcel. which includes the City park. The hearing was opened for public testimony. Charlie Loeqerinq. 15883 Ilex Street NW - questioned the City's responsibility because of the grading done on the roads. When it was developed. they \.¡ere fairly high standard gravel roads. Because of the grading methods. most of the grave 1 is now in the ditches. !1ayor Orttel stated the the City considers gravel roads as temporary. The City"s oblIgation is to try to keep the bumps out of the gravel r·oad. Mr. Loeqerinc - stated the road by the park has become a problem. i t becoming one of the more popular party spots within Andover. He wondered if the cul-de-sac could be pulled back and provide a smaller access to the park. The Counc i I noted the intent of providing for future development to the east with 159th Avenue: however. at this time the properties to the east have been subdivided and buIlt upon which may mean no extensIon wi II be needed. Pulling the access to the park may also reduce the cost of the overa 1 I project by approximately one unit. though Staff noted the need for some turnaround ability for the school buses at the corner of 159th Avenue and Ilex Street. Richard Blackwall. Lot 3 - didn't have an opportunity to vote on the pet i ti on and expressed opposi t i on to the proj ect. Grec Wieczorek. 496 158th Avenue NW - signed the petition to obtain the cost but now is opposed to the project. John Campbe I I . 531 158th Avenue NW - wished to change his yes on the petItion to no, opposed to the project. Garv Orttel. 174 159th Avenue NW - has two statements from his mother. who owns two empty lots (Lot 3. Block 1 and Lot 4. Block :3). opposing the Project. ReguJar Andover CIty CounciJ MeetIng Minutes - July 7, 1992 Page 6 (PubJic Hearing/IP92-12/0ak HoJJow, Continued) Combining the testimonies this evening along with severaJ letters received by the Council in opposItion to the project. there is now a majority opposing the project. Residents \-¡ere toJd to contact City HaJJ if they wish to know the price difference to eliminate a portion of the street in front of the park. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by McKelvey, to cJose the pUblic hearing. Motion carrIed unanImously. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by SmIth, sInce the changes indicated by the number of peop I e here, it appearS there is no J onger a ma..i or it y in favor of the project, move to terminate it. (See Resolution Rll0-92) Motion carrIed unanimously. 9:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 1992: Correct as wrItten. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by McKelvey, approve the Minutes of June 16 as presented. Motion carried on a 4-Yes. I-Present (Smith) vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT/LEEMAN LAKE ESTATES Ralph James. 16906 Crosstown Boulevard NW - questioned the difference in the classification of Leeman Lake betwen the City, which has it classifIed as a Recreational Development Lake. and the DNR. which classifies It as a Natural Environment Lake. Secondly, he stated he has begun legal action for adverse possession to take title of a small portion of the land shown in the plat. Both he and the property owner before him have maintained that area as a playground, plus there is a small buiJding on it. Part of thIs project is to build a road across the property on which he Is trying to obtain titJe. Mayor Ortte] stated prior to the filing of the final plat, the developer has to deed clear titJe to the City for the street. If that cannot be done. the plat cannot be finaJized. The adverse possession issue Is a private matter between the two partIes and does not Involve the City. Mr. Haas stated the City's ordinance, adopted in 1971 and revised In March. 1986. shows Leeman Lake classified as RecreatlonaJ Development. The DNR should be aware of that. He dIdn't think there is a probJem with this plat under either c]assification. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, the ResoJution approving the preJiminary plat of Leeman Lake Estates as presented wIth one addition: Item No.5 would read "The City understands there may be two points on contention on the plat, that beIng the desIgnation of Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 7 (Preliminary Plat/Leeman Lake Estates. Continued) (Motion continued) the lake by the DNR may be different than as designated on the preliminary plat. Second. the potential adverse possession suit on a portion of the property which may soon be going through the court system which makes the developer aware of this and possible legal implications to the plat and the developer on any progress made in the development of this property. (See Resolution RI11-92) Motion carrIed unanimously. DISCUSS PLAN/IP92-5/COUNTY ROAD 58 AND CSAH 7 Mr. Schrantz stated the county is planning to reconstruct the intersection of CSAH 7 and CoRd 58 this su~~er. The City would be responsible for approximately $26,000 of the costs: hovlever. there is a question as to whether the T. J. James Company Is willing to donate the needed right of way or whether they expect to be paid for it. If they expect to be paid, it may be a City expense, p I us the po 1 icy is to assess such right-of-way costs back to the property owners. In this case only the one property is involved. The Joint powers agreement with the county is si lent on the issue of easement. Council asked that before proceeding, that there be further negotiations with the T. J. James Company and that the issue of right of way be clarified with the county. Relative to the design of the project. Counc i I questioned the need to have the service to the rear of the Tom Thumb store. Can that street be cut off at Fox Street? Mr. Schrantz stated the original agreement with the owners of that establ ishment was they would donate the right of way to the north but an access to the rear of the property would also be provided. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by SmIth, to table the item for two weeks to get a better definition from the county as to the cost of right of way and the legality of assessing it right back to the property owner with not much extra benefit. MotIon carried unanimously. POppy STREET IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION Counc i I discussed the request to remove a cottonwood tree in the center of the rIght of way from Poppy Street south of 173rd Avenue and to gravel the easement for access to the Johnson property. Mr. Carlberg explained Mr. Johnson wishes to build a house on his property but not develop It any further. Tom Johnson. 17232 Tulip Street NW - wants to have one home on the property and needs access to be able to pull the building permit. He noted that the City has laid down gravel for a driveway over an easement in another case in Lake Ridge Estates. ReguIar Andover City CouncIl Meeting Minutes - July 7, 1992 Page 8 (Poppy Street Improvement Discussion, Continued) Council genera] ly did not have a prob]em with havIng the tree removed if a driveway cannot be put around it. They asked that Public Works look at it and cut it down if necessary. PermIssion can be given to have a driveway constructed over the street right of way at Mr. Johnson's expense. They did not think the City should graveI the driveway, however. feeIing the case in Lake Ridge differed because graveI was only replaced where it had washed out. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, that the City Counci I al low Mr. Thomas Johnson to construct a private drIveway on CIty-owned right of way to his property at the North 694 feet of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of SectIon 8. TownshIp 32, Range 24. except the West 660 feet thereof: and make this subject to review by lega] counse] for the legality of doing so. Motion carried unanimous]y. Counci] recessed at 9:30: reconvened at 9:37 p.m. TREE ORDINANCE/ORDINANCE 29C There was a lengthy dIscussion wIth members of the Tree Commission and interested residents regarding the proposed ordinance. Mayor OrtteJ indicated that the ordinance is basically what exists today but with better enforcement authority. Bob Whitcraft. Chairperson of the Tree Commission - reviewed the changes they are suggesting to the ordinance, the major one clarIfying that the major concern of preventing a tree disease from spreadIng to adjoining properties. Councilmember Jacobson questioned whether a diseased tree that is cut and left on the ground is considered a nuIsance, refering to Section 5. Subdivion 1. SubsectIon C. Mr. Whitcraft stated it could be considered a nuisance, but the real concern is if the disease starts to spread across property lines. Councilmember Jacobson questioned whether the utility companies would need a license to cut or trIm trees in their right of ways per Section 11. Staff and Council discussion was that lIcensing is required of those cutting or trimming trees for profit. Individual property owners or utilities can cut or trim their own trees without a permIt: but if they hire a contractor to do the work. the contractor Is required to be licensed. Attorney Hawkins asked if under the change to the abatement paragraph in Section 5. it Is something that can be scientlficaJ ly determined. Tree CommIssioner Michael Click stated most of the oak wilt is spread Regular Andover City Council Meet i ng Minutes - JuJy 7. 1992 Page 9 (Tree Ordinance/Ordinance 29C, continued) through the root system. There is a natura 1 progression. Chairperson Whitcraft stated the intent is not necessari]y to require the diseased trees to be cut down and removed. Probably the fIrst requirement for oak wilt would be to sever the roots. DIscussion was on the practlcaJlty of requiring the roots to be severed. Members of the Tree CommIssion noted the City's use of the county's vibratory pJow wilJ probab]y be for contro] areas that wi I I be pre-determined. It is expected that residents wi] I need to contract to have the trenching done. AgaIn, the intent is to prevent its spread to adjoining propertIes. Arnie Pfannschmldt - stated oak wlJt is a natural disaster and asked how he can be held responsible for it. He doesn't feel responsible. It was fel t there Is some confusion as to the procedure for abatement under Section 7 and the intent noted under the abatement paragraph In Sec. 5. Sub. 2. That was Jater amended In the motion tor approval. Discussion was then on the phi I sophy of diseased trees on smaJJ urban lots. which may be more precIous because there are so few, versus on the large parcels. The ordinance applies to all. Mr. Carlberg stated the intent would be to estab] ish control zones in the large parcel areas to eIther prevent further spread of oak wIlt or to try to save unaffected stands ot trees. ChaIrperson Whitcraft agreed wi th the problem on the urban lots. but gave the scenerlo of a]so protecting the 2 1/2-acre lot from the disease which may be on an adjoining 80-acre parcel or vice versa. Bonnie Dehn. Chairperson of the Plannino and Zonlno Commission - asked I f they had the vibratory plow go around their 40-acre parceJ but oak wilt st ill spreads to a neIghborIng parcel, are they subject to a lawsuit? She also asked the costs to use the vibratory p]ow if they ask for it and can it cause more damage if done in a non-infested area. Attorney Hawkins stated that the enactment of this ordinance doesn/t give the basis for whether or not one person can sue another because ot the spread of oak wiJt; however. i t should help In their defense if they tolJowed the procedures set out by the City. DIscussIon was also on how the plow is used and Its effectiveness. Ken SJvzuk - asked if the City will back up the resIdents if they are accused of spreading oak wilt and are sued. Counc i 1 noted I t al I procedures were foJlowed. the Staff would be subpoenaed and would testify that aJ I requirements were met In an attempt to prevent the spread of the disease. Chairperson Dehn - was concerned about the effects of this ordinance and the Tree Preservation Policy on the budget. Mayor Orttel noted there is nothing more budgeted for this year and it wi 11 be d i ff i cu I t Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 10 (Tree Ordinance/Ordinance 29C. continued) to budget more for next year. Tree Commission members explained that grant monies can be applied for once these items are in place. They are also needed for the CIty to be eligible to use the vIbratory pJow. Chairperson Dehn - highly recommended going around the City's parks wIth the pJow. The dIsease spread from a City park to their property. Discussion continued as to the procedure for removal of trees and potential costs. estimated costs to have a contractor sever the roots wIth a vibratory plow, and the causes of the spread of oak wilt. MOTION by Jacobson. Seconded by Smith. that the City Council adopt the Ordinance as presented with t\vO changes: FIrst change appears on Page 3 under Section 7 which is entitled Abatement of Epidemic Tree Disease NuIsances. DIrectly under that headIng, from Page 2, Section 5. Subdivision 2. which is currently Jabeled Abatement. that whole subdivision in total be moved to SectIon 7 and retItled Subdivision 1 with no change in the wordIng. Second change on Page 2. top of the page, Subdivision 2. fourth line down which begIns "standards and specifications". after the word "specIfIcations". include this addl ti ona I 1 anguage wh i ch says "to be approved by the City Counc i 1." . The rest remains the same. Motion carrIed unanimously. NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS MOTION by Smith, Seconded by Perry, In the affirmative for It ems: 9. Approve Extension of SUP/Contlnental Development 12. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Recycling 13. Approve Kennel License Renewal/Rescue St. Bernards 15. Approve Temporary Non-Intoxicating Liquor License/Lions/July 18 17. Approve Revised Site PJan/Kelsey-Round Lake Park 18. Resolution R112-92 - Award Bid/91-27/Street & Storm Sewer/ Meadows of Round Lake 19. Resolution R113-92 - Approve Plans & Specs/92-3/Pinewood Estates Phase I 23. Resolution R114-92 - Accept Feasibility Report/92-17 - Countryview Estates. Hawk Ridge. Verdin Acres (Resolutions R115-92 through R117-92 - VOID) 24. ResoJution R118-92 - Approve Revised Grading PIan/Cedar HIJ Is Estates 2nd 25. ResoJution R119-92 - Approve Resolutions Expending PIR Funds Motion carrIed unanimously. though Councilmember Jacobson asked to vote NO on Item 15. Regular Andover City Council Meet! ng Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 11 TREE PRESERVATION POLICY Mr. Carlberg suggested the fol lowing corrections to the Policy before the Counc i I : Page 3. Delete Item B, 2, b. Reletter exIsting Items c and d to b and c under Subdivision 2. Page 5, V, B. a, last sentence to read: ·...outer periphery of a tree save area causes root damage. . Page 6, D. 3. last lIne: change IIdamageU to . damages· . Page 8, third paragraph. Item 5: last sentence to read ·...should not be removed until completion of construction and until landscaping is installed.· AppendIx C. 1. b. second 1 i ne : . ...part of the Landscape PIan, PrelIminary Plat, or as a separate drawing.... . Appendix C, 1. c. (2) , to read: ·AI I tree protectIon measures shall be installed prior to buIlding constructIon.· There was a lengthY discussion regarding the Tree Preservation Policy, its phIlosophy and practical app 1 i ca t ion. Mr. Carlberg understood the Intent is to apply the Policy to any and al I constructIon withIn the City from new developments and construction to the addItion on a house. Also, a fee would be added for all permIts and plats to cover the cost of reviewIng the Tree ProtectIon Plans. Mayor Orttel thought the intent was to protect the trees on the sma 1 1 er 10ts which may be more precIous because there can only be a few per lot. Also, the City cannot afford to hire additional Staff to review a] I Tree Protection Plans for every buIldIng permit and plat that comes into the CIty. Because of that, he argued that to begIn with, it may be better to apply the Policy only to new developments and to new construction within the urban area. Or apply the Policy only to constructIon by contractors. not when done by the individual property owner, if the intent is to protect the future owner from mistakes made by the contractors. BonnIe Dehn and Ken Slyzuk questioned if a Tree Protection Plan and the addi tJonal fee would be requIred for the construction of agr i cu I tural bui Idings. They argued those buildIngs are needed for their JiveJihood and should not be included in the Polley. After some discussIon. the Counc i 1 agreed to exclude agrIcultural constructIon, which was later noted in the motion. Tree Commission Chairperson Bob Whitcraft stated they tried to address the interests of the City Counc! 1 and the City. If there ace some problems \-lith the pol icy after this Is enacted. they can be addressed and changes recommended In the future. But he felt that something needs to be in place now. Though there were stil I some fears and consIderations. the Counc i I felt that there is a need for a Polley to be In place. They suggested Staff prepare a updated fee schedule establishing a fee for the review and inspections of the Tree Preservation Plans. Regular Andover City Council Meet i ng Minutes - July 7, 1992 Page 12 (Tree Preservation Policy, Continued) MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, introducing a motion request! ng that the Ci ty Counci I of Andover approve the Tree Preservation Policy with the corrections to the Policy that were indicated by the City PJanner prIor to the discussion plus the addi tion of "and agricuJtural construction" on Page 2. Jast sentence. (Agricultural practIces and agrIcultural constructIon wIll be exempted. . .) MotIon carried unanimously. AUTHORIZE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS Attorney HawkIns reviewed the proposal for the issuance of $4,800.000 of General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds to cover expenses and overhead of several projects. Councilmember Jacobson questioned whether it would be better to issue permanent bonds since the market may be as low as I t wi I I get. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Koolick explained that because i t is expected that many of the plats wI I I be built out wIthIn three years and because of the regulations of the interest of funds received prior to the the bond payments, they preferred issuing temporary bonds at this time. Any costs and higher interest that may occur when converting the bonds in the future would be assessed back to the developers. so there Is no risk to the City. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Smith, a Resolution as prepared by legal counsel which provides for the issuance and sale of $4.8 millIon in General ObJigation Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1992A and authorize the Mayor and CIty Finance officIals and any other parties that need to sign the documents and proceed with the sale. (See Resolution RI20-92) Motion carrIed unanimously. CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS DISCUSSION Attorney HawkIns asked whether the CouncIl wIshed to add the $5,000 interest cost over the $175,000 needed for equipment. He wi 11 sol ici t bIds and bring those bids back to the August 4, 1992, meeting. MOTION by Smi th, Seconded by Perry, that the City Attorney solicit bids for CertIfIcates of Indebtedness in the amount of $180,000. Motion carried unanimously. RESCIND ORDINANCE 78B. ADOPT ORDINANCE 78A MOTION by Smi th, Seconded by Perry, that we rescind Ordinance No. 78B and move the adoption of Ordinance 78A as written. Mot i on carr! ed unanimously. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - JulY 7. 1992 Page 13 SAFETY SHOE DISCUSSION Counc i 1 agreed wi th the Staff recommendation regarding the correctIon to the Safety Manual with reference to the height of boot to be worn. Scott Protivinskv. Union Stewart - explained he flJed a grievance as a resu 1 t of of the amendment to requIre a 9-inch boot because he had purchased a pair of boots that were OSHA approved just prIor to the new policy, which would mean those shoes wouldn't be acceptable to the City. They are also concerned wIth the change on the prIce restrIctIons on the part of the CIty. MOTION by Smith. Seconded by McKelvey, that the City recommend a 9-inch boot but allow the emp]oyee to wear a boot that comes above the ankle. The height wou]d be about 6 inches, pIus or minus, and have a safety toe. Motion carried unanImously. EMINENT DOMAIN/SEWER EASEMENT/COON CREEK MOTION by Sml th, Seconded by McKelvey, the Resolution dealing with the necessity of having to authorize the acquisitIon of certain property by proceeding with eminent domain. (See Resolution RI21-92) Motion carried unanimously. ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT/WATT'S GARDEN ACRES/92-18 Mr. Schrantz explained the report wi 1 1 show the area wI I 1 be served with sanitary sewer and water plus the improvement of Jay Street. The engineers will also show who wIll be assessed. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Smith, the Resolution orderIng preparatIon of a feasibility report for the improvements of sanitary sewer. streets. watermain, storm sewer, Project No. 92-18. In the Watt's Garden Acres area. (See Resolution RI22-92) Motion carrIed unanimously. ACCEPT PETITION/92-17/COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES/HAWK RIDGE/VERDIN ACRES Mr. Schrantz asked whether the CouncIl wishes to do the three areas as one project or to treat each as a separate project. Counc I I agreed to treat it as one project area, notIng an area can be removed from the project I f there Is not a majority at the time of the public hearing. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by McKelvey the Resolution declarIng adequacy of petition and ordering the preparation of a feasibiJity report for the improvement of Project 92-17. (See Resolution R123-92) Motion carried unanimously. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - July 7. 1992 Page 14 ACCEPT PETITION/NJORDMARK-DALE/91-5 Mr. Schrantz stated the price of roto-milling the roads in the subdivision is about $400 more than what the resIdents were told last fal I. After some dIscussion. the CounclJ agreed that the Issue of roto-miJJing roads as an acceptable method of improving existing bituminous roadways be dIscussed by the Road CommIttee. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, that we tabJe Number 26 until the Road Committee has had an opportunity to look at It and come back with a recommendatIon. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Perry. Seconded by McKelvey, the Schedule of BiJ Is dated 7-2-92 In the amount of $801,240.87. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Smith to adjourn. Mayor Orttel declared the meetIng adjourned at 12:12 a.m. Respectfully s~:_tt;;. \ ~',~~Q ~·~~U.o'--- Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary