Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 6, 1999 ) ().JìY1Ór«ct 'II dO ¡ýcl CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 Regular City Council Meeting - Tuesday, April 6, 1999 agenda Call to Order - 7:00 PM Resident Forum Bookmark Agenda Approval Name Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes minutes Discussion Items I. Discuss Grey Oaks Financing Continued financing 2. Discuss 1999 Equipment Certificate equip99 3. Set Salell999B Equipment Certificate saleequip 4. Set Sale/199A TlF Bond tifbond 5. Approve Investment Policy policy 6. Discuss Concession Contract/Sunshine Park contract 7. Amended Special Use Permit/Pipeline/Northem Natural Gas Co. supnorthern 8. Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Fox Hollow/Gor-em, LLC cpafoxhw 9. Rezoning/Fox Hollow/Gor-em, LLC. rzfoxhw 10. Preliminary Plat/Fox Hollow/Gor-em, LLC. pplatfoxhw 11. Sketch Plan/Sunset Ridge/Section 34/D.H. Land Company spsunset 12. Discuss with Park & Rec. Commission/Amending New Ordinance 10, Section 9.07 ordl0 13. Approve Trail Fee Requirement trailfee 14. Approve Amended Service Contract/Leonard Parker & Assoc. Iparker Reports of Staff, Committees, Commissions 15. Schedule InterviewsIPark and Rec. Commission Vacancy prvacanc 16. Discuss with Park & Rec. Commission/5 Year Capital Improvement Replacement Plan replplan Non-Discussion/Consent Items 17. Approve Hire/General Clerk Position/Engineering & Public Works gencJerk 18. Approve Hiring Building Inspector bldginsp 19. Building Department Summer Help summer 20. Approve Special Assessment Abatement/15801 Fox Street s pecassess 21. Approve Cigarette LicenseIWoodland Creek Golf Course cigarette 22. Declare Costs/Order Assessment RoIV97-44/Shadowbrook 3rd Addition dcJr9744 23. Declare Costs/Order Assessment RolI/98-16/Shadowbrook 4th Addition dcJr9816 24. Approve Plans & Specs/96- I/Kelsey Round Lake Park appr961 25. Reduce Letter of Credit/Developer Improvements/Foxberry Farms locfoxbe 26. Reduce Letter of Credit/Developer Improvements/Jonathan Woods locjonat 27. Approve Quotes/Garbage CansNarious Parks qtcans 28. Approve Quotes/4 Sets of Swings qtswings 29. Include Public Works Parking Lot Lighting with City Hall Parking Lot Project/94-30C lot9430c 30. Approve Final Plat/Shadowbrook 5th Addition/Bunker, LLC shadow 31. Approve Street Light/University Ave & I 57th Ave NW light . . ,I Page Two Regular City Council Tuesday, April 6. 1999 32. Discuss H.F. I 276/Bill for an Act/LRRWMO Irrwmo 33. Update of 1999 Anoka County Highway Dept. Construction Activity anokahwy 34. A ward Bidl99-3/1999 Crack Sealing bid993 35. Award Bid/99-4/1999 Seal Coating bid994 36. Approve Memo ofUnderstandinglPurchase of Water/City of Anoka water 37. Approve Amendment to Res. No. 011-99/No Parking/Orchid St. NW Cul-de-Sac nopark (Behind The Farmstead) 38. Receive Petition/Order Feasibility Report/98-7/Winslow Hills-150th Lane NW pet987 Entrance Improvements 39. Accept Petition/Order Feasibility Report/95-5/14122 Prairie Rd. NW/SS &WM pet955 40. Approve Developer's Request to Grade at Own Risk/Grey Oaks greyoaks Mayor/Council Input Payment of Claims Adjournment 4" . '...- REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 6, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS RESIDENT FORUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I AGENDA APPROVAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I CONSENT AGENDA Approve hiring/General Clerk position/Engineering & Public Works (M Engstrom) . .. 2 Building Department summer help ......................................... 2 Approve special assessment abatement/15801 Fox Street. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. 2 Approve cigarette license/Woodland Creek GoJfCourse ........................ 2 Resolution R070-99 declaring costs/Order assessment roll/IP97-44/Shadowbrook 3rd . 2 Resolution R071-99 declaring costs/Order assessment rollIIP98-l6/Shadowbrook 4th . 2 Resolution R072-99 approving plans & specslIP96-llKelsey Round Lake Park ...... 2 Reduce Letter ofCreditfDeveloper improvements/Foxberry Farms ................ 2 Reduce Letter ofCreditfDeveloper improvements/Jonathan Woods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Approve quotes/Garbage cansNarious parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Approve quoteslFour sets of swings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Include Public Works parking lot lighting with City Hall parking lot/IP94-30C . . . . . .. 2 Resolution R073-99 approving final platlShadowbrook 5th/Bunker, LLC ........... 2 Approve street Jight/University Avenue and 157th Avenue NW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Discuss H.F. 1276/BilI for an ActlLRRWMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Update of 1999 Anoka County Highway Dept construction activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Resolution R074-99 awarding bidlIP99-3/I 999 crack sealing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Resolution R075-99 awarding bidlIP99-4/1 999 seal coating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Approve memo of understanding/Purchase of water/City of Anoka ................ 2 Resolution R076-99 amending ROI 1-991N0 parking/Orchid Street cul-de-sac. . . .. ... 2 Resolution R077-99 receiving petition/Order feasibilityIIP98-7/Winslow HilIs- I 50th Lane entrance improvements ..................................... 2 Resolution R078-99 accepting petition/ordering feasibilitylIP95-5/I 4 I 22 Prairie Road/Sanitary sewer and waterrnain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Approve developer's request to grade at own risk/Grey Oaks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Resolution R079-99 approving plans & specslIP98-30/Chesterton Commons 4th . . . .. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .................................................. 3 AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMlTlPlPELINEINORTHERN NATURAL GAS CO .... 3 Motion to table for 60 days ............................................... 4 DISCUSS 1999 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE Motion authorizing issuance (withdrawn) .................................... 8 Motion to approve ...................................................... 9 SET SALE/I 999B EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE and SET SALE/I 999A TIF BOND Motion to table .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 INVESTMENT POLICY Motion to approve ...................................................... 9 DISCUSS CONCESSION CONTRACT/SUNSHINE PARK ........................ 9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/FOX HOLLOW/GOR-EM, LLC ......... 10 Resolution R080-90 to approve ........................................... I I REZONING/FOX HOLLOW/GOR-EM, LLC Motion to rezone ...................................................... I I -.- -- -- ..-,-. ~--- ------ - Regular Andover Cily Council Meeting Minutes - April 6. 1999 Table of Contents Page ii PRELIMINARY PLATIFOX HOLLOW/GOR-EM, LLC Resolution R081-99 to approve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I I SKETCH PLAN/SUNSET RIDGE/SECTION 34/D.H. LAND COMPANY ........... I I DISCUSS WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION/ AMEND NEW ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.07. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I3 TRAIL FEE REQUIREMENT Motion to table (withdrawn). . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Motion to approve concept of a trail fee .................................... 15 AMENDED SERVICE CONTRACT/LEONARD PARKER AND ASSOCIATES Motion to approve ..................................................... 15 REVIEW WELL #7 ELEV A TIONSIIP98-22 M . "" b ld' 15 otton to approve entrance type UI 109 ................................. SCHEDULE INTERVIEWSIP ARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION VACANCY Motion to schedule interviews, 6:15 p.m., April 20. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 DISCUSS WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSIONIFIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 16 HIRE BUILDING INSPECTOR Motion to approve (hire Rick Jarson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT I Andover newsletter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 I Town meeting.......................... ............................... 16 Entrance signs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Anoka County Highway Department letter .................................. 16 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS .................................................. 17 ADJOURNMENT ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 - -- ... . - . -.-- ---~--- Ó,rY16nci6{ LJ/¿hlqq CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 6, 1999 MINUTES . The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey, April 6, 1999,7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Don Jacobson, Julie Johnson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Councilmembers absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins City Finance Director, Jean McGann Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others RESIDENT FORUM Sheila Freeman. Andover Family Fun Fest - handed out flyers inviting the City Council and City Officials to participate in the City's 25th anniversary celebration at the Family Fun Fest, July 9 through I I. She also noted they are in need of volunteers for the event. Bob Benson. Round Lake Boulevard - stated he wrote to the Council about his I I 3-year-old house. They have done a lot of restoration on it and have tried to keep it historically correct except for the bathrooms. The problem is with the proposed expansion of Round Lake Boulevard. Easement of 60 to 70 feet from the center of the road comes into his living room. He asked the City to look at this house as a historical site or any other way to keep it from being tom down. The Council noted they have not been made aware of the county's plans and suggested he talk to their engineers as soon as possible. It was suggested the county probably would prefer not to have to purchase the house. AGENDA APPROVAL Item I, tabled to the April 20 meeting at the request of the developer; Remove Item 18, Approve Hiring Building Inspector, from Consent Agenda for discussion; Add Item 4 I, Approve Plans and SpecsIIP98-30/Chesterton Commons 4th Addition; Move Item 7, Amended Special Use PerrnitlPipelinelNorthern Natural Gas Company, to Item 1. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 4.. . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Item 17 Approve Hiring/General Clerk Position/Engineering and Public Works (Margaret Engstrom) Item 19 Building Department Summer Help Item 20 Approve Special Assessment AbatementJI5801 Fox Street Item 2 I Approve Cigarette License/Woodland Creek Golf Course Item 22 Declare Costs/Order Assessment RollIIP97-44/Shadowbrook 3rd Addition (Resolution R070-99) Item 23 Declare Costs/Order Assessment Roll/IP98-16/Shadowbrook 4th Addition (Resolution R07 I -99) Item 24 Approve Plans and SpecslIP96- IlKelsey Round Lake Park (Resolution R072- 99) Item 25 Reduce Letter ofCredit/Developer ImprovementslFoxberry Farms Item 26 Reduce Letter ofCredit/Developer Improvements/Jonathan Woods Item 27 Approve Quotes/Garbage CansNarious Parks Item 28 Approve Quotes/Four Sets of Swings Item 29 Include Public Works Parking Lot Lighting with City Hall Parking Lot Project/IP94-30C Item 30 Approve Final Plat/Shadowbrook 5th Addition/Bunker, LLC (Resolution R073-99) Item 3 I Approve Street LightlUniversity Avenue and 157th Avenue NW Item 32 Discuss H.F. I 276/BilI for an ActILower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Item 33 Update of 1999 Anoka County Highway Department Construction Activity Item 34 Award BidlIP99-3/1999 Crack Sealing (Resolution R074-99) Item 35 Award BidlIP99-4/1 999 Seal Coating (Resolution R075-99) Item 36 Approve Memo ofUnderstandingIPurchase of Water/City of Anoka Item 37 Approve Amendments to Resolution No. 01 1-99/No Parking/Orchid Street NW Cul-de-Sac (Behind the Farmstead) (Resolution R076-99) Item 38 Receive Petition/Order Feasibility ReportlIP98-7/Winslow Hills - 150th Lane NW Entrance Improvements (Resolution R077-99) Item 39 Accept Petition/Order Feasibility ReportlIP95-5/14122 Prairie Road NW/Sanitary Sewer and Waterrnain (Resolution R078-99) Item 40 Approve Developer's Request to Grade at Own Risk/Grey Oaks Item 41 Approve Plans and SpecsIIP98-30/Chesterton Commons 4th Addition (Resolution R079-99) Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. ._~--- .. ..-,.. --.-- ----.-- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 9, 1999, Special Meeting: Correct as written. March 16.1999, Regular Meeting: Page I3, Discussion of Sunshine Park Contract, 5th line of the Motion, change "1999" to "1998 operations". March 16, 199, Special Meeting: Page I, delete "Gene Bies". Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, the Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT/PIPELINE/NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY Dennis Werkmeister, Northern Natural Gas Company, Manager of Right of Way, noted the company has been engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce by pipeline since the I nos. They operate approximately 17,000 miles of pipelinc from Texas to Upper Michigan. They have been operating in Andover since the late I 950s when they constructed an eight-inch pipeline to serve the residents of Anoka. Because of the growth in Anoka County and the City of Andover, they need additional facilities to transport more gas. They are requesting an Amended Special Use Permit to install a I 6-inch natural gas pipeline within the easements they currently own and operate. A 75-foot wide temporary work space from the pipeline itself will be needed to accommodate construction. He then went into some detail regarding the construction of the line itself, the safety requirements that must be met and their safety record. Adjoining residents are contacted by letter each ycar reminding them to act in a safe manner around the pipeline right of way. There is a person on call 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies. Northern is also willing to supply training at no cost to the City on how to handle natural gas emergencies. Mr. Werkmeister explained they did investigate alternative routes for this line; however, when looking at the impact to wetlands, the clearing of trees, and to other property owners, they feel the establishment of a new piepline right of way through the City is unjustified. Northern will meet with adjoining property owners to attempt to resolve their concerns to the best of their ability. They are working closely with the City Forester and will comply with the conditions established under the City's Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Preservation Policy. Safety will be the criteria used to determine which trees will be removed. Northern will compensate each landowner according to the easements and agreements negotiated with them. Two local consultants have been hired to establish tree values on the temporary work space. Ron Berdelin (?), Northern Natural Gas Company, reviewed the requirements and procedures of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency which has the authority to approve this request. He noted the applications and pennits received from the various agencies and governments involved. Glen Haas, Director of Certificates and Recording, Northern Natural Gas Company, explained the process they are going through to seek authority to install and operate their natural gas facilities. Because this application was protested by several entities, there will be a full review by FERC. In ~ - ,- . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 4 (Amended Special Use Permit/Pipeline/Northern Natural Gas Company, Continued) that process, they will be reviewing the type of facility proposed, the construction methods, the market survey requirements, the environmental assessment including alternate routes, mitigating procedures during and after construction, safety procedures during and after construction and project economics. Ultimately, it is the decision ofFERC as to whether this line is constructed and where. The City will receive notice of the process and will have 30 days to respond to matters regarding this project. Northern expects they will need to provide more information to FERC, plus they will be responding to the protests that have been filed with FERC. They see the single right-of-way corridor through the City as an advantage. It reduces the impact on the number of landowners and avoids going through previously undisturbed wetlands. There are also operational benefits to maintaining one corridor versus several. Timing is becoming critical on this project, as they need to have the gas service requirements met for the 1999-2000 heating season. It is their intent to have the pipeline built to service that need beginning November I, 1999. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council table the application of Northern Natural Gas for a period of60 days or as soon as FERC acts, and authorize Staff to send a letter to Northern Natural Gas. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Jacobson explained the Council needs to act on this request this evening or it becomes automatically approved this Friday, April 9. He did not feel the Permit could be approved tonight because approval would indicate the City's concerns have been taken care of, which is not true. Also, FERC may change the route; and if so, Northern Natural Gas would have to go through the procedure of obtaining another Special Use Permit. He suggested the City look at this item again once FERC acts and address any open items at that time. There is enough indecision at this point that he did not feel the City should act tonight. Councilmember Orttel was concerned that if the request is denied tonight, Northern Natural Gas could not make application for another year for. He would like to see those issues on the federal level resolved first. He also had a concern with the proposed route and its impact on over 100 wells. But if the line is moved, other people are impacted. He hoped new construction methods will improve safety and wondered what was done when the 8-inch line was installed. He wondered how it happened that some people were unaware that they have a pipeline easement through their property. He also wanted to hear the concerns of the residents. Mr. Werkmeister stated the lines will operate in the ground in perpetuity as long as they are properly maintained. Mayor McKelvey understood someone from Northern Natural Gas stated the life span of a pipeline is 50 years. The current 8-inch line has already been in the ground 40 years and installed when the City was country. He didn't think the safety issues have been properly addressed. He wanted to see more shut-offs along the line. Councilmember Jacobson was also concerned with the number of feet that will be cleared of trees both within the right of way and adjacent to it. He also questioned the support if they have only 38 percent of the landowners agreeing to grant temporary easements. What happens if the rest will not grant that easement? Councilmember Knight asked if there will be any dewatering. ---- -- _. ~. -,. . --. -- ~ . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 5 (Amended Special Use Permit/Pipeline/Northern Natural Gas Company, Continued) A representative of Northern Natural Gas stated any dewatering would be where it is needed to join one pipeline section to another section. They will box or seal the area and dewater enough to make their tieing weld. They have methods to prevent erosion from occurring. Mr. Werkmeister stated they do not have a concern with the number of landowners that have currently agreed, because many are waiting to see what the City and/or FERC will do about the project. Once FERC authorizes the project, they do have the right of eminent domain to obtain right of way if necessary. They do not intend to clear-cut the land. They will work with the landowners; however, they do have situations where they feel temporary work space will be needed because of the safety issue. They do mark the pipelines at road crossings, but they generally do not mark them along property lines because it becomes a continuing maintenance issue for them. They do inform the landowners by letter as well to let them know there is a pipeline there. They do their best to keep their property owner lists ~ current, but they are dealing with 17,000 miles of pipeline. . n X!;Ü ,,,rW\c,cl:.- ~~ ~ tJU /',4, \,\j\\."l .. f\,rf'I Itn Winslow Holasek, I 159 Andover Boulevard - addressed !ßCneed for another I 6-inch pipeline. He I[ \ \ ~ \ was unable to get an answer as to the total amount of gas needed, the incremental increase for five '-\ \ years, how much the 16-inch line will provide and how much a I 2-inch line would provide. He felt the City should have those answers. He felt some of the facts presented in the application were conflicting, asking if a 16-inch or 12-inch line is needed. Mr. Werkmeister stated the 12-inch line ~ ~ ;.. will supply the incremental demand. The proposed 16-inch will be for future needs so they will not -t 4- ~ have to come back to the City and the residents for another line. FERC looks at those issues and has ~ - 0 -{J not challenged the 16-inch line. J, ~~ Mr. Holasek noted the costs between the proposed 16-inch line versus combining the proposed 16- . f 11. inch line with the current 8-inch line by installing a 24-inch line instead. Is a 24-inch line really 3 ~ \J needed to get the same capacity as the two lines? Mr. Werkmeister stated they did a cost comparison - f?\ at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. ~. ~æ Russ Mitchell, 15744 Nightingale - visually showed the cross section of an 8-inch, 12-inch, I 6-inch~ì and 24-inch pipeline, indicating a 16-inch line would accommodate the 12-inch and 8-inch lines plus .':;? .ù ~ provide an extra 23 percent capacity. He speculated that in the future they would pull out the 8-inch nJ.9 ~ line and install a 16-inch line anyway'. (~.. "-.. .ç: .1 ,,¡, -h I ø4-1,V\j.Uc.a "'" ' "-~W:1Y\ rw-""o.(().\ dl1>" 3 :;J Mr. Holasek stated t "y estiu."kd.th~wlto ~s~ll th~ \4~~~\ge at $18 'V:iJ1ion. He felt th~y ~7\~V~ - getting a bargain by installing tß~'l He ~fHt ~i9 ffil . He k'r~ð'fel{\\ìg isftr¿Õ~eNì'ed~ needs to be addressed. In 1959, he and his father gave an easement to Northern Natural Gas. They were told at the time it would be for one 8-inch line. He found out later that easement was a blanket easement across the entire farm. He tried to find out if the same thing was done with other residents. ~ &t' Chester~;, 1296 Crosstown Boulevard - dealt with Northern Natural Gas in 1959. This was ;f--s... country then. He was told this was a one-time deal, that he could plant trees anyway he wanted. He ,,~ did, and now they want to come through and take them all down. ~'J'''' - -~ - -- ~. ..- . --. - ~ ,- - - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 6 ~ (Amended Special Use Permit/Pipeline/Northern Natural Gas Company, Continued) ~ &:-- Mr. Holasek stated he eventually got a defined 50-foot easement. He believed that those who signed fi. the easements in 1959 for ~ted nouxpect multiple lines through there. Now he questions ~ ~ whether they really need 50 Jé~ erse~ent on either side of the existing 8-inch line. Is it to be able to install multiple lines? He also felt there is a violation of a 1973 law, Statute 800.045, that a specific easement must be defined, not the blanket easement. Mr. Holasek went on that part of the cost quoted by Northern Natural Gas to install a 24-inch line was the removal of the 8-inch line. He couldn't find anything in the federal regulations that requires that line to be taken out. All that needs to be done is the line blown out and capped. There is a big demand for these lines for running fiber optic cable through them. He also related an incident of the company not really being good neighbors when it came to resolving a problem around the line. He also felt the City needs answers relating to the size of the line that is needed. He was perturbed by the statement made at the Planning Commission meeting that the City has no say on this route whatsoever. They do have the right to raise concerns and possibly influence the route. It is also untrue that they infonned the City and residents how to intervene in this project. That came about as a result of one resident who was familiar with this process; otherwise he didn't believe the City and Staff had that information. Mr. Werkmeister addressed the blanket easement issue. They did take blanket easements in 1959. Mr. Holasek's document was intended for the landowner for receipt of payment of this particular pipeline, not multiple lines. The 1973 amendment was approved so that blanket easements could no longer be recorded. There is no statute that says that blanket easements are no longer legal. If a landowner contacts them, they will establish a defined easement. Council member Orttel asked who is responsible for the actions of the subcontractors on the project and who handles the problems. Mr. Werkmeister stated they have a right-of-way agent on the project. That agent will contact the landowners for right-of-way and will stay with the project and settle any damages. There is a clause in the easement that if a situation cannot be resolved, there is an arbitration process. Their plans also call for restoring everything within the right of way, seeding, topsoil, maintenance. Landowners will be compensated for sod, tree loss, etc. That is why it is important for landowners to let them know of their concerns. Mr. Haas explained there is no set time for FERC to go through the process except for the 30-day notice on the environmental assessment. FERC has asked them for a list oflandowners and their addresses. He expects in the next week or two they should see a notice. Councilmember Jacobson understood Northern Natural Gas must follow the FERC conditions. What would happen if the company does not agree with some of the conditions the City may place on its permit. Mr. Berdelin (?) stated FERC has jurisdiction over the pipeline industry. If there are stipulations in the City's permit, they would want to discuss them with the City to see what could be resolved. Mr. Werkmeister stated if there are conditions in direct opposition to those of FERC, he'd recommend the City discuss them with FERC. However, he'd suggest the City raise its concern with FERC throughout this process now. Also, after the first Planning Commission meeting, they supplied Mr. Holasek with copies of the notice and full FERC application. - --" ..-.-. -- . -.- ~ -_._~- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6. 1999 (jJýf\ Òí\-~t~ Vfl/\ Page 7 (Amended ~ecial Use Permit/Pipeline/Northern Natural Gas Company, Continued) --CW&::x;I.. (dGlwtt(') A r<"i,j~nt-àt 3880 South Enchanted Drive - was not aware there was a gas line easement in her back yard. Since that time, she has set up a meeting for Northern Natural Gas Company to come out, and they explained that her drainfield and some trees are in the area of work. She told them she wouldn't talk any more about it until after the next Council meeting. The stakes are now in the middle of her back yard, and she wants to know what the stakes are for and what they plan on doing in that area. She has been told her property is the turnaround point where they plan to dig her entire back yard to store dirt outside of the easement. She'd like someone to come to her house and answer her questions. Jim Everson, 4915 I 59th - asked ifFERC approves this, it sounds like the City doesn't have any say. He has a 20-acre hobby farm. lfhis property is defaced and they cut through his many trees, what recourse does the landowner have or channel available to make sure they are treated properly? Will the City help them or does he and possibly other landowners have to do it on their own? He also felt that those who have already signed an agreement with the company did so with the understanding they had to. If that same offer was made again, he predicted many would not agree. Attorney Hawkins advised the federal government has the authority to pre-empt local regulations when the interest conflicts. The individual property owners will negotiate with the pipeline company. The Council explained the property owners have the right to retain their own attorneys. Those are different issues from what the City regulates. The City will take its issues to the FERC hearing. They asked if septic systems will be put back if disrupted. Mr. Werkmeister stated they will repair the septic systems and make sure they operate correctly. There are several septic systems in their easement. They would hope to start the project within a month of receiving FERC approval in an attempt to meet the November service date. Mr. Mitchell had a copy of the Minnesota Rules Chapter 7535, Model Setback Ordinance, which discusses setbacks from pipelines and encroachments in new developments, but it does not apply to developments that have occurred or permits issued before July 1,1991. This has been argued in court, and he felt this applies to a number of private homes currently. Also, no school property is to have easement on it, and it would be inappropriate to encroach on the public property. That would affect Oak View Middle School. He felt it means it would be very difficult under this rule to approve the Special Use Permit because they intend to do construction in the easements which are encroached upon as a part of the Permit. He felt it would be appropriate for Northern Natural Gas to provide the safety record over the last three years. Mr. Mitchell stated when City Staff first introduced this item, they stated the site would be reviewed daily during the construction of the pipeline. He contacted the office that would do the inspections, and they are unaware of the proposed project. They only have I I field auditors for the entire state, and this may encumber their planned activities. He wasn't sure what kind of day-to-day oversight they can expect. One of the things the FERC is reviewing is how many landowners and agencies have approved this proposal, so he felt it would be a mistake to approve this Pennit tonight which would provide more evidence that they do have the right to do this project. In reviewing accidents caused by underground --- -. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 8 (Amended Special Use Permit/Pipeline/Northern Natural Gas Company, Continued) pipelines, he cannot refute that there are very few. There is evidence that 90 percent of the deaths ~ due to pipelines occur within 150 feet of the pipeline itself. ~ Jt Mr. Werkmeister asked for the case number to which Mr. Mitchell referred. He also stated he would ~ have to look up the statistics on the safety record. t;J ~ RiCk~~~80 Narcissus, asked about the company's ability to take their land and desecrate the trees even if they disagree with the amount of the compensation. He thought it was very naive to think that a pipe in the ground for over 40 years would not corrode or that its safety has not been compromised. The Council explained the eminent domain proceedings. Mr. Holasek clarified that this Special Use Permit is for the use of the 8-inch pipeline right of way, not anything else. If this is denied, it does not preclude Northern Natural Gas from asking for a Permit for another route. He also noted that there was no Permit issued for the original line because it was grandfathered. The Council agreed the decision is with FERC, and any regulation the City has will be very minor. By rejecting it, it is unlikely Northern Natural Gas will wait a year to apply for another Permit. By tabling it, it gives the City the opportunity to provide input. Mr. Carlberg stated if they get a response back from FERC, this item will be placed on the next Council agenda. The Council suggested Staff contact the City of Ramsey and discuss issues with the residents to obtain as much information as possible to address FERC. Council member Knight called the question. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS 1999 EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE Ms. McGann asked the Council to consider the issuance of a $ 1,050,000 Equipment Certificate. This number allows the tax rate to be consistent with the 1995 equipment certificate tax rate, and debt service payments are based on what is currently being paid. The Vehicle Committee started with over $2,500,000 worth of requests and has lowered it to $1,402,000. At the Special Meeting on April 13, she would like the Council to decide what other equipment must be cut from the list of equipment to meet the proposed issuance. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, that the City Council authorize Staff to get together with bond counsel and issue equipment bonds up to $ I ,050,000; at this time the Council is not indicating which items will be purchased; only the authorization to go ahead with the equipment certificate and allow them to, at that point, issue the bonds. DISCUSSION: Ms. McGann stated they had initially requested May 18 as the sale of the bond; however, they need to look at the TIF issue. There will be taxable and nontaxable bonds for that issuance, and they need to look at that further. She asked that Items 3 and 4 be tabled this evening. Councilmember Knight and Jacobson withdrew the Second and the Motion. . .. ".. - .. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6. 1999 Page 9 (Discuss 1999 Equipment Certificate, Continued) Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, on Item 2 approval of the request for purchase of the Equipment Bonds. Motion carried unanimously. SET SALE/1999B EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE and SET SALE/1999A TIF BOND Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to table these items. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE INVESTMENT POLICY Councilmember Orttel noted the main difference is that there will no longer be a residents' committee. He had some concern about that. Ms. McGann stated they tried a residents' committee; however, they didn't have very good attendance. I Charlie Veiman stated they were not there because they had not been notified of the meetings. Ms. McGann noted professional investment advisors are used. Those that are involved with advising and investing the City's funds know of the City's policy. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to adopt the Investment Policy as presented with the following changes: Bottom of Page I, Section called Liquidity, last line, sentence starting "A portion of the portfolio" is a duplication and should be taken out. Page 2, center section called Ethics and Conflicts ofInterest, first line, "refrain from" should be taken out and should be replaced with "have no". Section 3, Delegation of Authority, sixth line in that paragraph which reads, "...this investment policy" should read "this investment policy and applicable state statutes." DISCUSSION: Councilmember Orttel noted there will not longer be City review or an advisory committee. Ms. McGann stated the last section on reporting requires the Finance Department to present the investments to the City Council. That would include a market analysis plus their investment log showing transactions that have occurred. That can be done as often as the Council wants. The Council suggested they receive those reports each quarter. Council member Jacobson amended the motion that Item VII, Reporting, first line, read "prepare investment report each quarter." Second Stands. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS CONCESSION CONTRACT/SUNSHINE PARK Ms. McGann noted C&H Distributing, Inc., has held the concession contract since 1996. The contract has remained the same since its inception and was also submitted to them for the upcoming season. C&H Distributing, Inc., has indicated they are not willing to submit any additional financial infonnation besides gross sales. They are also requesting a three-year contract with no change in Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6. 1999 Page 10 (Discuss Concession Contract/Sunshine Park. Continued) terms. City Staffhas done an inspection of the Concession area and noted the concessionaire is not in compliance with Item 9 of the contract regarding the condition of the area after shutting down for the season. She reviewed the options to be considered regarding this issue. The Council discussion noted the main issue seems to be the monthly information the City is requesting relating to the operation of the concession stand. Ms. McGann explained it is difficult to verifY gross sales without additional information. Councilmember Johnson asked if she would be satisfied if Mr. Coons simply brought in his books for her to review. Ms. McGann stated that is an option, though she has not discussed it with him. Another option would be to set a flat fee and eliminate the financial statements. Council member Orttel stated Mr. Coons may have thought he had satisfied the contract since this has not been raised before. He also understood the reluctance to release financial information because it becomes public once the City receives it. He has heard no complaints regarding Mr. Coon's operation and was reluctant to change if this is a misunderstanding that can be resolved. Mr. Fursman explained no one checked on the concession area after the season was over, now recognizing that must be come every year. Ms. McGann noted the dan1age deposit has just been held by the City from season to season in the past. The Council was reluctant to change vendors since the season is fast approaching and because the issue with C&H Distributing appears to be something that can be resolved. They suggested Ms. McGann talk with Mr. Coon about having him simply bring in his books to verifY the sales on a monthly basis. They also felt it would be interesting to compare sales here with those of other cities and how the other cities handle the rental fee. It was also agreed that Ms. McGann will bring this item to the April 13 for action. The Council agreed the contract would be for a period of one year. Dave Blackstad, Park and Recreation Commission Chairperson, stated they had asked Staff for this same information last fall and never received it. If there was an issue on financial reporting, it should have been brought up last year so it could have been addressed before the next season. He does have a signed one-year contract with C&H Distributing, Inc. Mr. Coons is willing to meet with Ms. McGann and find out what information he has to divulge each month. Mike Gamache, President, Andover Athletic Association, was concerned with the time frame, as their games and practices start in two to three weeks. C&H Distributing is familiar with the operations and has the equipment in place. He hoped the Council will consider that when making its decision. The Council noted apparently the contract has been signed, and Ms. McGann will meet with Mr. Coons on the financial reporting concerns. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/FOX HOLLOW/GOR-EM, LLC (Councilmember Orttelleft the Council chambers at this time) - .. -- -_. ~. -0- . -. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 11 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Fox Hollow/Gor-Em, LLC, Continued) Mr. Carlberg explained the Council had directed the removal of the multiple homes originally proposed on the plat and replace them with single family. The developer has done that. They are also asking to begin grading at their own risk similar to what Grey Oaks is doing. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, Item No. S as presented. (Resolution ROSO-99 amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the land use district designation from RR, Residential Rural to RU, Residential Urban Single Family for Fox Hollow) Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I -Absent (Orttel) vote. REZONING/FOX HOLL0 W/GOR-EM, LLC Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, the rezoning with the following addition: Subject to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment change being approved by the Metropolitan Council. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I -Absent (Orttel) vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT/FOX HOLLOW/GOR-EM, LLC Mr. Carlberg stated they had to move the location of the lift station about three lots. The developer has agreed. He'd like the list of variances on the preliminary plat noted in the Resolution. There was a minor easement issue that did not show the lot and block on the utility plan. Councilmember Jacobson noted an error in the address of Lot 2, Block 1. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will verify the lot and block numbers. Motion by Johnson, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the preliminary plat with the changes that were mentioned. (Resolution ROS I -99) Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I -Absent (Orttel) vote. SKETCH PLAN/SUNSET RIDGE/SECTION 34/D.H. LAND COMPANY (Councilmember Orttel returned to the Council Chambers) Steve Johnston, Landform Engineering Company, explained D.H. Land Company is proposing the development of the property next to Commercial Boulevard on property on which they have a purchase agreement. A previous proposal was to develop it into single family residential. Realizing this is a difficult site to market typical detached homes because of the double frontage lots adjacent to Commercial Boulevard, they are proposing 34 attached twin homes and one existing single family detached home. He noted high density development in this area makes sense because those people wanting these units want the ease of townhome ownership. The town homes meet ordinance requirements. They would ask for a variance to the additional 10-foot requirement because of the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 12 (Sketch Plan/Sunset Ridge/Section34/D.H. Land Company, Continued) double frontage lots because the parcel isn't deep enough to do so. The benefits of this type of development is the safety factor for such a busy road because these residents typically do not have a lot of children and they do not generate as much traffic as single family homes. Many are buying up-scale units but would prefer to spend their leisure time doing other activities rather than maintaining their yards. The units would consist of two garages between two single family homes. He estimated the valuation of the units would be between $ 150,000 to $200,000 per dwelling unit. The surrounding neighborhood has an average assessment valuation of$150,000. All units would have at least a two-car garage, and they are investigating opportunities for three-car garages. They would be single level units with one or two bedrooms on the main floor and with full basements. They are in favor of extensive buffering, berrning and landscaping along Commercial Boulevard as suggested by the Planning Commission. They would also propose a slight reduction in the front-yard setback to allow for an increase in the height of the benn for more screening between the existing single family and adjacent commercial boulevard. All units would become part of the homeowner's association which would provide the maintenance of the units, professionally installed landscaping, architectural controls, etc. The intent is the units would be owner-occupied. Mr. Johnston stated one issue is the architectural style rule of the City of not having the same style within 300 feet of each other. Most twin home units are all identical so everyone knows what is going to be built next to them and to make it easier for the association. They want these units to be the same architectural style with minor variations. Councilmember Orttel felt the 300-foot rule was put in place to encourage creativity, but he understood that such developments tends to be identical. Maybe a change to the ordinance should be made to apply the rule to single family homes only. There was a lengthy Council discussion on the philosophy of high density development, identical architectural styles and characteristics of those wanting that type of housing. Mr. Carlberg noted the proposed plan of Pheasant Glen for this parcel had 25 single family lots. The Council had concerns on who would purchase these units, on the high-density or overcrowding of units on the parcel with very little open space, on the unsightly deterioration over the years on similar high density developments in other cities and not wanting that to happen in Andover, on "cookie cutter" housing preferring some variety architecturally and on the fact that a similar proposal by another developer was recently turned down. It was recognized, however, that this property is on a very busy street across from a commercial site, which limits the use. Some were not opposed to the twin homes but wanted to see less density, cottage homes or perhaps twin homes on one side and single family homes on the other side of the street. Detached homes would require a 4/5 vote for a rezoning, which may be a problem with the Council. It was also noted there is a difference between this and the duplexes of the past because with the association, maintenance and upkeep is guaranteed. Sue Herst, 13400 Jay Street, owner of the property - expressed frustration over Councilmember Jacobson's comments of not wanting to stuff a lot of houses in such a small area and wanting to see a variety in architectural styles. She recalled when they brought Pheasant Glen before the Council with single family homes that he had said the more homes that can be put on 20 acres the better. Now they are proposing more homes, and the Council is saying they don't want them. She also --~ -- . . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 13 (Sketch Plan/Sunset Ridge/Section34/D.H. Land Company, Continued) pointed out that in the single family development across the street, there are the same houses that vary only slightly by which side the garage sits. Her point was that the City does have "cookie cutter" single family housing, but the Council is telling her they don't want it in the City. Councilmember Jacobson stated he doesn't want to see the City become another Coon Rapids. He also worried about the visual look. Councilmember Orttel realized that the "cookie cutter" housing is a sign of the more expensive buildings today, and he didn't have a problem with that concept. Part of the problem is the fear of ending up like Coon Rapids once this type of density is allowed. There should definitely be a buffer to the industrial park. Mr. Johnston stated they did consider the option of single family homes on the south side of the street. The difficultly is having two uses in the same association. Also, it doesn't amount to a significant decrease in density. There are people who want the type of living being proposed. They can bring in an architectural design that is more like a single family home, and he showed some pictures of similar type units from other developments. The Council then suggested Mr. Johnston discuss options with the Staff, including a larger lot separation, and bring it back to the next meeting for furthcr consideration. DISCUSS WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION/AMENDING NEW ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.07 Dave Blackstad, Park and Recreation Commission Chairperson, stated the Commission is concerned with the amount that is being proposed for commercial property. They feel it is too low, recommending it should be raised to $3,500 to keep in line with other major cities. Mr. Carlberg stated the Engineering Department has determined that based on 10 percent, the commercial rate may be low. But Staff is also recognizing the economic benefit to having commercial development. Mr. Fursman stated his initial concern is the competitive market for commerciallindustrialland. The City doesn't want its fees to be out ofline with neighboring communities. Commercial property certainly does benefit from the park and trails, but it is also a very competitive environment. Councilmember Orttel felt the land sales from the county is needed before any calculations can be made. He wanted to have that information before making any changes. Mr. Carlberg stated the proposed change moved by the Council at the last meeting has not been published. They were looking for clarification from the Council. Staff is also recommending that for the Grey Oaks and Fox Hollow plats, the old park dedication requirements be used. Anything new that is submitted would fall under the per-unit cash dedication. The Council generally agreed. The discussion was on whether or not park dedication fees are to be paid on the commercial properties that are owned and sold by the City. One argument is that the City should be treated the same as anyone else. On the other hand, technically that would mean transferring money from one account into another; though the Parks Department would be getting more funds. Also, there is a . .. . - -. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 14 (Discuss Amending New Ordinance 10, Section 9.07, Park Dedication, Continued) great deal of park amenities proposed for Andover Station. The Council also has to be prudent in the use of public funds, p]us that land had no value before the City purchased it and cleaned it up. Mayor McKelvey thought the decision had been made not to pay park dedication for Andover Station because TIF funds were being used for the trails within the park and along Bunker Lake Boulevard. Mr. Fursman also noted that about 20 percent of the land is proposed to be dedicated for park in the commercial area north of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Winslow Holasek stated park dedication is taken for commercial property because employees are encouraged to use the parks. He agreed that for the City it means transferring money from one pocket to the other. The Council agreed to take no action on this item until more information on values of property within the City is received from the county. lt was also agreed not to publish the new ordinance until this item can be resolved in the next few weeks relating to both commercial and residential property. APPROVE TRAIL FEE REQUIREMENT Dave Blackstad, Park and Recreation Commission Chairperson reviewed the Commission's proposal for a trail fee for new developments. The City Attorney has indicated the City can create a trail fee as long as it can demonstrate that the amount of the fee is roughly proportionate to the cost of the trails. Based on the park comprehensive plan, approximately 40. I miles of street trails still needs to be constructed at an estimated cost of$5,754,435. Based on another 7040 units to be built in the City, the fee would be about $8 I 7; however, using the rationale that existing residents should contribute to the trail system as well, a per lot fee of $384 er unit is being recommended. The original trail fee charge that was eliminated was $250. The fee to new developments would not apply to the trails within the plats, only the trunk trails. Mayor McKelvey noted existing residents are already contributing to the parks and trails through their taxes. Mr. Carlberg stated currently the trail system is being paid 50-50 cost share between the City and the developer. The Park Board is saying they wouldn't do that any more. The cost of the trails would be borne entirely by the trail fees. Other Councilmembers felt the basis on which the calculations were made are incorrect because it is likely that trail grants and other aids will be received to reduce the costs. An issue is whether trails are a transportation or recreational item. There is also a down side to overcharging developers. After further discussions, the Council felt that more information is needed before passing an ordinance change, including accurate showing how and why the amount is determined. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to table the issue on park fees to have an expanded proposal justifYing the proposed charge. DISCUSSION: Mayor McKelvey noted the calculations do not take into account that some grants will be received. Chairperson Blackstad stated any extra - . ~ . + Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 15 (Approve Trail Fee Requirement, Continued) money could be used to build other trails. They are getting requests from neighborhoods to be able to access the trail system. Councilmember Knight did not have a problem with the fee but wasn't comfortable with how it is determined. Councilmember Orttel stated there is a demand for trails, but he was concerned with setting the fee too high. A good foundation is needed on which to base the fee. Councilmembers Jacobson and Orttel withdrew the Second and the Motion. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Council approves the concept of a trail fee and ask Staff to analyze the numbers and to develop the proper dollar amount for the fee and bring it back to the Council for discussion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE AMENDED SERVICE CONTRACTILEONARD PARKER AND ASSOCIATES Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to move on Item 14 as modified, changing the $12,500 to $ 10,000 and $0.3 I for mileage. Motion carried unanimously. REVIEW WELL #7 ELEVATIONSIIP98-22 Mr. Carlberg stated the City Council had approved the concept to construct the well house as a residential style structure. It has been determined that will be a very expensive well house. An alternative would be an "entrance" type building as a gateway to the development with fencing, possibly adding drinking fountains and benches because it will be along the trail. The cost would be substantially reduced from a residential type structure. A variance will be needed because the location of the well dictates the structure will encroach into the 35-foot setback from Nightingale. Councilmember Orttel cautioned a fence may be a hazard. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Orttel, to defer to the recommendation, the gate house option. Motion carried unanimously. SCHEDULE INTERVIEWSIPARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION VACANCY Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, Item No. 15 for interviews at 6:15 p.m. on April 20, 1999 for the Park Board. Motion carried unanimously. ---~-- ~. .,- . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 16 DISCUSS WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION/FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REPLACEMENT PLAN Dave Blackstad, Chairperson of the Park and Recreation Commission, explained Kevin Starr, Parks Department, has prepared an inventory of all parks and the value of the equipment. The proposed five-year plan was for $2.& million, and the replacement plan before the Council is quite low in comparison. The Council agreed to review this in greater detail at the April 13 special meeting. APPROVE HIRING BUILDING INSPECTOR Councilmember Orttet did not have a problem hiring the inspector but felt it is a change in policy to hire a full-time temporary contract person with full benefits. Councilmember Jacobson also understood hiring someone on a yearly basis, but this is a two-year contract. Mr. Fursman stated the City is obligated to cover the PERA and federal and state benefits. In looking at the history of the Department, the City has had full-time temporary positions for a number of years. The previous employee was "temporary" for five years. Under the City's personnel policy, this person seemed to fit under the definition of a full-time employee which would receive benefits. Benefits were paid to another full-time temporary employee in the same Department. It seemed appropriate to offer the benefits, plus that probably would be the only way anyone would accept the position. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the Item. (Hire Rick Jarson for a full-benefit paying, temporary full-time position with a two-year employment agreement). Motion carried unanimously. MA YOR/COUNCIL INPUT Andover newsletter - Councilmember Jacobson stated the first newsletter has been mailed, and he and Staff are open to comments. Town meeting - Council member Jacobson suggested a date for the town meeting be established so it can be posted in the next newsletter. After some discussion, it was agreed to have Staff detennine the date, suggesting it be held before May 15. Entrance signs - Mr. Carlberg stated this project is on their list of things to do. The intern that will be coming will be working on this. Anoka County Highway Department letter - Councilmember Jacobson suggested Staff get more infonnation on the proposed upgrade on Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg stated they will contact the county. --~-- .. ..-,-. --_._~ Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 6, 1999 Page 17 PA YMENT OF CLAIMS Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, the payment of claims. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at I I :50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ècY~ Recording Secretary --~ -- ~. ~ . -- _.- - ---~--~- .