Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK October 23, 2001 ~ cv,l.J CITY OF ANDOVER ~ \ \-IO-ô\ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Special City Council Workshop - Tuesday, October 23, 200 I Call to Order - 7:00 PM Transportation Issu~s I. Anoka County Highway Department Discussion/5 Year PlanlUpcoming & Future Projects - Engineering 2. Review Draft Transportation Plan RFP/01-18 - Engineering - Comprehensive Plan Issues -- 3. Metropolitan Council Review Comments - 2020 Comp Plan - Planning Other 4. Sports Complex - Alternate Site Concept - Administration 5. Anoka County Archery Range - Facility Review IssueslUpdate - Administration Adjournment --- - -." ...- -. -'-"-~- 'T-"·+~ - ~ cvv' ~tI-lt·ÓI CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP - OCTOBER 13, 1001 MINUTES A Special Workshop of the Andover City Council was called to o~der by Mayor Mike Gamache on October 23,2001,7:02 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Don Jacobson, Ken Orttel, Julie Trude Councilmember absent: Mike Knight Also present: City Engineer, Scott Erickson Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Administrator, John Erar Others TRANSPORTATION ISSUES -ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAYDEPARTMENT DISCUSSION I FIVE-YEAR PLANIUPCOMING AND FUTURE PROJECTS Anoka County Five-Year Highway Improvement Plan - Jon Olson, Anoka County Public Services Division Manager, and Doug Fischer, Director of Anoka County Highway Department, addressed the Council. Mr. Olson reviewed the Five-Year Highway Improvement Plan for 2002-2006, Part 1 outlines the rehabilitation projects, which include the overlay, crack sealing and recycling programs to maintain the integrity of the system. They have designated $1.9 million annually for each of the five years in the plan. Not much is being done in Andover, though they would like to upgrade Seventh A venue. That was to be redone last year but they ran into resident opposition. Part 2 of the plan outlines the reconstruction projects over the next five years. He summarized the main projects for each of the five years. In 2002 they are proposing an aggressive program of $23.5 million. A proposed project in Andover includes the signalization of Hanson Boulevard at the intersection of CoRd 18. Mr. Olson highlighted the proposal to upgrade Main Street, which is now a state road, and to have it turned over to the county. Many of the projects are hazardous elimination projects and most will have signal systems put in. The funding sources have not yet been guaranteed beyond 2002, so the actual projects completed will depend on the funding. The estimates reflect what the cities have contributed in the past. Their cost sharing formula is for the cities to pay a portion of the signal system, for one-half of the curb and gutter and to pay for sidewalks and some of the storm sewers. The total plan calls for $140 million over the next five years, of which only approximately $35 million is actually county funds consisting of state aid and county levy. The remainder would be federal and city funds. In 2003 the proposal is to upgrade Round Lake Boulevard north to 153rd. Mr. Olson noted the listing of other projects requested by local units of government or other individuals which have been designated to 2010 and beyond. On that list is the widening of Hanson ,- . ~-- , T -- . , .. . - Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 200i Page 2 (Anoka County Five-Year Highway improvement Plan, Continued) Boulevard between Main Street and Bunker Lake Boulevard. That project has been discussed in earnest. One of the complications with that road is that it was reconditioned approximately three years ago. In 200S they have designated $ I 0 million for the interchange of Hanson Boulevard and Trunk Highway 10. They believe widening Hanson Boulevard north of Main Street before that intersection at Highway 10 is upgraded would not be much of a traffic improvement. Once that intersection is completed, they can look at widening Hanson Boulevard to handle all of the traffic. They will keep a watch on the amount of growth and the traffic activity on that road. They do have the right of way for most of Hanson Boulevard to widen it. The road would have to be moved east about 27 feet and lowered approximately 10 feet at 131 sl when it is rebuilt, but the poles will be a problem. In discussing the traffic concerns in Andover with the Council, Mr. Olson stated the key is more funding for highways. The gas tax in Minnesota is 20 cents, and the legislature doesn't appear to have an interest in changing that. They also lost funding when the license tab fees were lowered and because of moving money to transit funding. The citizens pay an average of$S6 per person per year for the county transportation system. Councilmember Orttel felt the public may be willing to accept a tax increase at this time to address the transportation issues. In response to a question on the costs of the traffic signals, Mr. Olson explained the county has taken the position of not just installing traffic signals but of taking care of the necessary turn movements as well to make that traffic move smoothly. Plus they are continually getting better and more reliable equipment and more expensive heads. If everything in the plan is done, it will take a lot of outside help. Mr. Olson stated completing the entire plan as outlined is a stretch, but it is not impossible. If that happens, it is more likely to be stretched out two to three years beyond the five years. This plan will be re-evaluated on an annual basis. The first two to three years of the plan are quite firm, but it could change in the years after that. Councilmember Orttel noted the county is not planning to build a lot of new roads. He wondered about the possibility of extending University A venue between Main Street and Andover Boulevard. Mr. Olson felt that is a political issue and that getting through the park would be extremely difficult. Upgrade of intersection of Hanson Boulevard and CoRd i8 - Mr. Fischer reviewed the plans for the signalization of the intersection of Hanson Boulevard and CoRd 18, which is scheduled for the sununer of2002. They have held an open house with the residents. They are extending the median on Hanson Boulevard south of the intersection at the request of the school district. The school district does not want traffic turning into their most northern driveway from Hanson Boulevard. Instead, traffic would be channeled to the intersection and to enter the parking lot of Andover Elementary School from the north. Another issue is the length of the median to the west on CoRd 18. They have agreed to pull it back to allow both right and left access to the City Hall entrance, but they will be keeping an eye on it from a safety standpoint. Safety is the number one goal and criteria. If safety becomes a problem, they will have to extend the median. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 2001 Page 3 (Upgrade of Intersection of Hanson Boulevard and CoRd 18, Continued) Mr. Erickson stated the City will need to look at a long-term plan to provide good access to the City Hall. The City will be utilizing state aid funds for its share of the project costs. He projected the City's cost would be less than $80,000. Mr. Fischer stated the City's costs include a portion of the signal, concrete curb and gutter and on-going signalization costs. Councilmember Orttel wondered if it would make sense to straighten out the intersection of Crosstown and Nightingale to force the traffic north rather than to curve to the east past the schools, parks and City Hall. The section in ITont of City Hall would then become a minor road, which would reduce the amount oftraffic. Mr. Olson felt there would still be a lot of trafflc because ofthe traffic signal. He also noted they will start this project as early in the year as possible. Upgrading of Round Lake Boulevardfrom 141" north to 153rd - Mr. Fischer reviewed the plan to widen Round Lake Boulevard to four lanes north of 141" to 153'd as an urban section with the potential of a separate bike trail or sidewalks. He reviewed the proposed locations for traffic signals and breaks in the median. There is some environmental impact, so they will have to do some mitigation. They are close to having neighborhood meetings on the project, thinking that will be done within the next one to two months. Seventh Avenue project - Mr. Olson felt the City will need to support the county in order to complete the Seventh A venue project as was proposed last year. The project was stopped because of resident opposition, but he thought the Board was going to propose the project again. Councilmember Orttel thought the main complaint was the lack of trails. Possibly that is the City's problem and it should be looked at. Possibly the plans for trails should be accelerated to help out. The residents were also concerned with safety and the number of right and left turns. Speed on Crosstown Boulevard in front of the high school- Mr. Erickson asked about the speed limit in front of the new high school. Mr. Fischer stated the last time a speed zone study was done was in 1989. Conditions have changed since then. If the City requests it, they will do a speed study, though the results could always come back with the recommendation to raise it to 55 mph. Mr. Olson stated they will also look at the fact that it is a school zone. Council asked Mr. Erickson and Mr. Fischer to review options and provide the pros and cons for having a speed study done. REVIEW DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PLAN RFP/01-18 Mr. Erickson asked for comments on the Draft Request for Proposals soliciting consultant services for the development of a transportation plan for the City. Councilmember Jacobson asked what the plan will provide at a cost of $75,000 that the City doesn't basically have already. Mr. Erickson explained the plan would look strictly at the City's structure and City's intersections, alternate modes of transportation, show where improvements are needed on the City streets, look at the county proposed improvements and prioritize them for the City's purposes. The plan is a - .--. , Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23. 2001 Page 4 (Review Draft Transportation Plan RFPI01-18, continued) document for planning purposes and will help in developing the City's Capital Improvement Plan. The report would be functional and give direction as to where the City should go. Costs of$50,000 to $75,000 for such plans are not unusual. Mr. Erar explained this item was discussed at the strategic planning workshop, and Staff was directed to look at producing an RFP. Page 2 of the RFP lists the things the City is looking for in the Transportation Plan. He thought most cities have found this to be very valuable in terms of decision making. It is a report that is just as important as the sanitary sewer, storm sewer or watermain plans. This is a critical document and is the type of information that is needed at the Staff level to prepare the annual CIP. He sununarized the steps in preparing the plan, which will consist of the Staff and consultant working together on the technical part of the plan, then a number of meetings held by the Staff, City Council and the consultant plus holding a number of informational meetings for public review and comment. Finally the final plan will be brought back to the Council to be adopted. Mr. Erickson also explained that when asking for outside funding sources for these projects, they want to see that the planning has been done and that the need is there. This plan will help in getting outside funding. The funding for this is in the Road and Bridge Fund. Councilmember Orttel noted everything the county does with roads is reactive. This plan would be proactive. In driving through town he notices the line up of cars, and he wonders what it will be like 10 years from now. It will be grid lock unless the City plans for this. By planning ahead, road improvements will become more of a technical issue than a political one. Mr. Erickson felt it would take 12 to 18 months to prepare the Transportation Plan. It will be reviewed often while it is being prepared. Mr. Erar suggested the item be placed on the November 6 agenda for approval. The Council agreed. The Council recessed at 8:44; reconvened at 8:52 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES Metropolitan Council Review Comments - 2020 Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Carlberg introduced Sandra Pinel, Sector Representative for the Metropolitan Council and Natalie Haas Steffen, Metropolitan Council Commissioner. He then summarized the outstanding issues of the 2020 Andover Comprehensive Plan as indicated by the Metropolitan Council. Those issues include the 2020 MUS A boundary and the City allowing lot splits; permanent rural land use controls; the 2040 urban reserve boundary and land use controls; the accommodation of an additional 1,000 acres outside the 2020 MUSA boundary; and the future of the CAB interceptor. Mr. Carlberg stated the City has issued only four lot splits within the MUSA area within the last seven years, and two of the four were with City sewer and water. The issue oflot splits in the MUSA area has not been a problem for the City; however, the Metropolitan Council is saying to be , Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 2001 Page 5 (Metropolitan Council Review Comments - 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Continued) consistent with the regional policy, lot splits would not be allowed ofless than 20 acres within the 2020 urban reserve area. Council discussion noted the City does not allow plats by lot splits, that property is allowed to be split only once every three years, that lots over five acres can be split by metes and bounds, of the concern of not allowing a land owner to split off a parcel for a child even though it is rarely done and because it is not done very much, this should not be a serious issue. Ms. Pinel explained the Plan accommodates a certain growth to 2020 where a majority would go into the sewered area. They are asking the City to protect that area as much as possible for urban development. Councilmember Orttel agreed, but thought this was a technicality. Mr. Carlberg stated Andover's Comprehensive Plan allows one unit per 2.5 acres in the rural area. The regional policy is one lot for every ten acres. The City has over 1,400 acres in the agricultural preserve program, which restricts development to one for 40 acres; however, the underlying zoning is the R-I, 2.5-acre development. That is a concern of the Metropolitan Council. They are looking at a land use with a pennanent rural development of I for 40. Ms. Pinel stated there might be farms there for 20 to 30 years, but if they come out of the Ag Preserve, would it be developed as a sewered urban area? Mr. Carlberg stated if that is of interest, possibly consideration should be given to designating the Ag Preserve properties in the vicinity of the MUSA as the additional 1 ,000 acres that can be developed and served in the Coon Rapids Interceptor. They would have to detennine the ability to service those areas with the Coon Rapids trunk system. That would allow the Ag Preserve areas to maintain the 1 for 40 developments with an underlying urban development in the future. Ms. Pinel stated that might serve a dual purpose and might be acceptable. Council discussion was the concern that the property owners now under Ag Preserve should be notified of this consideration and that this might bring tremendous pressure on them to opt out of the agricultural zoning to develop. Mr. Erar stated that would be entirely up to the property owner. Mr. Pinel stated the City's plan calls for about 70 percent of the City to continue developing in the pattern of2.5 acres. Their plan sets it at 50 percent at one lot per ten acres. In looking at reality, they do not want to force the area to be something else. They are asking the City to look at opportunities to develop to less density such as areas that are environmentally sensitive, farming areas, etc. They are trying to point out different ways that Andover's Plan for the rural area could be consistent with their policy. One way is to identifY areas that are sensitive that the City thinks would be worthy of having less development. Those areas could be protected by zoning with a different density, or easements or purchasing them. They are looking at natural area protection and channeling growth as the foundation of their rural policy as opposed to just density. Mr. Carlberg noted the development trend of the City is 90 percent of the growth occurs within the City's sewer and water area. Land simply is not available to develop large 2.5-acre plats in the rural area, and there are very few 40s that have good soil to develop. Councilmember Jacobson noted people moving to Andover move here because of the open and green spaces and the larger lots. If the rural area must be developed into 10-acre lots, people will not be able to afford them. He was also Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 2001 Page 6 (Metropolitan Council Review Comments - 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Continued) concerned with adding another 1,000 acres for urban development, as that adds a lot of density to the City where the people really want open spaces. Councilmember Orttel wondered if it is unrealistic to think the City will never expand urban development beyond the 2020 boundary line. He noted requests for municipal utilities north of 161 sl and up along the railroad tracks and Ward Lake Drive. Possibly that should be considered for the future urban service area. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff can look at an agricultural zoning of 1 for 40 under the Ag Preserve areas to protect it ultimately for urban development. They can also look at how that matches to the extra 1,000 acres that can be added to the MUSA. Or they can look at a permanent agricultural area and look at the 1,000 acres somewhere else in the City, possibly north along the railroad tracks. A major study would have to be done to consider the land north of 161 sl to determine whether or not it can be served with sewer and water. Mr. Erar suggested Staff run a GIS survey on all 40s outside of the 2020 boundary. Discussion was then on the CAB Interceptor. Mr. Carlberg stated the City built the Comprehensive Plan around the fact that it was told the CAB Interceptor would not be available for urban development. Now the City is being told that if the Plan is not modified to include the CAB, that capacity will be given to someone else and Andover will never be able to get it back. The Council must decide whether to justify the potential for the CAB; and ifnot, the City may lose that capacity all together. The area of the City that would be served by the CAB is the south and west. Portions of the southwest that are now being served by the Coon Rapids Interceptor were constructed to flow to the CAB i£'when it became available. The lots in the unsewered areas are one-half to 2.5 acres in size. This is the time to let the Metropolitan Council know if the City wants to see the CAB and to redevelop the rural area. Councilmember Jacobson didn't feel the costs to bring the CAB to the City could be justified. Councilmember Orttel stated realistically there are no plans of intentionally redeveloping the area. It would be up to the people if they want it. He felt they owe it to the City to determine if it is needed. Politically the Council can say it isn't wanted, but technically is it needed? Commissioner Haas-Steffen explained the plans for sewer extension through Ramsey and up to St. Francis. Also, there are major septic system problems in Soderville. She does not foresee running large sewer lines through areas with no one to hook up. On the other hand, she did not want the City to be short sighted and give up the CAB and possibly forever loosing that capacity if it is felt that capacity will be needed some day. Mr. Erar stated to determine whether or not the CAB is needed, a GIS analysis of the potential urban development that is available beyond the 2020 MUSA line is needed. They can first identify 1,000 acres of potential future urbanized growth. If they can show more than 1,000 acres and that is the direction the Council wants to go, possibly then the CAB Interceptor should be put back into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carlberg suggested the consulting engineers would have to look at the capacity, lift stations and flows. It is a major undertaking. Ms. Pinel stated if that is the case, the City would need to request an extension ITom the Metropolitan Council to take it off their first meeting in November to complete a study area. She suggested the .,- .. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 2001 Page 7 (Metropolitan Council Review Comments - 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Continued) City ask for a 60-day extension. Mr. Erar felt additional data is needed to support a decision on the CAB so that people in the future can see why the decision was made. The additional I ,000 acres also needs to be identified as a part of that study. Further discussion noted the Plan to the year 2020 is done. Commissioner Haas-Steffen cautioned she needs to convince the Metropolitan Council of the need for the extension. Andover made a commitment when the school issue was going on. Council noted the Comprehensive Plan is done for 2020. The City is saying the 2020 line is the same as the 2040 line. Mr. Carlberg stated the City has continued to work with issue after issue. The issue of the CAB Interceptor is a new one. There has never been a better working relationsrup with the Metropolitan Council than there is now. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to ask the Metropolitan Council for a 60-day extension for Staff to work with the Metropolitan Council Staff to resolve outstanding issues. Motion carried unanimously. SPORTS COMPLEX -ALTERNATE SITE CONCEPT Mr. Erar noted the county has not looked favorably on donating land to the City for the construction of a sports complex. Acquiring a site would probably be over $1 million. It is also important that the facility be visible. The county property would have a problem with both visibility and with infrastructure, as City sewer and water are not immediately available to the site. In reviewing this issue, he looked at the possibility of constructing the sports complex in the area just north of the City Hall that is now an outdoor ice skating rink. It would trade the outdoor skating rink for an indoor one and would also eliminate a nonconforming ball field. Mr. Erar noted the advantages of the site is that the property is already owned by the City, it is centrally located in the City, utilities are already available on the site, it is close to the school facilities, there is on-site drainage capacity, the trail system converges on the site to provide an alternate pedestrian access, there is potential access off Hanson Boulevard, there is on-site security and the ability to economize custodial staff, the Senior Center could be relocated to the complex which could provide additional space at the City Hall for future growth, parking is already available with the relocation of the ball field, there would be minimal site development costs, it would eliminate taking additional property off the tax rolls, it continues to build on the campus site complex vision and the site provides additional land for future expansion. Mr. Erar noted some of the disadvantages to locating the sports complex on the City Hall site are the need to relocate softball fields, the skate board park would have to be relocated to the WOE area and there would be additional traffic in the vicinity of the City Hall. He wanted to present this idea to the Council first, and then to the Sports Complex Task Force if the Council feels it is a good idea. He hoped that if the City provides the land, they could get the county to commit to some financial support of the facility which could be leveraged. Many communities have chosen to locate their facilities next to the City Hall. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - October 23, 2001 Page 8 (Sports Complex - Alternate Site Concept, Continued) After a brief discussion, the Council agreed the idea should be brought to the Task Force. ANOKA COUNTY ARCHERY RANGE - FACILITY REVIEW ISSUES/uPDATE Mr. Erar explained in February Anoka County came to the City for a permit to build an Archery building. Occupancy was restricted to the archery group and was to accommodate no more than 100 people. Within the last week, they have come in with plans to rent the building for banquets, weddings, etc. Mr. Carlberg stated the Fire Marshal and Assistant Building Official were doing the final inspection and talked with the electrician, who mentioned the plans for wedding receptions, etc. There is no sprinkler system in the building. There is talk of congregate dining plus some conference rooms have been added. The City is standing firm on the issue of sprinkling the building. The City cannot allow assemblies when the building does not meet code. Mr. Erar stated the county is saying there was a misunderstanding on the part of the City. He said there was no misunderstanding. The issue now is that it cannot be used for receptions or banquets unless it meets code. Staff did an excellent job reviewing those plans. It is not a matter of interpretation. The codes are very clear. No Council action was required. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MEETING Mayor Gamache announced the government officials' meeting at the Shorewood on Tuesday, October 30,2001. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Trude, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:53 p.m. Respectfull~~~ ~~c~ ~;L Recording Secretary - -- - -~ - ...