Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP January 11, 2000 ~ Qd..¡ Lù1 rí--f-cy. ~~1~6b CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 Special City Council Meeting - Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Call to Order - 7:00 PM Discussion Items 1. Hamilton Square Assessments 2. Multi-Family Housing 3. Discuss Development Grading Issues 4. Water Quality 5. Acquisition of Property West of Public Works 6. Other Business Adjournment ~ (j¡) WI 1-t\ú1 J. -\ -06 CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 11, 2000 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on January 11,2000,7:03 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Council members present: Don Jacobson, Julie Johnson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Councilmembers absent: None Also present: City Building Official, Dave Almgren City Engineer, Scott Erickson Public Works Superintendent, Frank Stone Public Works Water Utility Supervisor, Brian Kraabel Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Park and Recreation Commission Chairperson, Dave O'Toole City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others DISCUSS HIGH SCHOOL SITE Mayor McKelvey reported the soil borings for the 148th site found that the soils are very poor. The school district estimated it would have to spend $300,000 for soils correction. The district is very interested in the site on 161st between Hanson Boulevard and Verdin. Mr, Fursman stated the school district may also be interested in the commercial area south of the landfill for the high school site if the Council would be willing to consider that option. There would be enough land for the high school, but not for both the high school and elementary. If the Council is open to that site, he felt the MPCA should review the plan because of the restrictions on the toe of the landfill. If the commercial site is chosen as the location for the high school, the money from the land sale would be used to purchase Anoka Auto Wrecking. If the site on 161st is chosen, both the high school and elementary school will be built there. Northern Natural Gas has said it would be willing to move the gas line running through that site to the edge of the property. After some discussion, the Council was open to having the commercial site west of Hanson Boulevard as one of the sites to be considered for the new high school. It was suggested Staff contact some of the neighbors to let them know that area is being considered as one of the sites for the high school and that there will be an update at the January 18 Council meeting. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 2 HAMILTON SQUARE ASSESSMENTS Mr. Erickson explained the Hamiltons paid $18,850 in estimated storm water assessments for the pond outlet pipe with the original project in anticipation of having this pipe installed. The Hamiltons repetitioned for this improvement, and the feasibility report estimated a total cost of $38,130. The actual cost came in $8,742.64 under that estimated cost. That feasibility report was given to the developer before the project was done. No other property is being served by this storm water pipe. A credit is being given for the $18,850 previously paid, so the proposed assessment would be $10,537.36. The final cost includes the construction costs plus engineering, inspections and Staff time. Ed Hamilton - stated the actual construction costs were $21,753.80, and they were assessed $18,850. To him it means about a $2,900 cost overrun. The pond was next to the property line; and due to circumstances beyond their control, it was moved. Instead of a 520-foot pipe as originally thought, the pipe ended up being 835 feet. That is 324 additional feet at a cost of $10,537. He felt that was not right. Also, they were told they had to have a 15-inch pipe when in reality they only needed a 4-inch pipe. He is willing to pay the $2,900 cost overrun. He also provided a handout outlining all of the monies paid to the City of Andover since the inception of the Hamilton Square project. The Council discussed the issue noting the $18,850 originally assessed was only an estimate as no engineering or design was done. Also, the City has virtually gone into competition with the private sector with regard to commercial development. While not a direct issue, it is part of the overall issue, as the Hamiltons may have been able to sell land had it not been for that competition. While assessments are typically five years at an interest rate of 6 percent, it was suggested that because circumstances surrounding the development that the assessment be deferred for five years and start at the 6th through 10th year or until it is sold. 0 Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that we defer the assessment for a total of five years; and in the years 6 through 10, it would be the payment on the normal schedule or until the property is sold. Then it would be due when the property is sold, whichever comes first. Assessment total $10,537.36. DISCUSSION: The Council noted that the Staff would have to keep track of this so the assessment is paid if the property is sold before the sixth year. Jerry Windschitl, developer of Chesterton Commons to the north, stated when his two commercial lots were designed, the storm sewer was oversized to handle the runoff without the Hamilton pipe. Mr. Erickson stated there is no anticipation of utilizing the Hamilton pipe for any other property. There was some discussion by the Council as to whether or not interest would accumulate over the first five-year period. The majority was in favor of no interest because of the unique situation tied to this commercial development regarding what happened in all the negotiations with the property owner to the north and the settlement of the larger storm water problem. They also acknowledged that the City would be carrying those costs for the first five years. Council member Jacobson added to the motion that there would be no interest accumulated for the first five years. Second Stands. (Resolution R014-00) Motion carried unanimously. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 3 DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT GRADING ISSUES Tim Kelly of the Coon Creek Watershed was present. Mr. Erickson explained the two issues to consider are the backyard drainage standards and backyard drainage problems. They have seen a number of situations where homes are built with very little usable back yard because of the drainage swales or ponding. The current development standard requires the front 100 feet of a new urban lot to be buildable. Typically this results in a 12- to IS-foot back yard area with the remaining 30 feet often encumbered with ponding and/or drainage swales and easements. Options may be to maintain the current 100- foot requirement and not allow variances or easements to be placed in these areas, to change the buildable lot depth requirement from 100 feet to 120 or 130 feet to provide additional usable back yard space and not allow easements in those areas, or to require larger lots. The other problem is rear yard swales and ponds are inadvertently modified during the numerous phases of the development process, including after the new homeowners move in and begin landscaping the back yards. Mr. Kelly explained they see the ponds not functioning they way they want them to when the original development grading plan is not adhered to. Sometimes a landscaping change on one lot can affect five to six property owners. They are seeing the storm sewer ponds becoming an amenity and then become a hassle for public works when the water levels drop. The water levels are cyclical, and right now the ground water level is down four to five feet. He predicted those levels will come back up. The Council discussed the issues and agreed the intent would be to increase the usable back yard area on these lots that would be free of easements, not necessarily the 100-foot buildable area. It was felt some delineation was needed of the storm drainage easements so people recognize where they begin and not change the grading plans for them. Very often the area is filled in because the ponding area is dry for the most part and people don't realize it is needed for ponding. Jerry Windschitl, developer, asked how big of a problem this is. There are basically three developers who have been using the system in place for 15 years. He has seen two cases of swales filled in; and in both cases, he as the developer corrected the problem. Many of these lots are walkout lots on which the more expensive homes can be placed. He didn't want to see those walkout lots eliminated. The Council agreed the intent is not to eliminate lots that can sustain walkout homes. After further discussion on the issues, it was agreed the Council will take a tour in the spring to look at problem areas, then formulate a policy. It was suggested that something different should be done for a drainage swale as opposed to the back yard. If there is a drainage swale where there could be water, it is a different issue and merits looking at. One method would be to make the lots deeper and move the drainage swale back. In discussing the problem with drainage swales being filled in, Mr. Erickson stated they have had to deal with a number of cases where swales are filled in on one lot causing backup and drainage problems on others. Often the swales are at minimum grade and they get filled in during construction of the home or the owners don't know and fill in with top soil creating pockets of water Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January II, 2000 Page 4 (Discuss Development Grading Issues, Continued) in the back yard. An option discussed with the Andover Review Committee was when the developer grades the swales, the City must make sure they are at the correct elevations and require them to establish the turf for five to ten feet on each side of the ditch so the swale is established when the homeowner comes in. Another option is to have the developer set final grade hubs and submit the elevations for confirmation, or have the developer final grade, topsoil and silt fence all ponding areas prior to lots being sold and builders working on the lots. It was generally agreed to try the option of having the developer set the final grade hubs so the future contractors and homeowner can see the final elevations needed to maintain the swales/ponds. The Council also felt that information should be provided to the homeowners regarding the need to maintain the final elevations of those drainage easements. Letters to homeowners and articles each spring in the newsletter were suggested. At the same time, the GIS system can be used to locate everyone who has one of these on their property so those people can be targeted with a personal informational letter. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING The Council noted the Metropolitan Council is dictating density. If the City allows multiple housing, the question is how can it be managed and regulated so it is quality and the City does not become densely packed. Another concern is the issue of rezoning to M-2 on the promise of the developer to develop town homes but which can ultimately be developed into apartments. Contract zoning was discussed which would allow multi-family but with special provisions and requires a 4/5 vote. Special Use Permits only require a majority vote, so there is not as much control. That does require the zoning be something other than multiple until the developer comes in, so the zoning would never comply with the Comprehensive J;'lan. Mr. Carlberg stated usually the contract rezoning and plat go together. Mr. Hinzman explained multiple family would be allowed in the transitional zones but specific criteria for that zone is in place. Councilmember Orttel stated that allows more potential area for multiples than if there were specific areas zoned for them. A suggestion was to change the ordinance to allow multiple zoning but the criteria would be no more than what is allowed in the R-4 zone. If something more dense is desired, it would have to be done under a contract zoning tied to the specifics of that proposal. Some upper limit would be set under the M-2 zone which would be allowed by contract. Specific criteria such as protection from neighbors, along major roads, adjacent to commercial areas, etc., would be in the ordinance. It would be similar to the PUD allowed in the R-4 zone right now. The Council also suggested the density be based on gross acreage to avoid cramming high density in very low ground areas. The idea is not to over cluster the developments. There was further discussion on the Metropolitan Council's requirements for multiple, affordable and rental housing. It was felt that if they change the policy and consider the density on a regional basis as opposed to the individual cities, that the housing criteria will be met. It was also pointed out that in Coon Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 5 (Multi-Family Housing, Continued) Rapids, and what is also being asked of Andover, the multiple units end up being at the end of town rather than in the front or center of the town. The Council directed Staff to do further research on the suggestion to change the criteria in the ordinance for multiples and then allow greater density by contract zoning with a development agreement. They also asked that the City Attorney comment on the proposal. WATER QUALITY Mr. Kraabel handed out copies of the brochure given to residents of the City's 1999 Consumer Confidence Water Quality Report. He also showed a video tape that will be run on the cable channel regarding Andover's water quality, noting copies will also be available for the public. He reported a problem they are having is with the level of iron and manganese removal, they are not able to get the chlorine residuals to what they should be at the outer edges of the system and maintain the levels that there should be. In discussing the options to improve the water quality, Mr. Erickson stated they looked at remote chlorine injection for the Shadowbrook area and estimated it would cost between $160,000 to $200,000 just to take care of the chlorine in one particular location. Mr. Kraabel stated adding ammonia at the wellheads reduces the disinfection they get now, It is not a good practice. Mr. Erickson added it is used in bigger cities after the water is treated to carry the chlorine out further. That would also require adding a room to each of the six wells. Mr. Kraabel stated a central water treatment plant would provide a lot of good quality water for the majority of the year, but no one is willing to pay the cost. The cost of treating the water at the wellhead is estimated to cost $2.5 million Another issue is the possibility of the government changing the quality standards on the various elements found in the water. If that happens, the City's water may no longer meet those standards, particularly for radium and manganese. It is anticipated some treatment may be needed by 2003 to 2005. Mr. Erickson stated about three acres is needed for a water treatment system, which consists of a building and a one-million ground storage tank with booster pumps. It is anticipated one person would operate the system. Council discussion was that treating on a well-to-well basis seems counter productive. The treatment should be flexible enough to accommodate any changes that could eventually evolve. Financing is a concern, and it was suggested possibly getting seed money from the new housing going in. Staff was asked to research water treatment further and to look at what is needed, options and staging. RFP's should be sought to have the information available. It was also suggested that a broader study be done regarding the possibility of raising the wells up to a shallower aquifer. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 11, 2000 Page 6 ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WEST OF PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Stone stated he talked with Ken Slyzuk, owner of the property directly west of Public Works. Mr. Slyzuk seems interested in discussing the sale of that property within the next two years and may be willing to give the City first option on it. The Council suggested Staff negotiate an option on that property with Mr. Slyzuk, If it is done on a contract, the interest is not taxable, which may interest him. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Respectfully sUbm~ ~~ ¡;;L Recording Secretary