Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP February 11, 2000 \......-"0 v~ c..;t.éJ I..UU)..U)' 3-6-00 CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Meeting Agenda Friday, February 11,2000 10:00 a.m. 1. Can meeting to order 2, Comp Plan/School Discussion 3. Adjourned CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING- FEBRUARY 11,2000 MINUTES The Special City Council Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey, February 11,2000,10:13 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 Administrator, Richard Fursman Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Building Official, Dave Almgren Fire Chief, Dan Winkel Metropolitan Council Members - Dick Thompson, Tom McElveen, Natalie Steffen Others Dave Carlberg asked City Council and Metropolitan Council what kind offormat they would like the meeting to be. Ms. Steffen indicated that Met Council is not here to discuss why the City decided not to join the Livable Communities Act. The meeting is to discuss what needs to be done regarding five possible school sites. After talking to Chairman of the Board Dan Erhart and County Commissioner Dennis Berg, and others, it was determined that a potential sixth site, the Anoka County Gun Range, is not available. Ms. Steffen stated that one of the first things to do today is discuss the individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). Dick Thompson would like to come to an understanding as to where the City is regarding adopting and developing an ISTS program. David Almgren, Building Official, explained that their department sends out a statement every year asking who has pumped their systems. This program has been in place for approximately 24 years. Any failed systems are being corrected which is approximately 40 systems a year. This has been documented the last couple years and all information such as where the system failed, what was the cause, and what has been done, was sent to Met Council. Met Council acknowledged that we do have a program intact for tracking failures and now it is a matter of their staff working with the City to see how close we come to the 7080 requirements which, at this time, deals mainly with inspections; not pumping which is required by State Statute. Mike Knight explained that not all certified inspectors come from pumping companies. Mr. Thompson suggested they survey other communities on their tracking. They asked if the City is willing to work with them on tracking the inspections and pumping. Jack said the City would be willing, but their was a concern as to why the City requires pumping every two years which seems like an extra expense especially when a system is not used Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 11, 2000 Page 2 that frequently, and the soil differs from other metropolitan areas. Mr. Thompson recommended that it may be a good idea to have systems pumped every 3 years to match State requirements, but that would be something the City and Met Council will need to work on together. DENSITY In this regard, as Met Council looks at the plans and the benchmark that they use, they have adopted the original blueprint that the City is familiar with establishing goals for density in urban areas at a density of three units per acre. Met Council Staff evaluations at this point come up with a number that is slightly below. Their analysis indicates a range between 2 and 2 1/2 units per acre. They need information in respect to wetland factors to determine that the plan is consistent with the regional policy. One of the things to look at collectively is the mix of housing type. At this time, Met Council is not comfortable with what they are seeing in terms of what the density is in the urban area mentioned. A way to address this is where is the City in terms of looking at the urban area density? Don Jacobson asked for the definition of "affordable housing". Tom McElveen responded that ownership value is $134,250, or less, which is considered affordable under the Livable Communities Act at an income of about $45,000 a year. On the rental side, an affordability example would be a two bedroom unit at $750 a month or less. Getting back to the density issue, the goal is 3 units per acre in urban area. The regional average is 60% single unit and 40% attached, but over the next 20 years the average will be as much as lout of every 2 units being some sort of attached unit. The reason for that is unfortunately everyone is getting older, and we will have the baby boomers wanting to give up that single family house and will look for another type of housing. The most important issue to think about in planning for housing is who is it that we are we planning for in the next 20 years. Do we have a place for Seniors, or affordable single-family? The goal is an appropriate mix of housing. Mike Knight noted the projected average value of a home five years from now is $145,000. Mr. Thompson responded that the $134,350 may stay at that for the next few years. Mayor McKelvey stated that this is market driven and how do you control that? Mr. Thompson stated that we need to be thoughtful about trying to provide affordable housing opportunities for seniors and families. We need affordable housing. We are looking for attached housing to happen. Don Jacobson noted one idea that Ms. Steffen brought forth was several cities pooling together. He asked what the feeling with Met Council is on doing something like that. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 11, 2000 Page 3 Mr. McElveen stated all of Dakota County, through their Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and as 11 cities, got together and created a Dakota County Cluster and negotiated Livable Communities goals based upon that cluster approach and county-wide goals. An example is the 1-3Sw corridor that has seven cities joint-powered to try to develop a seven-city comprehensive plan. There was some discussion of how Rosemount handled their land use plan. Ken Orttel mentioned that we stay on track and asked what exactly does Met Council want the City to do. They stated that on the density issue, the City is a little light. Do we want to tighten up our single family district, or do we want to add some multi-attached housing? He would suggest multi-attached housing because he thinks there will be a market for it. There has to be an element of multi-housing. Councilmember Orttel asked if the plan will ever be approved without it. Ms. Steffen responded that they have not approved a plan without it to date. Met Council stated they are talking about life-cycle housing for the future and would like the City to provide the opportunity for that to happen. There was discussion as to what the City has already. There are houses for $139,000, but they are older homes. The Met Council would like the City to negotiate more multiple and lower cost housing. They would like the City to join the LCA so they can help us achieve that. The issue here is how to work together on the Comp Plan Site to get some land that is guided and zoned for attached housing and would like to work on achieving some affordability in the developments that are to come. It was questioned as to what is considered Multi-family. Met Council stated it mainly relates to density. Ms. Steffen asked Dave Carlberg, Community Development Director, if the City has any idea where they want to go or what they want to do with the benchmarks presented at a previous meeting. Mr. Carlberg stated that they have not had the opportunity to discuss the benchmarks with the City Council. Ms. Steffen questioned the City's goal or benchmark for single-family ownership and rental. Mr. Carlberg noted it is set at 69-78% in the benchmark and the goal that is being looked at is 50% for new construction in which townhomes were considered in the development. That is how it got down to 50%. Councilmember Orttel didn't realized it was only for new construction. He understood it included past construction. He stated if we need to have a benchmark, let's establish one, but let's back it up and have it somewhere cemented so that we do not go through this again and ignore it. Councilmember Knight stated the City probably has more percentage peat and wetland, much of which is in the tail-end of the MUSA. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 11, 2000 Page 4 Mr. McElveen indicated the Met Council seeks an overall density of 1 unit per lOin permanent rural areas, 1 in 40 in urban reserve areas and 1 in 3 in urban areas. In the plan, as they understand it today, Andover is at 1 per 3.2. In the plan policies there seems to be a disconnect between the realities of what the land is, the policy of the plan, and the expectations of the blueprint. In the land that is defined as permanent rural, a quick calculation comes up with a density that is riot consistent with the Comp Plan Policy. As they have looked at the City's urban reserve today, it seems that it is at 1 per 3.2. They do not see the "ghost platting" and clustering. At this point, Dave Carlberg stated the City Council needs to set rules, and Met Council needs to work together with staff regarding density for Planned Unit Developments, There was discussion concerning the existing land. Met Council explained the existing land use doesn't count for or against the City. They are looking for what the anticipated development is. To clarify some of what the confusion is at Met Council level concerning environmental limitations, there are 976 units that they see in the plan that are oriented to the areas defined as permanent rural or urban reserve. As they look at the numbers and area, they have a hard time looking at the land that is left and understanding how approximately 1000 units could be accommodated in this area and still achieve the policies that we use as measures. They use the "Systems Test". Will it be serviceable? What will the impact be on a regional basis? Further discussion was on why this seems like a Soviet style of management -- going by "collective rules". How does this help the City with urban sprawl, also known as "smart growth"? It seems like an absolute contradiction, especially at the outer extension of the MUSA. Dick Thompson responded that over the next 20 years and beyond, there will be another 500,000 moving into the metropolitan region and it's there challenge to find an orderly and efficient way to accommodate the growth in the region and recognize their limitations. They have a responsibility to use the taxpayers money wisely when making investments and systems. There will be a need for mobility options for seniors. ,That is the most expensive type of public transportation that is provided. There must be areas logically located where trips can be consolidated to take seniors to medical appointments, recreational meetings, etc. By working together, we can collect the information and make some wise decisions. Ms, Steffen stated they could debate these issues, but first there is a need to set rules to play by here. What she thinks she heard from the City is that the City rea1ly needs to put school issues in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McElveen interceded stating benchmarks are a comparison to other Cities. The goal is affordable new construction and preserving affordable housing that we have already. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 11, 2000 Page 5 Met Council would like the City to get to 35% and see a push on attached housing (anything other than single family) in the future. As far as owner-renter mix, Andover is about 95% owned; the metro-region average is 70% owned-30% renter. The City's benchmark is 75% owned-25% renter. They also require the City to permit the opportunity for owner-renter mix. At this time, this region is short rental units. Developers do not look at affordable housing, but if we have some land that's guided for some attached, we may see a difference. A good size would be a 24 unit building. Councilmember Orttel asked what incentives Met Council can provide for developers to provide more affordable houses. Representatives from Met Council stated there are a number of subsidies available. Comments were made that transportation problems throughout the City should be factored into the goals that are set along with discussions on the type of soil conditions such as peat and much wetland, Met Council representatives agreed that those things should be factored in. The Mayor invited the Met Council to do a tour of the City sometime in the spring. The Council continued to talk about goals and benchmarks for each livable life-cycle housing categories. The following goals were negotiated as part of the discussion: CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordability , Ownership 72% 69-87% 40% Rental 26% 35-50% 35% Life:CycIe' Type (Non-single family 4% 33-35% 15% detached) Ownerfrenter Mix 95/5% (75)/(25)% 90/10% Density , Single-Family Detached I.O%/acre 1.9-2.3/acre 2.3 Net Acres Multi-family O/acre 10-13/acre 8 units Council expressed concern on setting a $135,000 limit as an affordable house, fearing if that amount would be frozen over time, the City would fall out of compliance with it's goals. Tom from the Met Council indicated that number is indexed with federal rates and as the federal rates change, so will those percentages for the City. Mike Knight asked if the City meets Comprehensive Plan goals, would we then be required to join Livable Communities. Natalie indicated that the City would not be required to join or participate in the Livable Communities Act. The question was presented as to how long it would take for the Met Council Staff to review the information provided by City Staff and get an answer so information could be shared with the School District. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February II, 2000 Page 6 Met Council's staff responded by indicating there would need to be discussions on sewer flow information along with transportation numbers. Mr. Carlberg indicated he would be unable to provide the amount of data that Staff is requiring in time for the School District to react. Tom indicated he would be able to use rough numbers on the data to make a decision. Councilmember Jacobson wanted to know if the City could re-negotiate after the school is built. Natalie indicated the numbers would have to be agreed to ahead of time. She further indicated that the benchmarks were greatly reduced through the negotiations. There were concluding discussions on the philosophical disposition of the City Council and the Livable Communities Act. Resident Julie Trude raised issues about the relationship between the Met Council and the school. Gene Ranieri indicated he would like to help with providing Met Council tours of the City. A motion was made by Don Jacobson, seconded by Julie Johnson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ¿?..x-~ Pat Janssen/Richard Fursman Recording Secretaries