Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 27, 2000 0 0 ~ 0.0 (.Ln_~l4 (~, CITY of ANDOVER U i Economic Development Authority Meeting- Thursday, July 27,2000 Call to Order-7:00PM Bookmark Name Approval of Minutes minutes Discussion Items 1. Public Hearing/Consider Sale of Lot 2, Block 1, Andover Commercial Park. commercial i 2. Discuss Redevelopment PlanIBunker Lake Blvd.!Crosstown Blvd.! U Leonard Parker & Associates. redevelop Other Business : Adjournment i (J I 0 ~·ÜJO Lu~ 0 CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 27, 2000 - MINUTES A Meeting of the Andover Economic Development Authority was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on July 27,2000, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Present: Councilmembers Don Jacobson, Julie Johnson, Ken Orttel; Resident members Bill Hupp and Robert Nowak Absent: Councilmember Mike Knight Also present: Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES ", July 5, 2000, EDA Meeting: Correct as written. U Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, approval of the Minutes. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Knight) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SALE OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER COMMERCIAL PARK Mr. Carlberg explained in reviewing the statutes on the sale of property by the EDA, Staff discovered the hearing notice published did not comply with the hearing notice requirements set out in Statute 469.105. The Statute requires that the terms of the agreement of the sale must be made available to the public. Two proposals were received. One was :&om Northwest Commercial LLC for $1.10 per square foot of buildable land for an office and warehouse. The other proposal was :&om AJE Companies, Inc., at a bid price of $1.00 per square foot of usable land for a building similar to the existing building on the southwest corner of Hanson Boulevard and Commercial Boulevard. The EDA wondered why the terms and conditions are needed in this instance. Mr. Carlberg explained the public hearing is for the sale of the land to ftnd out if it is in the best of the community to sell it. That is why the terms and conditions of that sale are needed. The hearing is not to receive bids. Those terms and conditions will be available at City Hall for anyone who is interested. There 0 should have been hearings on the other sales as well; however, the Attorney has advised the EDA does not have to go back and do so. Hearings will be held for all future sales. He suggested the EDA select a buyer and call for the public hearing on August 15,2000, at 6:30 p.m. ( " iJ ; \ \..J '- F '. Andover Economic Development Authority Meeting ",J Minutes - July 27, 2000 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Consider Sale of Lot 2, Block 1, Andover Commercial Park, Continued) Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Hupp, to direct the Attorney to negotiate and prepare documents for Northwest Commercial LLC, 1129 140th Lane NW, as outlined in their letter of 29th of June (for the sale of Lot 2, Block 1, Andover Commercial Park). Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Knight) vote. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, to set the public hearing for August 15 at 6:30 p.m. (Resolution EDA 009-00) Motion carried on a 6- Yes, I-Absent (Knight) vote. DISCUSS REDEVELOPMENT PLANIBUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD AND CROSSTOWN BOULEV ARD/LEONARD PARKER AND ASSOCIATES Sara Weiner and David Hyde represented The Leonard Park Associates. Mr. Hyde reviewed two concepts for the redevelopment of property north of Bunker Lake Boulevard between Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive. Option I proposed a through road with a traffic circle in the middle / \ and a road coming up off Bunker Lake Boulevard to that circle. The two housing types proposed are \__~ townhouses and double loaded condominium style apartment facilities. The higher densities would be more toward Bunker Lake Boulevard to insulate the smaller residential development which would be toward the north and west. The double loaded condominium apartments would have underground parking or tuck-under parking to reduce the effect of large garages on the front and minimize the amount of parking needed. Several cluster òfhousing units would come off the main roadway. The clusters provide a sense of community and ownership. The density would be 10 to 12 units per acre based on total acreage. That density can be lowered and will be determined by the number of accessible units, two-story town homes with tuck-under garages and double level apartments. Mr. Hyde then reviewed Option II, which was similar with the traffic circle toward the east and commercial in the southeast corner. The higher density of the double loaded condominium apartments would surround the commercial area. An option may also be to have commercial below with apartments on top or two-story commercial buildings on the corner. Neither option included commercial in the southwest corner where the Mobile station is currently located; however, he felt there was flexibility so that business could either remain or be redeveloped into housing. Both options bring the wetlands down into the housing development with parks or natural green way concepts where both playgrounds and trails would be provided. Comments from the EDA were that this area seems like an ideal place for higher density housing; however, there was a concern with the amount of density. It was noted the proposal is a greater density than The Farmstead, and that many outstate towns have a population equal to what is being \. J ~roposed on this site alone. The additional 1 ,000 people .will also. affect the region outside this a~ea , In terms of traffic, schools, etc. It was noted that the ordInance WIll be changed shortly to determIne density on usable land only, not total acreage. It was thought the intent had been to have some 10- to 12-units per acre with 4- to 6-units per acre around that. () '~.J / ~ , "\ Andover Economic Development Authority Meeting '-- ) Minutes - July 27, 2000 Page 3 (Discuss Redevelopment Plan/Bunker Lake and Crosstown Boulevards/Leonard Parker & Associates, Continued) The preference of the majority of the EDA members was with the Option II concept with the highest density along Bunker Lake Boulevard and on the east end along Crosstown Boulevard. The rest would be lower density with a variety of housing types, possibly with more one-level units. They also wanted lower density housing along the west side which abuts existing neighborhoods. There was some concern with the tuck-under garages. They would need to be enclosed garages. Because of the existing commercial areas on the southwest corner of this area and south and east along Bunker Lake Boulevard, some questioned the need for another commercial area in this project. Traffic flow for commercial is also a concern on that corner. The preference was to be flexible to possibly develop the proposed commercial area into high density housing. It was also felt that it may be better to have low density housing in the area of the existing Mobile Station. Possibly they would want to trade locations and move to the southeast corner of this area. For now, that area is to be left flexible for either commercial or low-density housing. There was a concern with the location of the main road at its intersection with Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg stated he will work with Mr. Hyde on the wetland issues along Crosstown Boulevard to determine the best location for an access / , on the east side. EDA members also suggested footpaths be provided into the wetland areas and \ , ) possibly some benches and tables be added to allow people to enjoy the wetland areas. The EDA was perplexed by the redevelopment process itself, noting it may be 5 to 10 years before the funds are available to do this. It was noted that relocation costs can be as much as the purchase of the property itself. Mr. Carlberg stated more research is needed on the procedures for this type of redevelopment. Mr. Hyde pointed out the through street would begin at the same location as the existing road along Crosstown Drive. He also felt the proposal by Mr. Harris to develop two four-plexes on that corner would be compatible with the concept. Mr. Harris was present and explained his proposal is to build two four-unit buildings facing the existing side street, not Crosstown Drive. He is just hours away from being able to go ahead with that project and would like to proceed. He also noted that tuck-under garages or basement garages appeal to the elderly but not to young families. The EDA generally agreed the proposal would be compatible with the concept presented this evening; however, there is a moratorium in place on multi-family development. That issue will need to be considered by the City Council. The architecture of those units would be a key issue because they would set the tone for the entire area. It was suggested Mr. Harris work with Mr. Carlberg on how to proceed. Mr. Carlberg stated he will work with the consultants on defining the wetlands and determining the '\ access to Crosstown Boulevard, defining the areas of parking, architectural concepts, plus research , '- j the redevelopment process. ( '\ U U , Andover Economic Development Authority Meeting .I Minutes - July 27, 2000 Page 4 Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, I-Absent (Knight) vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '-~~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary ) \ ) '-/