Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP October 2, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 1980 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on October 2, 1930, 7:40 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of discussing the Review of the Comprehensive Plan, several engineering matters, and assessment methods for the Northwest Area street improvement project. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; and City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Also present: Metropolitan Council Representative Carl Schenk; P1~nning and Zoning Chairman d'Arcy Bosell; Planning and Zoning Commissioners Apel, Johnson, Anstett, Kishe1, and Lobb; and Andover resident Peter Rauen. Mr. Schenk presented copies of his memorandum dated October 2, 1980, which summarized the specific information the Metropolitan Council is requesting from the City regarding the Comprehensive Development Plan. He then reviewed and discussed each of the items with those present as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan Content: Mr. Schenk stated that a statement in a cover letter from the City indicating the plan is for 1990 would be sufficient. 2. Public Facilities: Mr. Schenk reviewed the steps the City can take to satisfy the requirement of describing and designating areas not suitable within the City for public or private systems. It was agreed that the City would reference the overlay maps in the plan which shows the severe soils limitations within the City, noting that the City's requirements for issuance of building permits are more restrictive than those of WPC-40. 3. Implementation, a: Mr. Schenk stated he cannot legally ask for copies of the City's ordinances; however, such copies can be submitted if the City desires. It was agreed to submit a copy of the City's on-site septic ordinance to show the existing controls for private sewer systems. 3. Implementation, b: Mr. Schenk stated that the City's plan is to allow for an overall gross density of one per five acres. They need to know what regulations the City does or will have and the standards. If the City doesn't have a wetlands ordinance, the Metro Council can provide copies of a model ordinance. It was agreed that City ordinances already require that 39,000 square feet be suitable for building before a building permit will be issued. A copy of Ordinance 8, along with the Flood Plain Oridnance which has recently been adopted, will be provided to the Metro Council. Mr. Schenk also agreed to provide the City with a copy of the wetlands model ordinance. 3. Imp 1ementat i on, c: Mr. Schenk stated that a statement of intent in a cover letter noting the approximate time the City plans to adopt the plan, whether it be 6, 7, or however many months the City feels it will be following completion of the Metropolitan Council's review to implement the plan, will meet this requirement. Andover Council noted that unless there are some material changes made in the plan, it is the City's intent to adopt it as soon as possible following Metro Council's review. The process of selecting a firm to update the ordinances has already begun. 4. Hanson Boulevard Extension: Andover Council noted that the alternative for extending Hanson Boulevard as shown On Page 96 in the green covered Comprehensive Plan is the one that is supported by both the City and the County. Mr. Schenk stated it would be sufficient to note that in the City's cover letter. Special City Council Meeting October 2, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (Metropolitan Council Review of Comprehensive Plan, Continued) There was then a short discussion with Mr. Schenk noting that the Council and the Planning Commission worked together on the plan, so unless there are some drastic changes, the plan is basically approved by the City; and explaining the physical development within the community as to the limitations for development:due to the lowlands, agricultural lands, etc. Mr. Schenk also explained that all the information they need can be submitted in a cover letter along with the additional explanations or copies of the ordinances, which will go in the file as part of the plan submission. Nothing additional needs to be done with the plan itself at this time. Recess at 8:08; reconvene at 8:16 p.m. DIRT IN HARTFIEL'S AND NORTHWOODS PARK Mayor Windschitl explained that the fill that was mistakenly placed on private property in Hartfiel's has been leveled by the owner and there are piles of black dirt next to it, apparently to place over the fill. So the City has the potential of loosing the 95 loads of Class 5 placed in there. Discussion was that Mr. Winner has not been able to contact the owner of the lot to tell him the City will be removing that grave1;the legal exposure to the City at this time; that it has not been determined whether TKDA or the contractor errored by placing the fill on private property; that the fill is sand with rock mixed in; questioning if it wouldn't be better to move it over to the park site 200 to 300 feet away rather than to haul it to Prairie Road as was previously agreed to. It was agreed to contact TKDA, asking them to have the fill moved over to Hartfiel's Park where it was supposed to have been placed in the first place, letting them know that there will be some legal problems if it doesn't get done soon. Discussion was also on the fill that was placed in the Northwoods park; that the Public Works Department wants to use the excess fill for road maintenance; that a lot more fill was put in the park than was needed; and that the contractor has not yet leveled the fill nor taken out the concrete chunks and other debris that is in the fill because Mr. Winner has been waiting for the City to finish taking what it wants first. It was agreed to have the contractor remove the debris from the fill, level off the park, dress it up, and to pile the excess dirt at one end, and that Public Works will remove the excess dirt as soon as possible, possibly stockpiling it e1sehwere. Discussion was also on the area between the City Hall and the Public Services Building. It was agreed to have Mr. Winner ask Burton Kraabe1 for an estimate to level off that area between the two buildings and from the area of the northeast corner of the Public Services Building south to the highway. Mr. Winner was also directed to check into a solution for the drainage problem in front of the Fire Station as well. ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR NORTHWEST AREA STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Council had a very lengthy discussion on various different assessment methods in the 1980-4 Improvement in an attempt to assess the large lots and small lots on an equitable basis. It was noted that 200 feet of the City's park has been excluded from the assessment because the drainage areas have been excluded; that there are 17 lots along 174th that are not being assessed because they are lunbui1dab1e", which amounts to 1700 feet of frontage; that there is a problem with that because six of those lots are owned by adjacent property owners with some being used for garage, accessory building, drain- field, etc.; that 11 of those lunbuidab1e" lots are owned by Mayban, Inc., questioning which ones, if any, have been tax forfeited; that it is the Attorney's opinion that if Special City Council Meeting October 2, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (Assessment Methods for NW Area, Continued) the lots are assessed, they are buildable; that those properties along 173rd have 200 to 300 feet of frontage but there are 9 residences along 173rd compared to 11 residences on 174th. Discussion was also on various assessment methods suggested in an attempt to make a fair assessment for those large lots, for those "unbui1dab1e" lots. and for those people who have two adjoining 100-foot lots. A unit assessment and various degrees of unit assessing were discussed, as were different methods of front foot assessments including using minimum and maximum front footages, or assessing those "unbuildable" lots owned by adjacent property owners, or assessing all 17 "unbuildable" lots, or assessing them only a nominal amount, or using front footage assessment on the sourthern portion of the project and a unit assessment on 173rd and 174th, etc. It was noted that because of the time problem, any change that may be agreed to could not be done for this year but would have to be done at a supplemental assessment hearing either later this fall or after the project is completed. Discussion was also On the problems if the 17 "unbuildab1e" lots are assessed; that if the assessment is deferred, the City is liable for the payment~.on how two adjoining platted lots are legally combined; feeling that those six "unbuildab1e" lots owned by adjacent property owners should be assessed at this time as the property is providing a benefit for the owner and is receiving a benefit from the street improvement. It was calculated that 20,977 feet in the project divided into $365,222, the total project cost, equals $17.41, which would be the adjusted front 'foot assessment if all the "unbui1dable" lots are assessed. This compares to $18.95 currently being assessed. There was also a suggestion to increase the park front footage assessment to actual frontage, which could either be applied as a credit for the parcels with 200 to 300 feet of frontage or to be used to decrease the front foot assessment over the entire project. Discussion was on the City's exposure if 11 of the "unbui 1dab1e" lots are assessed at this time, speculating that adjoining property owners may want to purchase these lots in the future to be used for auxiliary buildings or to be used if their sewer systems need replacing; questioning if any attempt to maximize the front footage assessment would be setting a precident for other areas of the City where all frontages in a develOP~~~ès~~H~d be around 300 feet, with some preferring to reduce the front footage cost by he "unbuildable" lots On 174th. It was also suggested and generally agreed to that the 11 "unbui 1dable" lots not owned by adjacent property owners not be assessed until such time as the ownership changed. It was cautioned, however, that there may be some liability on the part of the City in the event those lots become tax forfeit. Those "unbui 1dab1e" lots owned by adjacent property owners at this time would be assessed at this time, rationalizing that the same benefit is received for those two 100-foot lots as it is for those who have one 200-foot lot on another street. Another suggestion was to increase the assessment to actual park frontage, which could then be used to offset the assessments on the large lots. Large lots would be assessed for a maximum front foot, the number to be mathematically figured, guestimating it to be around 250 feet. Or use the maximum frontage with the costs to be absorbed as an increased front foot cost by the entire project. No definite decisions were made on the matter. The assessment hearing for this project will be held on Tuesday, October 7. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ~espectfu:1~ submitted,;._ _/' L ~~0C~"- (0 c¿(c_ Mar 11a A. Peach; Recording Secretary