Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 24, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 24, 1981 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Solid Waste Resolution Commissioner Fields and Ralph McGinley, County Administrator, will be present to discuss the pro's and con's of locating a landfill in Bunker Park. Mayor Windschitl and Mark Schumacher attended the public hearing reo this matter. The resolution adopted by the Council on August 18 was not presented inasmuch as it was felt by our people that perhaps the rest of the Council should have all the facts before making a decision. The hearing records are open until Wednesday, so any decision made tonight can still be entered. 3. Community Development Black Grant Project 4. HUD Grant Resolutions 5. Trunk Charge Resolution 6. Ordinance No. 8 Amendment-Mixed Uses 7. Comprehensive Development Plan/Authorization Attached is a memo covering the meeting at Metro Council on August 21. Authorization will be needed for Mark Schumacher to work with the Staff in preparing new schedules for land use and population. 8. 1981-2/Staking and Inspections to Completion. 9. Payment of Claims 10. Adjournment --- " --, -,- -~- J ~ 01 ANDOVER CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 24, 19S1 MINUTES The Continued Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on August 24, 1981 , 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach Councilman absent: Ortte1 Also present: TKDA Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Staff Engineer, Larry Winner; and City Clerk, P.K. Lindquist SOLID WASTE RESOLUTION County Commissioner Ed Fields and County Administrator Ralph McGinley were present to discuss the location of a landfill in the Bunker Park area. Commissioner Fields explained that originally the engineering firm had chosen three sites in Andover to which he objected. The idea was then presented to select the site in the Bunker Hills area because the County owns some land. He stated that if the City of Andover unanimously says that it is definitely opposed to that site, he will do everything he can to prevent it; but he didn't know whether or not he would be successful. The water question raised will definitely have to be resolved. The County no longer has to provide a hazardous waste site, but a site is still being recommended in Burns Township as a sewage ash site. He explained that the County still has to have five sites on the inventory, not knowing what will happen if the Bunker Park site is turned down by the PCA. He stated he did not understand the rationale behind the choices made by the engineering firm, but the firm is no longer on retainer with the County to be able to answer some of the, questions raised about those choices. Mr. McGinley then addressed the Council relative to the legislative mandate to the County, the County staff's recommendations, and the reasons for wanting to keep the inventory list in tact. He reviewed the process required under the Waste Management Act of 1980, requiring each county to submit a list of five sites to the PCA by June 15, 1981. The next process is the PCA's determination of intrinsic suitability of each site as to whether the site meets the environmental or engineering standards for possibility of permitting a landfill. The next decision point will be January 1, 1983, when the Metropolitan Council gives each county a capacity decision, and the counties have until July 1, 1983, to make a determination as to which sites from their inventories will actually be implemented. Implementation must begin by September 1, 1983. He predicted in the future there should be a slower rate of disposal in the landfill method because of the other methods of disposal being explored and implemented. Mr. McGinley explained there were a number of trade-offs made in finally submitting an inventory list to the Metropolitan Council, but the basic concerns are environmental and development opportunities of the landfill. From his perspective, the Bunker Prairie site is clearly the most palpable from any of the others in Andover and does afford the City some very real opportunities. He stated emphatically that the County Board is firmly committed to the satisfaction of all the environmental considerations from an engineering perspective prior to the implementation of any landfill. He explained that the state of the art in landfills is a radically different approach than what the City has been experiencing with the existing landfill, in that the "second generation" landfills involve leachate collection systems built into the design of the landfill, liners and barriers disallowing any drainage into the soil, and an extensive and highly sophisticated monitoring system. Such landfills have not yet been installed in Minnesota, but there are a lot of them around the country, noting the one they have visited in Calumette, IL. -. '" --< Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Solid Waste Resolution, Continued) The point on the Bunker Hills site at this point is that the County does not yet know whether it can be environmentally safe, feeling the PCA staff was using extrapolated data. The County's engineers feel that by making engineering concessions, a landfill can be built in that area safet1y. They have not yet had a chance to do the dri11ings required; but if the data proves that it is not possible, Mr. McGinley assured the Council that the County Board would not be in a position to implement a landfill on that site. Mr. McGinley then discussed the developmental opportunities of a landfill on that site, the possibility of a commercial methane gas extraction program and the post closure development opportunities. He explained that the County is currently involved in a feasibility study for the possibility of a commercial methane gas extraction for the current Ramsey landfill. The study will be completed within the next 12 to 13 weeks and will determine whether commercial extraction of the gas is feasible from an economic perspective. Such extraction exists at 11 sites around the country and is being developed in 42 other sites. He explained the technology involved and use of the gas, that the most economical opportunities appear to be in the natural gas pipeline area or in the area of generation of electricity, and provided information of gross income generated at the other sites. The County has been approached by three separate operators of gas extraction systems who would like an opportunity to bid on the gas extraction system if it is deemed feasible at the Ramsey landfill. When getting to that point, Mr. McGinley felt that the County would be interested in talking to the municipalities about some type of split in terms of the revenues generated from the royalties of the gas extraction to provide municipal incentives for sanitary landfills. Mr. McGinley also felt that methane gas extraction is a very real possibility at the Bunker Hills site because of the natural gas pipeline no more than 50 yards from the fill area, which increases the value of that gas drastically. Mr. McGinley also showed a conceptual recreational plan upon termination of the landfill with ski slope, toboggan run, etc.; that the total landfill site would be 150 acres with 110 acres being filled. There are significant buffers from Bunker Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard, the property is basically public property which would not be taken off the City's tax rolls, and it provides an opportunity to run gas lines to the County maintenance facility there. Mr. McGinley concluded that the staff interest is not to ask the City not to oppose landfills but to ask the City to hold the Resolution in abeyance until such time as the County has ample opportunity to fully determine whether the PCA comments are appropriate, as at this point in time the County's engineers indicate they are not. If it should be proved that this site is not environmentally acceptable, he guaranteed that the County Board will be in no position to develop it. They feel the site affords some real opportunities to the City of Andover immediately in terms of revenue producing of gas generated and in the long run without taking property off the tax rolls. Council discussion with Mr. McGinley and Commissioner Fields was on the suggestion of a municipality with a landfill imposing a tonnage charge to the landfill for all refuse being brought into that landfill; that if the Bunker Hills site were chosen, it is probable that the County would remain the owners but the operation would be contracted out; that the actual design of a landfill at the Bunker Hills site has not been pursued; that 60 to 80 feet of fill is ideal for methane gas extraction; that the methane gas became a problem at the Ramsey landfill when it was capped and the gas started to migrate laterally; that methane gas is generated within six months of fill; and that Anoka County has not pursued the matter of asking to be excluded from selecting landfill sites because of the high water conditions in the County. .. - -., Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Solid Waste Resolution, Continued) Commissioner Fields speculated that if a site had to be picked tOday, it could be the East Bethel site because of the size and accessibility to a major highway. Council- man Lachinski felt that landfills should be placed far enough from people so it can't cause a problem, not understanding how this particular site has now become a favored choice by County Staff. He also didn't feel the City had any method of assuring that all the developmental opportunities really happen and felt it is logical the City should be opposed to it. Mayor Windschit1 had trouble with the entire selection process by the engineering firm, questioning how it was done. He was also concerned about the water conditions, as the EPA wells seemed to verify that water movement is to the north toward the creek, which would involve the fairly large populated area between this proposed site and the creek. Mr. McGinley stated that there were three separate processes and three different sets of criteria used for selecting hazardous waste, ash, and sanitary landfill sites. Councilman Peach indicated that he felt the County has an obligation to take care of its own refuse; but the feeling is that the City already has a landfill, there has been a lot of trouble with it, that we have about the only legal hazardous waste site in the State in which nothing is being done right now, and there is the Heidelberger area problem. He felt the City is being asked to handle more than its share of :the load by placing another landfill in the City. Mr. McGinley also explained that a demolition landfill contains rocks, concrete, etc., nothing organic, from which there would be no methane gas generated. Mr. Schumacher also explained that the PCA has specific requirements for demolition landfills, and that the County is very strict relative to permitting such landfills. Mr. McGinley also explained that the County staff will be submitting to the County Board for their consideration documents in the form of testimony from Anoka County relative to the specific concerns of the PCA, focusing on keeping the inventory list in tact, relating specifically to sites P & Q. Testimony will be that the County does not have all the data necessary for determining the relation of the ground water at the Bunker site and disagreeing with the PCA rulings on the Ramsey site. It is the staff's position that given the fact that a decision does not have to be made for another two years, they would not replace one or both of those sites on the inventory list. He also stated that if the two sites in question are dropped from the inventory, the County would be out of compliance and has 30 days in which other sites would be put back on. If a county does not satisfactorily meeL the requirements of the law, the Metropolitan Council does have the unilateral authority to come in and pick a site. He also noted that neither the County nor the City can control waste coming in from other counties; that the County will continue to receive waste from other counties; and that the capacity question for Anoka County will be determined by the Metropolitan Council who does have an opportunity to channel the waste stream. Councilman Jacobson stated he personally had no problem with a demolition landfill in the Bunker Park area, not seeing any significant problems occuring with such a landfill. He asked what costs would be incurred by the City. But he also stated he would be opposed to a sanitary landfill at the Bunker Hills site. Mr. McGinley stated there would be no costs in terms of dollar costs, as it would be developed by the owner in conjunction with the operator; however, there would be a social cost to the City, and the City could be expected to be reimbursed for that. He also felt that the City could look at the ability to levy a tax on garbage being disposed of in the City or could look to the County Board now asking for assurance that the City gets paid for municipal incentive for having a landfill in the community. The City of Ramsey is doing just that. Because the existing landfill in Andover is privately operated, the County has no opportunity to cut the City in on the deal. The new landfill is proposed to be publica11y operated. Commissioner Fields stated he would support conditions in an operating contract whereby city residents would be provided free dumping privileges. Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Solid Waste Resolution, Continued) After further discussion, Council felt a reasonable compromise would be to oppose a sanitary landfill at the Bunker Hills site and to take no position on a demolition landfill at this time until the effects of such a landfill are known. A Resolution was approved later in the meeting. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT Mr. McGinley stated that the monies are now available to the municipalities with an approved plan. He understood that Andover's plan is as good as approved as long as the Andover City Council makes the final determination. He has not viewed the Heidelberger site area to look at what barrels are remaining and the contents of each. Mayor Windschit1 stated· that one consideration for the use of the funds was toward the hazardous waste pit at the Waste Disposal Engineering landfill. Mr. McGinley Suggested the City spend the funds in a ditferent direction that would be more attractive to the City, feeling the hazardous waste pit lS ciearly the responsibility of the State of Minnesota to deal with. He stated that it is not yet an eminent health hazard, but will be at some point in time. He hoped the State Legislature would listen to the County as they explain that the hazardous waste pit is the State's responsibility and should be disposed of with State funds. Discussion was on the types of projects that would be acceptable, that they must be directed toward the use for the low-income, and that the City should also be thinking about the next year's funds as well. It was agreed to have the Clerk ask for a list of what other cities in the County are doing with their CDBG funds for some ideas. with the item to be discussed again at the September 1, 1981, Regular Council Meeting. Recess at 8:52; reconvene at 9:00 p.m. SOLID WASTE RESOLUTION MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution declaring the City of Andover's position for the installation of a solid waste landfill within the City limits; Resolution R65-81; as presented by the City Clerk with the change on Paragraph 5 from Solid Waste to Sanitary; date change to August 24. Motion carried unanimously. HUD GRANT RESOLUTIONS ---- The Clerk reported that the program would have no effect on the CDBG funds and would not cost the City anything. The City would be directing calls for assistance to the Metropolitan Council. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Council to apply for housing assistance funds for implementation with the City of Andover. (See Resolution R66-81) Motion carried unanimously. MaT10N by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution authorizing the Metropolitan Council to implement Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation Program, with the City of Andover. (See Resolution R67-81) Motion carried unanimously. TRUNK CHARGE RESOLUTION Discussion was mainly a review of the consensus reached at the Special Meeting of August 11, 1981, relative to the trunk charge resolution. Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Minutes' Page 5 (Trunk Charge Resolution, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, entering a Resolution establishing trunk sewer ãSsëSsments and connection charges and setting pOlicy for regulation and disbursement of the same, as presented by staff on the meeting of 8/18/81 as Agenda Item 5m. (See Resolution R68-81) (Councilman Peach responded to a fire at 9:18 p.m.) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. ORD I NANCE NO. 8A -AMENDMENT /MQEQ... USES Planning Commission Chairman d'Arcy Bosel1 explained that the Commission felt they could look at each individual request and deal with it. She also explained the ~"problems that have been occurring, the animosity expressed by some Commissioners toward the Council, and that none of the Commissioners had spent any time on this item prior to their meeting. She felt she could probably work with the ordinance on the mixed uses issue, but also thought that some changes could be made as well. Discussion was that the difficulty is in existing neighborhoods as to what criteria should be used for the granting of or limiting the number of multiple homes; that the City's first concern should be to the existing residents; that possibly a larger lot size should be required for multiple dwellings; that possibly the single-family and multiple dwelling issue should be addressed at the time a plat comes in; and that possibly multiple dwellings should not be allowed in existing neighborhoods. It was generally agreed that,mu1tip1e dwellings would not be an allowable use by special use permits. It would then come unoer the variance procedure, notlng the sections of the ordinance that must be amended to accomplish that. Multiples would also be shown on new plats under a rezoning or PUD. Mayor Windschit1 suggested directing the City ClerK to prepare the necessary language to remove multiple housing from Ordinance 8, Section 7.03, Special Uses. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, to so move. VOTE ON MuTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. The item will be on the September 1, 1981, Council Agenda. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/AUTHORIZATION The Clerk stated TKDA has estimated around $500 to prepare the new schedules for land use and population, and there is grant money for this. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the firm of TKDA and City Staff to work with the Metropolitan Council in the preparation of new schedules for land use and population figures for the City of Andover. DISCUSSION: was that the Metro Council is concerned with the capacity at Pigs tye to the year 1990, and that they have now agreed that to insure that the City does not go over its capacity, they will allow the City to reduce the density figures. The density figures in the Com- prehensive Plan now show 8 to 10 units per acre for high density in the City; but the highest density development in the City to date has been less than three units per acre. Chairman Bose11 also noted that there are requests by property owners to put land into agricultural preserve, some of which is located within the urban service area, that entire program having yet to be addressed by the Council. That would also potentially reduce the developable land in the MUSA boundaries. So by changing the density portion of theP1an to make it more appropriate to what is happening in the City and dealing with .. . ---, '., Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Mi nutes Page 6 (Comprehensive Ueve10pment Plan/Authorization, Continued) the Ag Preservation issue, it would have the same effect as reducing the actual land boundary of the MUSA area. It was also recommended that Mr. Schumacher talk with Councilman Ortte1 about this matter. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. 1981-2/STAKING AND INSPECTIONS TO COMPLETION Councilman Lachinski stated he disagrees with what has been done with the staff engineer, and the only reason he is going along with the selection of an engineering firm to complete the project is because the project has to be completed. The Clerk noted that carrying the project over to next year would mean an approximately $500 to $700 increase per unit because of capitalized interest. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the engagement of the serVlces of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik to do staking and inspections on the 1981-2 project at a not to exceed cost of $6,500. VOTE ON MOTlON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Windschit1; ABSENT-Peach Motion carried. PARK COMMISSION/KELSEY PARK GRANT APPLICATION Park and Recreation Commission Chairman Bill LeFebvre stated he has talked with the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander1ik relative to a cost for completing the final grant application, but they did not know how long it would take to do it and stated the cost would be on the normal hourly rate. He did not get a cost from TKDA. Discussion was on the exact location of the property to be purchased with any grant monies that may be received. The Mayor stated he has just purchased the 40 acres to the west of LakeRidge because he thought that land was no longer being considered for the regional park. However, discussion was that that particular 40 is the one still included in the grant application process. That being the case, the Mayor stated he would not participate in the discussion nor vote on the issue. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, authorizing $500 to the firm of TKDA to assist the Park Board in the grant application for the Kelsey Park land acquisition, to come out of park funds. DISCUSSION: If more funds are needed, the item should be brought back to the Council. Discussion was on speculation as to how much land could be purchased if $11,000 were received in grant funds and the City matching that amount and on the terrain of the land in question. A suggestion was made that Community Development Block Grant funds may be considered for further land acquisition for this park. (Councilman Peach returned to the meeting. 10:02 p.m.) VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach; ABSTAIN-Windschit1, as he owns the property in question. Motion carried. Chairman LeFebvre also asked direction relative to the request for a donation to the Anoka Ice Arena. He stated that the Park Board has tabled the item pending research - as to what Blaine is planning to do, since most of Andover would be served by an arena in the Blaine area. Council cautioned that funds are limited, that relatively few people in Andover will be serviced by the Anoka Ice Arena, but that the Council will consider whatever recommendation the Park Board makes. ..' Continued City Council Meeting August 24, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Council agreed to return the epoxy coating material for the pumphouse to Johnson Engineering since the material has not yet been used. And it was the Council's intent that public works purchase the epoxy material for the least cost and do the work. MOTION bii Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve 4242 through 4261 in the amount ot $14, 81.¿0. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, approval of Check 502 to TKDA for $14,129.40; Check Number 504 to Anoka Countylrreasurer for $150,750; Check Number 505 to Burke & Hawkins for $197; Check Number 506 to 1st National Bank of St. Paul for $708.64; Check Number 507 to The State Bank for $5,485.50; and delete check Number 499 to Johnson Engineering in the amount of $221.70; for a total of $171,270.54. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to adj ourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \{\ ~--~ ~~k·~ Marce a A. Peach Recording Secretary .. . ... f'·