HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP February 9, 1981
·
~ 01 ANDOVER
S~ECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 9, 1981
MINUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council, along with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on February 9, 1981,
7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
P & Z Commissioners present: Chairman d'Arcy Bose11, Pat Anstett, Ralph Kishe1,
George Lobb, and John Scherer
Also present: Metropolitan Council Staff, Barbara Moeller and Pat Pahl;
MWCC Representative, Donald Blum; Northwest Associated
Consultant Representative, A1 Brixuis; TKOA Engineer, Mark
Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; and City Clerk,
P. K. Lindquist
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we adopt the Agenda as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
JOINT MEETING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Discussion was on the Metropolitan Council Staff's review of the Andover Comprehensive
Plan, letter and documents of January 29, 1981, to Patricia Lindquist from Barbara
Moeller, Environmental Planner.
Page 17 of the Review, Second paragraph: Chairman Bosel1 stated the last four lines
of the paragraph are incorrect, because the City has just included a requirement for
garages in the zoning ordinance, Ordinance 8, Section 6.02.
Page 18, B. 2. Sewers: Ms. Moeller explained they are citing an inconsistency between
the sewer policy and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan showed the MUSA area divided
between three sewer services: Coon Rapids Interceptor, CAB Interceptor, and Other
Interceptor which is not specified within the Plan. And the sewer policy only staged
sewer service in the Coon Rapids sewer district. They are asking for a better definition
of when the City expects to need sewer service in the CAB Interceptor district, a clear
statement if it is going to be needed before 1990. And if it is, some document at i on is
required. Also, a time table of construction within that District. Mr. Schumacher
stated there has never been a projection of construction or sizing of the sewer in the
CAB area because no definite flow level has been set, allotment made, or time frame
for construction of that Interceptor established.
Mr. Blum explained that the MWCC is asking the City's projection on how long the City
will have sufficient land available within the Coon Rapids Interceptor area to provide
for its needs before it is necessary to open up the CAB area. At that point it would be
timely for them to construct the facility to meet the City's needs. They wi 11 need
three to five years lead time before construction of the facilities. They are presently
proposing construction of the CAB Interceptor on the west side of the Rum River to
provide service to western Anoka and Ramsey. To make the investment to provide service
to Andover will depend on Andover's needs. Mayor Windschit1 stated that the City's
best estimate of when the CAB will be needed is not before the year 1985, and he felt
the Plan could reflect between the years 1985 and 1990.
Discussion was on the City's problem of not allowing development in the CAB area until
the sewer is available, and the MWCC's position of not constructing the facility until
there is a need for it, and the coordination of each. Ms. Moeller suggested if the
-
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Comprehensive Plan, Continued)
facility is expected before the year 1990, they would like to see some timing and
staging, estimate of trunk sewer lines, etc. Mr. Schumacher stated there would be
no problem showing the staging of the construction, but would not be able to show sizing
unless Andover's allotment to the CAB is known. Mr. Blum stated he would be able
to provide that information for Mr. Schumacher. It was agreed that Mr. Schumacher
will obtain the necessary information from Mr. Blum and provide the timing and staging
of the CAB Interceptor for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blum also stated that the
sizing is not critical at this point, but they would like to see a trunk sewer shown
and an indication on the line itself as to which year it would be anticipated to be
constructed.
Discussion was on the reference to the "other interceptor" on Page 63 of the Plan.
Mayor Windschitl explained that that reference should be made to the area lying to the
east of the MUSA area, which he thought was being referred to as the Ham Lake Interceptor.
There is enough capacity in the Coon Rapids Interceptor to service the whole eastern
urban service district. Mr. Schumacher also reviewed the City's dispute over the SAC
charge area in Andover. After discussion, it was agreed that the map on Page 63 needs
to be corrected, that the urban service area should be shown as being served by either
the CAB or the Coon Rapids Interceptor, with no classification of "Other Interceptor"
noted, since should that develop, it would be beyond the year 1990.
Mr. Blum stated they have asked that they have a table and design capacity versus the
ultimate needs for each drainage area of trunk sewer system, showing how the sizing of
those pipes are determined. Mr. Schumacher stated that that has all been done in the
1976 Sewer Plan design data and sizings. Mayor Windschitl stated that that needs to be
updated with the changes in the MUSA boundary made last year, and he felt that informa-
tion has already been done by TKDA. The present urban service area is basically
utilizing 100 percent capacity of the Coon Rapids Interceptor.
Mr. Blum also explained that the proposals for the Ham Lake Interceptor were scaled back
as indications were that it would not be needed by the year 2000, with the report
indicating no interceptor being constructed through Blaine at this time, in that the
service to the Blaine Interceptor should be a short extension of an interceptor up through
Mounds View to the southern boundary of Blaine. It is their understanding that Ham Lake
does not have a need for the facility, preferring to remain rural in nature.
Mr. Schumacher was asked to make the necessary calculations to determine if the present
MUSA area will utilize the total capacity of the Coon Rapids Interceptor and to provide
the sizing data for the Plan. Mr. Blum also stated that after the Planning process
has been completed by the Metro Council, it is their intent to change the sewer service
area to pull it into a more realistic area, adjusting the SAC charge areas. No policy
has been established as to whether or not SAC charges collected from areas which will
not be serviced will be refunded.
Page 18, B. 2. c.: On-Site System Ordinance: Ms. Moeller stated that the on-site
system does meet Council guidelines, but the Council doesn't have the authority to review
the Ord i n ance. They are looking for a brief summary of the ordinance within the Plan
itself. Mr. Schumacher was asked to write that summary for the Plan.
Discussion returned to the staging of the sewer line of the Coon Rapids Interceptor,
the City noting the thought of running the trunk line along with the construction of
the Hanson Boulevard Extension; and that the City has established the policy of small
lots in the urban service area because of the problems with subdivision of large lots
and the economics of running sewer lines past large lots. Mr. Blum stated that they
can control the connections to the facility based on the lateral connections to the trunks,
and to the extent that the City wants to build the trunk sewer now in a timely manner to
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Comprehensive Plan, Continued)
correlate with the roadway construction is no problem. Their basic concern is how
many connections the City is anticipating in the total connected sewer population by
1990, and it doesn't matter to any great extent where that development occurs within the
community's urban service area. Mr. Schumacher stated that there is a map within the
Plan that shows the proposed trunk construction and routing, stepping up the time
schedule on the constructions, and an update on the breakdown of sewer connections in
that same group of amendments, updating through 1990. Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Brixuis
are to supply the corrected map for Page 63 with the boundary adjustments in the urban
service area and showing the staged sewer construction of the Coon Rapids Interceptor
as we 11.
Page 19, 4. Airports: Ms. Moeller stated they are recommending that reference be made
to MNDot's Rule 14 in the Plan for air space obstructions. All communities must do
so, in that construction over 200 feet high must be reported to MNDot before a building
permit is issued. Mr. Brixuis agreed to make that reference.
Page 19, D. 1. a) Population and housing forecasts: Ms. Moeller explained they are
not making a statement agreeing with the City's population forecasts, and in the future
they will be reviewing their forecasts, taking into account the 1980 census, and making
new projections for the City. At this time, the City's projection for sewer population
is within Metro Council's estimate, and they have no problem with that. But they are
basically citing an inconsistency. Ms. Pahl stated that it also ties into the land use
in that they are recommending overall density based on one house per 10 acres rather
than a 2~-acre lot size. But their forecasts tend to be consistent with their estimated
land use. Council noted that the population projections have been an issue with the
Metro Council in the past; that basically there is only a small amount of area left
in the rural area for development as it is either already developed or is undevelopable
land; that the City's intent is that the majority of development will be in the urban
service area; that until now development has not occurred in the sewered area but now
the City is into sewer construction in open areas, so the "big boom" is just starting
in the City; that the City was one of the first areas to require large lots ten years
ago and that the average lot size is actually around 3~ acres; that even on the sma11er-
sized platted lots in the rural area, development is restricted to every other lot;
that the landfill and low peat-farm areas within the urban service district will not be
developed; and that the City would be receptive to placing restrictions on the develop-
ment of wetlands in the City, but noting that because of the 39,000-square-foot re-
quirement, it has been economically unfeasible to develop wetlands, citing the attempt
to do so recently by a developer in the northeastern portion of the City.
Ms. Moeller provided Mr. Schumacher with a copy of a model ordinance for protection of
the wetlands and requested that the City make a statement in the Plan as to what sort
of standard it would adopt on this issue. Discussion was on the problem of writing
standards when an ordinance has not yet been reviewed or adopted, with Ms. Moeller
stating she would talk with Carl Schank and have him contact Mr. Schumacher. Mr.
Schumacher was directed to write up a standard for wetland protection for the Council's
review at the next Council meeting.
Page 19, D. 1. b): Timing and staging of development within its area of planned
urbanization: Ms. Moeller explained the acreage within the MUSA exceeds what the Metro
Council estimates, in that it doesn't distinquish between vacant land and undevelopable
land. The table from the City indicates that the amount of land that the City perceives
as developing by 1990 is generally consistent with the Metro Council's estimate; however,
they need to see some timing and staging on the map. It now basically shows the whole
area as being developed by 1990 rather than showing specific areas which will be
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Comprehensive Plan, Continued)
developed -- to do a 1990 sub-urban service area. If development would then occur
outside that designated area, the City would have to come in with an amendment to the
Plan, trading that development for one which the City now designates.
There was a lengthy discussion on the issue with the City stating it is the intent to
show the sewer trunk lines completed by 1990; that the control of development would
then be through the connections; and that once the trunk lines are in, development could
occur anywhere along those lines, feeling it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
draw lines indicating where that development will occur by 1990. Mr. Moeller stated
that that is one of the things that needs to be done according to the Land Planning
Act, which requires that the communities designate a 1990 urban service area; and
presently the Andover MUSA area represents development through the year 2000 and beyond.
During the discussion that followed, the Council generally took the position of not
wanting to designate the 1990 urban service area, arguing that the City has zoned the
property in the urban service area for small-lot development; that the City is now
planning that the trunk line be available to avoid creation of adverse-type development
within the urban service area; that the MWCC has the control over the connections; noting
the many problems that would occur with having to receive Metro Council approval for
any development that would occur outside a designated 1990 urban service area, including
having the effect of promoting development in the rural area; questioning what metropolitan
systems impact there is for requiring the specific placement of development within the
urban 'service area, which is what the Land Planning Act is concerned with; that in
Andover the urban service area is just a band along the southern border of the City and
a lesser fraction of the City than the rural service area; that there would not be any
impact if development occurred in any of the urban service area up to the limit of the
city's project flow; that the 346 acres being projected as developing in the urban service
area by 1990 can already be accounted for by vacant land that already has access to
sewer service, referencing Good Value Homes.,and Carlson's property, which puts the City
in the position of then allowing only the two developers to develop in the City until
the year 1990 and which some Counci1members indicated they would not support;
questioning the legality of it; and also noting that the City's development area is
adjacent to the City of Anoka, a city which for all practical purposes is fully developed.
Mr. Blum then suggested that if enough trunk line is available to enough acreage to
provide for the needs as projected by the Metro Council through 1990, and if more trunk
line is then laid as is being proposed with the Hanson Boulevard Extension project,
at that point the City could possibly have more pipe in the ground than it can finance
to the extent of incoming population to pay for the line. Mr. Blum also noted that the
reason for the control over connections is to be able to adequately plan future inter-
ceptors in a timely fashion to meet the needs of development. Thè Metro Council has
'established what it feels as a sector's growtQ, and those projections have been fairly
accurate over the past 10 years. And until better figures can be obtained, they will
design their facilities based on those estimates. Mayor Windschit1 explained that a
substantial part of what is being planned to be serviced with sanitary sewer is a
commercial and industrial area in the eastern end of the MUSA. And that is the problem
with the map in the Plan.
Ms. Pah1 also stated that it is correct that the Metro Council is establishing policy
and procedures that guarantees that the population does not exceed its projection as it
relates to metro systems. The planning process is when a community can argue that more
land will be needed for development than what is projected by the Metro Council. After
all Plans are in and the 1980 census data is reviewed, their projections may be adjusted.
In the interim, the Council and the City's projection for,the acreage of land to be
developed by 1990 is fairly close. But she felt the City could have problems if a great
deal more land is serviced than is likely to have growth for. And it may be in the City's
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Comprehensive Plan, Continued)
best interest to project the specific land area that would be developed by 1990,
generally projecting where in the City land is likely to develop first. It would be a
simple amendment process of 30 to 60 days to change one projected area to another if
development occurs outside the 1990 proposed MUSA area and is intended to run con-
currently with the local development process. That area outside the projected 1990
urban service area would be planned to remain undeveloped until after 1990. And if
growth occurs before then, the City can request the Metro Council to amend the City's
Plan.
Discussion continued on the City's arguments for not wanting to make a definite designation
of the 1990 urban service area and the problems that could occur if that was done or
if property was allowed to develop in the urban area before the sewer faciliteis were
available.
Recess at 9:28; reconvene at 9:42 p.m.
Discussion continued on the issue of designating land for development between now and
1990. Mayor Windschit1 explained that the industrial and commercial area in the
eastern urban service area is treated separately for this matter. And by removing the
landfill area, the land north of Coon Creek, and the agriculture area within the MUSA,
he felt the remaining acreage would be close to the numbers being suggested by Metro
Council and could be designated as the 1990 urban service development area.
Councilman Ortte1 also clarified that the population projections by the Metro Council
were based on trends and the history of the City. The City has had sewer available for
five years and has never extended it to open areas. Had that been done, the population
figures would be higher. He went on to say that the Metro Council's projections for
1990 show that there will be a total of 12,300 with 9,800 in the urban service area,
leaving 2,500 people in the rural area. But there are presently 6,000 in the rural area
now, and that is why there is a difference in the figures between the City's projection
and Metro Council's figures. And this dispute has been discussed with Council representa-
tives at great length in the past. Ms. Pah1 stated she will make a note of that point,
indicating that it will be reviewed when the census figures are known.
Discussion was also on the consequences should Metro Council deny the City's Plan, with
Metro Council staff explaining that on any future A-95 reviews, the grant process, the
Council would take that into consideration, but which ties into the area of the Plan
where the City would be inconsistent with Metro Council. It was also felt that the fact
that sewer lines are being extended to open areas will have an impact on the Council's
population estimates. If the CIty's estimated acres of development in the MUSA by 1990
are based on calculations different from what the Metro Council is using, the City's
Plan should document that fact. As the Plan stands now, it is difficult to determine
what the actual increase will be in the urban area.
Mr. Schumacher was directed to make the acreage calculation within the MUSA available
for residential development and to discuss the situation with Mr. Blum.
Page 19, D. c) Ag Preservation District: City noted that the agricultural land in
Andover is not buildable land because it is typically low peat grounds and are shown on
the overlay maps as preservation areas. Ms. Pah1 explained that that is just a comment,
and that the City could take the initiative to designate agricultural areas under the
Land Use Plan.
Page 20, d) 2.5-acre lot question: Ms. Pah1 stated that the Metro Council would like
to see density of one unit per 10 acres in the rural area, but under the Land Planning
Act, it is an advisory comment and is not a legal requirement that the City must adopt.
~
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
. (Comprehensive Plan, Continued)
The Council strongly believes that smaller lots turn the whole area into an urban area
and it then becomes costly to have to extend services, but it is not a plan modification
item. She felt the City's Plan adequately substantiates the City's rural density issue
and didn't feel it would be necessary to comment further.
Page 20, 2. Enviromental Protection: Mr. Schumacher will review the model ordinance
as noted previously.
Page 20, 4. Solid Waste: Ms. Bose11 was directed to obtain a copy of sample ordinances
for solid waste collection, with the City Council agreeing a collection and disposal
ordinance would be desirable.
Page 20 - 21, 5. Investment Framework, CIP: The City explained it is in the process
of making a major update to the existing CIP and thought the Land Planning Act allowed
for the CIP to be submitted following the Plan's approval. Ms. Pah1 stated that the CIP
should be for the years 1981 through 19S5 and should be part of the Plan itself. But
if the Plan indicates it is being prepared and would be submitted within six months,
that would be sufficient. That would not preclude approval of the City's Plan.
Page 21, Recommendations: Council reviewed the various recommendations and what had
been agreed to previously this evening.
Page 22, D. 1. Rail Systems for "commuter" access: City felt that Andover is one of
the few communities that has a siding and rail service directly into Minneapolis where
it could be a very effective tool for mass transit and energy savings. Ms. f~oe ller
stated that the comments stem from the fact that the Metro Council had decided not to
pursue light rail transit, and the City's Plan should not mislead anyone into thinking
it is a potential policy. The City Council stated that the statement is something the
City hopes to pursue with the Metro Council but realizes it would not be done before 1990.
Ms. Pah1 also noted that the recommendations from D on are advisory comments for which
the Metro Council does not have legal force to require. She also stated that the rail
policy comments in the transportation section would not have a great impact.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council direct the City Engineer and
the Consulting Firm of TKDA to work in conjunction with the firm of Northwest Associated
Consultants to develop the recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan and supporting
documents as discussed on 2/9/81. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was also on the time frame in which the changes could be made, agreeing to
ask for an extension from the Metro Council.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that due to the recommended changes to the Comprehensiv
Plan and supporting documents of the City of Andover made on the 9th Day of February,
1981, the City Council, City of Andover, requests an extension of time in which to
revise these documents which would run until the 9th day of March, 1981, and would allow
until the 9th Day of April , 1981, for the various Metropolitan Council Departments to
revi ew the :rlocuments and prepare them for presentati on to the Metropo 1 itan Counc il
on April 9. (See Resolution R9-81) Motion carried unanimously.
COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RESOLUTION
Council discussed a proposed Reeso1ution from the Coon Creek Watershed Board which would
allow the Board to increase the mill levy from the present .395 mills generating $75,000
income to .6598 mills to generate $125,000 annually.
Special City Council Meeting
February 9, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Coon Creek Watershed District Resolution, Continued)
Several on the Council objected to the Resolution as written noting that the Resolution
does not propose the increased revenue would be restricted for use on the Comprehensive
Plan, questioning whether this is a permanent levy increase or just for one year, and
questioning whether the increase is to $125,000 from $75,000 or for an additional
$125,000 as well as the $75,000. Most were in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
for the Watershed area, but felt the Resolution was not indicative of what was being
proposed previously.
Councilman Ortte1 explained that additional funds are needed to meet the operational
demands being placed upon the Board; interpreting the Resolution to be a permanent
levy increase of .6598 to generate $125,000 annually.
After further discussion, it was agreed to postpone action on the Resolution until the
next regular Council meeting. Mr. Winner was asked to research the matter further to
determine how the Watershed Board plans to finance the Comprehensive Plan and if the
request is for a permanent levy increase.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
\~~~~~¿cl
Recording Secretary