Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP June 9, 1987 CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 9, 1987- AGENDA 7:30 P.M. l. Call to order 2. Award Bid/87-3C 3. Planning Commission Interviews a. Bill Bernard - 7:45 P.M. b. Marjorie Perry - 8:00 P.M. WORK SESSION I. Assessment Policy/New Developments 2. L..B. Carlson Assessment Concerns/Woodland Terrace 3 . Space - Temporary 4. Fire Department Circus/Laptuta Property 5. 6. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 9, 1987 MINUTES The Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was ca] led to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on June 9, 1987, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Ha11, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, t11nnesota. Councilmen present: Ell ing, Knight, Orttel Counci Imen absent: None Also present: TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and John Rodebecg: City Administrator, James Schrantz; and others AGENDA APPROVAL The fol lowing additions to the Agenda were suggested: Item 5, Cut-off Date/Counci 1 AppJ icatlons: 6, Storm Sewer Discussion/Crosstown: ~ ( , Update/Watershed Distcict; and 8, Tax Forfeit Properties. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by E1 ling, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion cacried unanimously. AWARD BID/87-3C Me. Rodeberg reviewed the progress made to date regarding the Waivers of Trespass for Project 87-3C. Two peop1e have signed, and four others have indicated they would sign tomorrow. There are a total of 11 parcels involved. So far there doesn't seem to be a problem with getting the waivers, feeling all should be signed by the end of the week. The only concern is not being able to locate the owner of the property on Crosstown Bou1evard and Coon Creek. Mayor \'¡indschit1 stated the City Attorney is concerned about this and is reluctant to recommend proceeding with this project until the easements ace obtained. Shou1d there be a problem in obtaining any of the easements, it would take the City Attorney at least 90 days before the City would have the right of entry. Mr. Davidson reported Knutson, the apparent second-low bidder on Project 87-3C, has fi led a restraining order; and they wi 1 I be appeacing in court tomorrow. The Ci ty is asking for a $500,000 bond from Knutson to cover the costs of de1ay. He recommended the bid be awardèd to the apparent low bidder, Bonine Excavating, this evening. Jeff Appelquist. Attorney for Knutson Construction - stated the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow and wil I take place contingent upon whether or not award Is made to Bonine tonight. If I t is not awarded, there wi I I be no hearing tomorrow. .- Special City Council Meeti ng June 9, 1987 - ~1inutes Page 2 (Award Bid/87-3C, Continued) Counc i ] discussions with the engineers was over the concern of any further delay in this project to ser:vice the Hills of Bunker Lake plat and the county building under construction. At the same time, they questioned whether the project should be awarded without the assurances that the waivers wi]l be signed and the uncertainty of the affects of the restraining order fl]ed against this project. Mr. Davidson pointed out the easement si tuation is not any different from othec projects in that they are often obtained fol lowIng the award of the bid. There is a 50-day provision In the contract to al ]O~l time to get the waivers, and it may be possible to work around any problem areas. After further discussion, the Counc i I genera I I Y felt the risk regarding the easements isn't that severe at this point. After dlscussiong the ramifications of the restraining order fi led by Knutson, it was agreed to award the bid to the apparent ] ow b i dde r , feel ing the issue of the bid bond was an inadvertent error and therefore a minor infraction under the terms of the specifications. t10TIœ,¡ by E] ling, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the improvement for Project No. 87-3C for sanitary sel.¡er trunk in the area of Coon Creek to Bonine Excavating for a total of $522,329.18, and acknowledge the second ]ow bid of Richard Knutson, Inc. , for $525.959. (See Resolution RI00-87) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Appelquist served the Mayor with the paperwork for the hearing tomorrow on the temporary restraining order. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS The fol lowing app]icants were scheduled fUL iuLer"view::; âl Juwluy 1b minutes per interview: Bi] ] Bernard t'-larjocle Peer}' Counc i ] alternately asked applicants why they wanted to serve on the PIanning Com~isslon; what projects they wou]d be interested in; what they would look for: in detecmining the approval or denial of variances, spec i a] use permits, etc. ; i f they had any conf] icts \¡i th the time required to serve on the Commission, and others. Counc i ] asked the Ad~inistrator to research the expiration of the term being fi I led on the Commission. This Has discussed ag3in folloHing the next Agenda item. Special City Counc i ] Meeti ng June 9. 1987 - Minutes Page 3 CUT-OFF DATE/COUNCIL APPLICATIONS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to direct the City C]erk to advertise the City Counci] vacancy for one more week in the City's officia] newspaper, and the final cut-off date for receipt of appl icatlons wou]d be on June 24, wi th the selection to be made on Ju]y 15 at a Special City Council Heeting. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, I-Present CEI ling) vote. Counci] also directed the advertisement be placed in the Anoka Shopper as He] ] . P & Z INTERV I EWS . CONTINUED ~10T I 011 by Ortte] , Seconded by Knight, that the applicant Marjorie Perry be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Joy Pirkl to 12-31-87. DISCUSSIO!l: Counc i I acknowledged both app]icants were high]y qualIfied and desirable candidates. It was rumored there may be one or two more vacancies on the Commission before year's end; however, the ordinance does not al 10H the appointment of an alternate. Counc i ] asked that Mr. Bernard be encouraged to apply for the next opening on the P & z. Motion carried unanimously. ASSESSHE!1T POL I CY/fœw DEVELOPMENTS Counc i I reviewed the proposed changes to the assessment policy as outlined by the Ad~inistrator regarding new subdivisions. 1) The concern of assessing before the projects are completed. Counc i I agreed projects in new subdivisions shou]d be assessed after the projects are complete and total costs are known. 2) The concern of developers having to pay extra interest when paying off theIr assessments, which can be resolved by keeping the assessments at C i t Y Ha]] and having the deve]opers pay the City with interest only to the date of payment. Counc I I agreed to keep the assessment roll for new developments at the City Ha] ] rather than certifying them to the county. The Counc I I questioned the amount of extra cost that Hou]d involve, noting any increase in the administrative percentage should be only to cover the costs. It was though t the proposed 2 percent increase may be excessive. Hr. Schrantz was asked to research what that cost might be for further discussion at the next meetIng. 3) The concern of equal payment presently used versus equal principa] method used by most other cities. After discussing the merits of both methods, Counc i I agreed to leave the equal payment method as is, especia]]y since the assessment ro] Is wi I] now be kept in-house, SpeciaJ City Counc i ] Meeti ng June 9, 1987 - t1inutes Page 4 (Assessment Policy/New Developments, Continued) 4) The concern of the development contract period. Counc i 1 agreed most deve]opers would prefer less than 15 years for the development period, noting there is general]y a better rate on the sale of temporary bonds. At the same time, the Counc i I did not want to force anyone out of business if the market fa]]s and the deve]opment does not occur within a 5-year period of time. It was finally agreed the deve]opment contract shou]d be written to allow the sale of two temporary bonds. The first one would be a 3-year temporary bond. If a second bond was needed, a second temporary bond for a 2-year period would be sold. If further time is st i I I needed, it would be ro]]ed to a 5-year permanent bond. So the total development contract period would be reduced from the present 15 years to 10, and temporary bonding wou]d be al]owed for the first 5-year perIod. L. CARLSm.¡ ASSESSNENT CONCERNS/WQODLArm TERRACE ~1r . Rodeberg reviewed the letter on his recalculations for the assessments to Woodland Terrace based on actual costs. The project was assessed for $7,351 per unit based on estimated costs, and the revised assessment would be $Î,26Î per unit for the 93 lots in the pcoject. He stated these figures have not yet been reviewed with Mr. Carlson. Counc i I discussed the reasons for the dl ffecence in the figures and the most feasible method of resolving the issue such as holding a supplemental assessment hearing, a cash sett]ement to Mr. Carlson, or the cancellation of $Î,Î85 worth of assessments within that project. Counc I I agreed to offer Mr. Carlson the cance] lation of $7,785 worth of assessments in the project. TKDA was directed to discuss that proposal with Mr. Carlson and report back. LOT SPLITS/? GENGLER Paul Genq]er. CrosstoVln Boulevard - stated because there wi] I be assessments a]ong his property as a resu]t of the utIlity and street projects in Woodridge Acres, he and RIchard Erickson would like to combine their parce]s and split them Into four lots in the back -- two Hould be Mr. Erickson's and two wou]d be his. He st i 11 HOU I d have 5 1/2 acres I eft. He asked if that cou]d be done as a lot sp] it, feel ing it would not be "'Or th the expense of platting the property. Counci1man EI ling felt a cu1 de sac is needed at the end of the street to service those lots. Mr. Rodeberg stated there wil 1 be excess f I I I in the Woodridge Acres project that could be used for the cul de sac. Specia] City Counc i 1 Meeti ng June 9, 1987 - MInutes Page 5 (Lot Spl It, P. Gengler, Continued) 11r. Gengler asked that any drainage from Woodridge Acres through th i s property be piped rather than open ditch. Mr. Rodeberg stated the proposal was to have a swa]e; however, i f the property is to be p]atted, they would run the pipe out to past the levee. Counc i ] genera] ly felt the genera] concept of four Jots as proposed was agreeable. However, there was consIderable discussion as to whether this should be al!owed as a lot spl it or required to go through the platting process. Severa] felt the Lot Spl it Ordinance does not allow a split which results in more than two Jots. Others argued the expense of the platting process is excessive for smaller parcels of property such as this. They suggested waiving the subdivision ordinance or modifying the platting process to make the p]atting of the smaller parcels into 4, 5, or 6 lots affordab]e. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by E] ]ing, to direct the Planning Comrn i 58 i on to revise Ordinance 10 and look towrd the creation of amen~T.ents that would al Iowa simplified platting pcocedure for sma II er deve]oments such as six Jots or less that would have technical items that would not be required, subject to the requirements as set forth by the City 1" . Motion carried unanimous]y. _nglneer. STORM SEWER DISCUSSION/CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD (Mayor Windschitl stepped down; Acting Mayor Ortte] conducted this portion of the meeting.) ì-Jr . Davidson and Mr. Rodeberg explained how the amounts for the storm sewer were arrived at and divided between the county and the City. They stated the proposal has not yet been submitted to the county: however, i f the county picks up the storm sewer ]eads and catch basins, Andover's share would drop from $117,000 to $78,000. That amounts to 3.6 cents per square foot to the benefitting property. Mr. Wlndschit] stated he has not had a chance to study the bids. But i f these costs are too expensive, he wants to bui]d his own storm sewer system to handle his own water for the entire Kensington Estates p] at. Mr. Davidson felt that either system wou]d cost Mr. Windschit] about the same. He suggested waiting until al I bids are in before making a decision as to which is the least cost alternative. Counc i 1 agreed, taking no action at this time. (Mayor Windschitl returned to chair the remainder of the meeting.) Special City Counci I Meeting Jurte ?, 1Q87 - Hinutes Page 6 UPDATE/WATERSHED DISTRICT Mayor Wlndschitl understood the Watershed Board's attorney had advised them that Andover's position on the cleaning of Coon Creek project is correct. He also understood that the Watershed Board has accepted that and that the matter wi I I not be ]itigated. He was verbally given a new formula they have devised regarding assessments for such a project, but he did not know how that wou]d affect the various types of propert i es in the City. No Counc i 1 action was taken. FIRE DEPARTMENT CIRCUS/LAPTUTA PROPERTY Counc i 1 noted the Laptuta property is being ]eased by the City and, therefore, could be used by the Fire Department for the circus. It was also suggested that some leve]ing be done for that event. TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY Counc i J reviewed the list of tax forfeit properties provided by the City C]erk. Counc i ] though t the Jots in the Nordeen Addition wece a]ready owned by the City, asking that that be researched further. It was also agreed the property under Item No. 10 shou]d be claimed by the City. Counc i I agreed to discuss this at the next meeting Hhen more is known about the Jots in the Nordeen Addition. SPl,CE - TEt·1PORARY Counc I I viewed the temporary partitions and where they would be located to house additional office staff. It was fe] t those in the Counc i I chambers should be new rather than used partitions. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by El ling, to adj ourn. t10t i on carr i ed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ·\)\.L~lt~ CC{-,\-;:::L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary