Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 7, 1993 ~ CITY of ANDOVER Regular City Council Meeting-December 7, 1993 Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Presentation of New Firefighters' Badges Discussion Items 1. Public Hearing/Cedar Crest pond/93-2l 2. EAW/Crown Pointe & Crown pointe East 3 . Rezoning/ Sec. 25 & 26/Ashford Dev., Cont. 4 . Crown pointe East Sketch plan 5. Special Use Permit/Home Occupation/17528 Flintwood St. NW 6. Lot Split/101-157th Avenue NW 7. Discuss Outlot A, Emerald Glen/86-21 staff, Committees, Commissions I I 8. Hire Public utilities Maintenance Person 9. Discussion/project 91-16/159th Avenue 10. Amend Ordinance 66, City Council Ordinance 11. Authorize Purchase of Photocopier 12. Recording Secretary Contract Increase Non-Discussion Items 13. Adopt ResolutionjWater, Sewe r, Central Equip. Fund 14. Approve Change Order *2/92-13 15. Approve Final payment/92-13 16. Approve Revised Grading Plan/Pheasant Meadows 17. Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Signals at Bunker & Crosstown/ 93-1 18. Approve Change Order *4/93-2/pinewood Estates 2nd 19. Receive Petition/93-28jWatermain/13828 Round Lake Blvd. 20. Receive October Financial Statements 21. Approve Change Order *1/93-11/Emerald Glen 22. Approve Final payment/92-24/Andover Blvd. 23. Approve Change Order *2/pinewood Estates/92-3 24. Approve Final payment/92-3/pinewood Estates Mayor-Council Input Approval of Claims Adjournment REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 7, 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA APPROVAL . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 PRESENTATION OF NEW FIREFIGHTERS' BADGES · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 PUBLIC HEARING/CEDAR CREST POND/IP93-21 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 Resolution R276-93 to discontinue the project · · · · · · · 6 Motion to investigate addition of fill to Hausam lot · · · · 6 EAW/CROWN POINTE AND CROWN POINTE EAST · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 Motion to not order EAW · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 CROWN POINTE EAST SKETCH PLAN . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 13 Hire Public Utilities Maintenance Person . · · · · · · · · · 14 Amend Ordinance 66, City Council Ordinance · · · · · · · · 14 Authorize purchase of photocopier · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Approve Recording Secretary contract increase · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R277-93 for Water, Sewer, Central Equip. Fund . · 14 Resolution R278-93 approving Change Order 2/92-13 · · · · · 14 Resolution R279-93 approving final payment/92-13 · · · · · · 14 Resolution R280-93 approving revised grading plan/ Pheasant Meadows · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Signals at Bunker & Crosstown/93-1 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R281-93 approving Change Order 4/93-1/Pinewood Estates 2nd · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R282-93 receiving petition/93-28/watermain/ 13828 Round Lake Boulevard . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Receive October financial statements · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R283-93 approving Change Order 1/93-11/Emerald Glen . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R284-93 approving final payment/92-24/Andover Boulevard · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R285-93 approving Change Order #2/Pinewood Estates/92-3 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 Resolution R286-93 approving final payment/92-3/Pinewood Estates · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 SPECIAL USE PERMIT/HOME OCCUPATION/17528 FLINTWOOD STREET Resolution R287-93 approving request . · · · · · · · · · · · 14 LOT SPLIT/10l 157TH AVENUE NW Resolution R288-93 granting lot split · · · · · · · · · · · 14 DISCUSS OUTLOT A, EMERALD GLEN/IP86-21 Motion to accept proposal · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 DISCUSSION/PROJECT 91-16/159TH AVENUE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL EXTENSION REQUEST · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Litigation/Snowmobile accident . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ADJOURNMENT . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ~ .;J. ;I.\¡Y:::' ~ CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 7, 1993 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on December 7, 1993, 7:30 p.m. , at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Dalien, Jacobson, Knight, Perry Councilmembers absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins TKDA Engineer, John Davidson Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planner, Dave Carlberg City Finance Director, Daryl Sulander Others AGENDA APPROVAL Council acknowledged the written request of Jerry and Carol Windschitl, Ashford Development, to remove Item 3, Rezoning/Sections 25 and 26/Ashford Development, from the Agenda until a decision is made by the Metropolitan Council on the extension of sewer to the property or until Hr. Windschitl requests to have the item placed back on the agenda. Mr. Carlberg agreed to notify two area residents when the item will be considered again, and those residents in turn can notify others who are interested. Council agreed to discuss the Crown pointe East Sketch Plan, Item 4, even though the rezoning request has been tabled, as no Council action is taken in sketch plan reviews. Council agreed to add Item l2a, Metropolitan Council Extension Request. Mayor McKelvey then asked for a motion to accept the Agenda as amended. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried - unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 1993, Regular Meeting: page 12, Variance Request at 1433 161st Avenue, third line, change "40-foot setback" to "50-foot setback" . November 16, 1993, Special Closed Meeting: Correct as written. November 16, 1993, Special Meeting: Correct as written. November 18, 1993, Special Meeting: Page 2, Third paragraph, third line, change to: ". ..proposed amendment to create a berm and vegetative fence around the yard, a 10-foot strip being used as an example in the discussion." Page 3, Fourth paragraph, third sentence, clarify: "For example, those along Bunker Lake could position their building such that there is sufficient easement for the road and Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 2 (Approval of Minutes, Continued) parking in the front, that the building could create a screen to the rear of the yard, plus land could be cleared for a vegetative berm around the remaining three sides of the property. " MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Perry, to approve the Minutes for the three meetings on November 16. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dalien, the Minutes of November 18 as amended. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-present (Perry) vote. PRESENTATION OF NEW FIREFIGHTERS' BADGES Fire Chief Dale Mashuga briefly reviewed the procedure to become a member of the Andover Volunteer Fire Department. He then presented badges to the newest firefighters, Scott Stronski and Steve Hagstrom. PUBLIC HEARING/CEDAR CREST POND/IP93-21 7:42 p.m. Mr. Davidson reviewed the proposed storm sewer project to provide a permanent piped outlet to the Cedar Crest pond. He noted the tributary area, the estimated total project cost of $79,420, and the proposed assessment per lot of those in the tributary area. None of the property below the 100-year flood will be assessed. He also reviewed two other alternatives to eliminate some of the problems on Lot 5 which has most of the flooding problems. Expanding the pond and filling a portion of Lot 5 would cost about half as much, but it would only increase the holding capacity of the pond by 15 to 20 percent. The third alternative is to install a permanent storm sewer pumping station; however, that is as costly as the piped outlet. The hearing was then opened for public testimony. One resident understood the City made an agreement 14 years ago with the property owner of Lot 5 to guarantee to take care of the problem when water gets into the yard. The only damages that occurs is to some of the trees on that lot. Mr. Haas explained the City made an agreement with the property owners in 1986 to pump the water back down to a certain elevation. The City pumped in 1986 and again in 1993. The property owners would like a permanent solution to take care of the pond. Rudv Wicklander, 17208 Woodbine - stated that lot was determined to be unbuildable when it was developed because it was so low. He didn't think it is the residents' responsibility when the City issued the permit. He felt the owners should have been aware of the problem when they purchased it, as the pond has always been there. He also felt it would be a problem to pipe an outlet from the pond because it would have to be a massive trench along the lots to dig 20 to 25 feet deep, and there is only a five-foot easement on each side of the lots. . - --!~~-_. --. .. .,. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 3 (Public Hearing/Cedar Crest/IP93-21, Continued) Mr. Davidson stated the specifics have not been researched. They may have to bring the pipe back somewhat. Mr. Wicklander - understood something would have to be done if basements were flooding, but that is not happening. Just a lot of poplars and scrubs are being affected. He didn't think the neighbors should have to be paying for the problem on one lot. Walter Larson, 3903 172nd Lane NW - has a map of the pond taken in 1985, and the pond has been altered by the City. It was a natural pond that should not have been altered, as it naturally went onto Lot 5. He asked why should all of the people pay for something the City didn't figure correctly before allowing building on that lot. Dallas Slater, 3725 l74th Avenue NW - is not affected to the degree as others are, but he didn't think this proposal is right. Cheryl Hausam, 3731 172nd Lane NW - stated the house existed four years before the street project. There was no pond when she purchased the home and they didn't have a problem with the property. When the roads came in, all the water was designed to go into the pond; but the pond couldn't handle it. Everyone in the neighborhood paid for the pond once. The only thing they are asking is when they flood out that the pond gets pumped. That wasn't a problem until this year when everybody screamed because they were lowering the water level. But that has been an agreement with the City. It only needs to be pumped every five or six years. There was no problem when they bought the property; it was created by the City. Terrv Hausam, 3731 172nd Lane NW - stated when the roads were assessed, the people did not feel there would be a water problem, but the price of moving the pond totally to the park area was incorporated into the assessment. And that was the solution to the water problem for the streets in that area. Since 1986 the City has pumped the pond on and off as needed. They didn't have a problem with the City pumping, as that was part of the agreement. However, when it was pumped this summer, a group of neighbors got the Mayor involved to stop the pumping. All he is asking for is to keep the water off his property. If they don't pump it, he gets flooded out and all of the trees and shrubs die. The arrangement with the City is when the water sits on his property for two weeks, the City will pump it down to a specified level. If the water evaporated or went down for any reason within that two weeks, the pond is not pumped. When pumped, it was usually done for 16 to 18 hours at a time. That was done twice in one year on a couple different occasions. It is only a problem during rainy seasons. Mr. Hausam understood the residents don't want to pay for something they feel doesn't affect them. Unfortunately the water comes across their properties and to his back yard. He doesn't want to drain the pond, but he doesn't want the water on his property either. - _.--0 ~ Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 4 (Public Hearing/Cedar Crest/IP93-21, Continued) Georqe Beavinq, 3734 l74th Avenue NW - has been in the area longer than anyone. The pond was always there. He picked his lot and built on a hill because he didn't want a water problem. Mr. Hausam's house was built in a hole, and he didn't think the residents should have to pay for it. The City made the mistake, so this is the City's problem. He presented a petition with everyone on the list expressing opposition to the proposal. John Carlson, 3667 l73rd Lane - stated he was one of the homeowners that became upset when they pumped this summer based on a partly correct and partly incorrect understanding of the history of the pond. He understood the last time the pond was pumped, it was pumped dry and it took several years before there was water in it again. When dry, it is a nuisance because of the mosquitos, etc., and they did not want that to happen again. Secondly, he understands that originally the Hausam lot was unbuildable. One of the adjoining homeowners tried to purchase that lot and was told by the City that it was unbuildable. The error made by the City was issuing the building permit for the property. Following that, the City put in paved streets based on the desires of the residents. That assessment was paid, plus it resulted in higher property values and purchase prices. At that point the City erred by not sufficiently accommodating the run-off for the paved roads. Now to solve that property, the City is asking the homeowners to pay for it. He didn't think it was right to assess 35 homeowners the cost of an $80,000 project. Another resident, whose land is just east of the pond, stated the pump does not bother him at all. But he is concerned about the pond becoming a pothole because of the mosquitos and other problems that are created. They had false information about the pumping and that is why they complained about it. They are willing to back track. If the owner is willing to allow the pond to be pumped, he felt there is a fourth alternative, and that is to continue the pumping as was done in the past. Ed Erickson, 17226 Woodbine Street - has lived in the area since 1972. They petitioned to have the roads paved because the school buses and u. S. mail refused to come in. In Ramsey he has two lots that were assessed $1,600 for a similar situation. He stated the water problem on the Hausam property started after the roads were put in. He had argued with the engineers when the roads were done about the need for a culvert in his driveway, which he was later proved correct. But he didn't think the answer is as proposed in this project. He questioned the ability to get down to the elevation needed with the pipe. He has not objected to the noise of the pump or the pipe. The City created a monster and he didn't think the people should be made to pay for the costs. Mr. BeavinG - asked if the water would be pumped over the hill to the creek at the end of Woodbine. He wondered if that would be creating another problem with the houses in that lowland area, and then they would have to pay for that problem too! Mr. Haas explained it is Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 5 (Public Hearing/Cedar Crest/IP93-21, Continued) pumped to the ditch which eventually gets to the Rum River. Mr. Davidson felt the project would be approved by the DNR and the watershed district because the pond would be considered a filtrating pond. The quantity of water discharged would be no different that what was pumped on two different occasions. They would be doing a detailed survey of the project before beginning. Mr. Beavinq - asked who was the engineer of the street project. They should be held liable because the storm drainage system didn't work. Mr. Haas did not recall, but explained the engineers did propose a storm sewer plan in the feasibility report; and the property owners apparently rejected it because it was felt there is no need and the cost was too great. Mr. Davidson also noted at that time the consensus was there is no need for storm sewer because of the impervious sand. When it was recognized there is a problem with the pond, the Council did look at alternatives and the pond was increased in size to increase the capacity. Mr. Beavinq - expressed sympathy for the Hausam's, but he didn't feel he should have to pay for the problem. Mr. Carlson - stated though it was known at the time the streets were paved that there was going to be a problem without storm sewers, maybe the problem goes further back to when the building permit was issued in that low area on an unbuildable lot. Linda Keenan. 3824 l73rd Lane NW - was bothered that the City issued the building permit on that lot. The present homeowners are saying the pond was part of the City's property. Mr. Haas explained at one time the pond was smaller, ankle deep. The City took the pond totally off private property and contained it on park property. Ms. Keenan - stated if the pond was partly on the Hausam property, then it should never have been a buildable lot. She asked if there would be a problem with the watershed in the future if everything was left the way it is now. Would there ever be a water problem anywhere except to the lot which should not have been built upon in the first place? The Engineers didn't think so. John Waskiewicz, 3709 172nd Avenue NW - is on the highest property in the area. He asked if it is possible to excavate trenches that are 30 feet deep. Mr. Davidson stated no. Mr. Waskiewicz - stated to dig the trench would mean a loss of ash trees to save poplars. He didn't think that was a fair trade. It seems that Mr. Hausam is willing to continue letting the pond be pumped. He suggested the City continue to pump the pond as needed. In further discussion, the City Staff noted the cost of acquiring easement for the pipe is not included in the project. The residents were saying they would prefer to have the pond pumped as needed than to pay for this project. Another resident on Xenia stated he too has some - ~ ~ Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 6 (Public Hearing/Cedar Crest/IP93-21, Continued) water problems and has had to replace his drain field, but he has not complained about it nor asked everyone to pay for it. He stated he will get nothing out of this project. Another resident did not think the installation of the pipe at the depth needed is feasible. He felt the simple solution is to add some fill to the Hausam property and to pump the pond as needed. Harrv Mav, 3655 172nd Lane NW - stated there were problems with water before the streets. If the house was built on unbuildable property, he felt the City is responsible. Mr. Hausam bought the house; the City put in the street; Mr. Hausam has a problem. pumping took care of the problem, but the people complained. Mayor McKelvey explained everyone was under the assumption the pond was going to be drained dry. They had pumped down two feet when it was stopped. The only time the pond has been dry is during the drought. The City rented a pump on two different occasions to pump the pond at a cost of about $4,000 plus employee wages each time. Councilmember Knight noted both times the pond was pumped were in years that were extremely wet and there were water problems all over the City. There may not be another wet year for years. In further discussion, the residents indicated the cost of $12,000 for the City to purchase a pump which can be used in other places as well is the most cost effective and best alternative to the problem. The residents do not want to see the pond pumped dry, but they had no objection to having it drained to a specific water level. Mr. Haas stated that level already exists in the agreement. He stated the City pumps more than just the Cedar Crest pond, so possibly the City does need to purchase a pump. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dalien, that the City Council discontinue the proposed storm drainage construction project 93-21 and have the City continue the practice of pumping the pond as needed. (See Resolution R276-93) DISCUSSION: There was some discussion on the need to purchase the pipe as well if a pump is purchased. Mr. Davidson stated discharge line is something the City should have in store. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City look at with the property owner (Terry and Cheryl Hausam) the possibility of adding some fill to their property as a possible additional solution to this. Motion carried unanimously. 8:47 p.m. EAW/CROWN POINTE AND CROWN POINTE EAST Mr. Carlberg reviewed the background information of issues raised by the Council at their November 16, 1993, meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Staff report at their November 30, 1993, meeting Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 7 (EAW/Crown pointe & Crown pointe East, Continued) and forwarded it back to the City Council for action. Additionally, Staff has learned the City cannot rezone or take any institutional control until the Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. That is the reason the developer has requested the rezoning be tabled this evening. The Council debated the need to order an Environmental Impact Study for these two proposed plats. Councilmember Jacobson felt of the three specific concerns listed by the petitioners, the only evidence of a potential for significant environmental effects might be the traffic generated, car pollution, dirt and noise. He did not know whether or not that would warrant an EAW, but he did not feel the other two items posed a significant environmental impact. It was determined that at ten trips per day, Crown pointe would generate about 470 trips per day and Crown pointe East about 1080. Steve Jonak - stated with 1500 trips per day generated from both plats and only one entrance out of each plat, there is a concern. Mayor McKelvey noted Crown Pointe East will have an exit to the south, and it is expected the southern plat will develop about the same time as this one. Mr. Carlberg stated the site was reviewed by a Metropolitan Council staff person today. He did not find a problem with the environmental review of the Metropolitan Council and was impressed that the developer acquired additional right of way from Burlington Railroad to move the road away from the wetland. He also explained the developer is required to have storm water sediment ponds, storm water retention, etc., based on the watershed's and DNR's criteria plus follow the City's best management practices of the Water Resource Management Plan. There will be no direct discharge of any storm water into Coon Creek. Mr. Jonak - was concerned there is no guarantee the development to the south will go in, which leaves only one access to Prairie Road for 108 lots. That is a lot of houses with only one entrance. Councilmember Perry didn't think the issue of one entrance to the plat has anything to do with an EAW as she understands it. An EAW is to deal with pollutants by the increased number of automobiles. Traffic is considered as a part of the platting process, and that issue has already been raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the sketch plan review. With the information provided, she is satisfied an EAW is not mandatory; and the traffic will be addressed as the project proceeds. Richard Fuller, 13948 prairie Road - felt the Council is ignoring the fact that Crown pointe East is far from finalized. The Coon Creek Watershed looked at the plan last month and discovered that if houses were built at the current elevations, basements would be one foot below the water line. He doesn't know if the developer has redrafted the plan since then or not. He stated this is an incredible low lying area with serious effects on the watershed. He referred to the problems of the previous agenda item when low lying lands were developed, making .~ - - -" -0 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 8 (EAW/Crown pointe & Crown pointe East, Continued) a decision without a comprehensive environmental assessment. Councilmember Perry disagreed that the two items are related. The previous discussion was about Council acquiescing to the demands of the public against their better judgement and against the recommendations for the area. The engineering firm did recommend storm sewers when those streets were improved, and the Council agreed to the residents' request of leaving the storm sewer out because the residents didn't want to spend the money. Mr. Fuller - thought the Council had promised an environmental worksheet at the last meeting. But they have a number of citizens who are adversely affected by the proposal. If the Council is also seriously concerned, he submitted it is not too much to ask for an EAW to put the citizens' minds at ease. The Council doesn't have to be certain there will be environmental impacts, but they have to believe there is a significant possibility. And if that possibility exists, that is what the EAW is for. He didn't feel that is an unreasonable request. Mr. Jonak - stated the rezoning has been tabled at the request of the developer. Could the EAW also be tabled until the rezoning is brought back for consideration, since nothing will happen on this until the Metropolitan Council says it can? And if the Metropolitan Council doesn't approve the expansion of sewer, this development will not continue with eO-foot lots. Mr. Carlberg stated the Environmental Quality Board regulations require that the City Council respond within a certain time frame, that deadline being December 9, 1993. Mr. Fuller - countered if the proposed action is withdrawn, the EAW petition remains valid for a period of 12 months. Councilmember Jacobson disagreed with that reading of the regulations. He felt the Council has two more days in which to respond. With the voluntary request to table the rezoning, he felt the City does have a time frame in which the information from an EAW can be received within a two-week time period before having to act on a rezoning request. Again, the only thing that stands out in his mind from the petition is the traffic from the development, though he personally felt the EAW will show a negative impact. But ordering the EAW will not hold the project up and the residents will have their concerns satisfied. Steve Nash, representinG the developer, Jerry Windschitl - objected to Councilmember Jacobson's proposal. He didn't believe the Council has the legal authority to do that, as there must be specific findings that the proposed project will have potential for significant environmental effect. The argument that increased traffic by itself is a significant environmental impact must be supported by the evidence. If the mere fact that there is a residential plat is enough, then the Council should be prepared to order an EAW for every single residential project in the City. If that were the intent of the legislation, the rules would have been drafted to say so. They weren't because it was never intended that every project should have an EAW. There is no evidence from the Council to justify any findings. .- '--,-~- ......-. ~ I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 9 (EAW/Crown pointe & Crown Pointe East, Continued) Mr. Fuller - stated the regulation does not define potential, which is the key word in this issue. They wouldn't have used "potential" if they meant "certain". If the Council feels there is a potential, an EAW must be ordered. It does not require a complex finding of fact. In discussing whether the issue of traffic creates a significant environmental effect, Mayor McKelvey stated he did not think so. Councilmember Perry stated a number of projects have been done in the past that have generated that amount of traffic, and no EAW has been requested for those projects. She felt the answers given by Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have satisfied her that an EAW is not necessary. A resident felt the traffic is significant because there would be only one entrance from each plat, not spread out among many entrances. He felt there is a uniqueness to this project which perhaps causes more concern than if there were ten entrances. Mayor McKelvey noted the 1500 traffic count is both in and out at different times of the day, which he felt would not impact the traffic on Prairie Road or Andover Boulevard. Councilmember Jacobson moved that the Council order the RGU, the City, and thereby the Staff, to perform an Environmental Assessment Worksheet based on the petitioner's petition to the Environmental Quality Council, and limit it to pollution, dust, etc. , from increased traffic from the development. There was no Second. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fuller - stated an EAW has to address everything and cannot be limited to just one page. Mr. Davidson explained the three-page document prepared by Staff is only the beginning of the cost. It then goes to at least 12 other agencies, most of whom have internal agencies that have to review this. Unless the City can see a significant need for an EAW involving all of those agencies in a review process, he can't see that it should be ordered. Councilmember Jacobson was not aware the EAW had to be reviewed by 12 state agencies. He assumed the RGU did it and made a determination, then it would to through the EIS process if necessary. Mr. Fuller - stated those other agencies do have a time limit in which to review the EIS, and it is done at no expense to the City. Mr. Davidson stated it is an expense to everyone. Councilmember Jacobson then withdraw his motion, as he really didn't think it was going to show anything, and he didn't think it should be done if it has to go through all those agencies. Councilmember Knight asked for a clarification of the procedure for the EAW, which Mr. Carlberg reviewed. It is not just a two-week process, as a number of agencies are involved. Mr. Fuller - stated there seems to be a situation where all of these agencies have reviewed this project and have okayed it. If that is the case, the EAW won't be a problem. If they haven't looked at it, then they ought to. If they have looked at it, it doesn't seem like a great Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 10 (EAW/Crown pointe & Crown pointe East, Continued) deal of trouble to have them sign off on this. The developer has withdrawn his request for a rezoning, so the EAW will not prevent him from doing anything. An EAW would satisfy the residents, cause no harm to the developer, there is limited expense to the City, and most importantly, the Council will have been assured there is no environmental effect by this project. Mr. Nash - stated the developer did request the rezoning be removed from the agenda today; but it doesn't mean the request will not be in front of the City tomorrow. There is time and expense involved in preparing an EAW which will be passed to the developer. Again, if the Council is saying the traffic triggers an EAW, it will have to be done for every single project in the City. The purpose of the statute is not to do an EAW to give residents a peace of mind. MOTION by Perry, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City not order an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the Crown Point and Crown pointe East proposed developments. There was a petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and from that petition it was determined that the City was the local governmental unit that would request one. Certain questions were presented by the City to clarify the need or lack of for the Worksheet, and specifically it was questioned whether the 250 unit threshold was met. It was determined that it was not. It was questioned whether or not the properties were contiguous; and it was determined that they are not. The remaining question was whether or not the additional traffic that would be generated by the developments is enough of a finding to order the Environmental Assessment Work; and the Council has determined that that traffic level is not something that would trigger an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fuller - felt the motion is out of order, that the Council must first make a finding as to whether or not any of the items in that petition constitute a significant environmental impact. Council felt the record of the meeting minutes in which these items have been discussed will record the findings upon which the motion is being based. Councilmember Jacobson felt that everything in the petition has been addressed in some way. The only question was the traffic, but it is the Council's determination that the traffic would not trigger the need for an EAW. Motion carried unanimously. CROWN POINTE EAST SKETCH PLAN One resident was concerned about creating a liability in reviewing the sketch plan that the developer then has a vested interest in developing to the R-4 density. Attorney Hawkins stated the law is very clear, and he does not believe there is a vested interest resulting from the Council reviewing the sketch plan. No formal Council action is taken on this item, just comments made on the proposal. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 11 (Crown pointe East Sketch Plan, Continued) Mr. Haas then reviewed the general comments of the Andover Review Committee regarding the proposed sketch plan. A concern was also expressed by the Fire and Sheriff's Departments regarding emergency vehicle access to the site. They are recommending Crown pointe and Crown Pointe East have a street connection. There is also concern that the area north of Coon Creek is not included in either plat, and Quince Street NW north of 143rd Avenue NW exceeds the maximum length of 500 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and concurred with the Staff's concerns, especially with the limited access. The Park Department is leaning toward a small tot lot within the Addition and cash in lieu of land for the remainder of the park dedication. Mr. Haas stated he has not yet seen the grading plan for this development; however, all storm water will be required to discharge into sedimentation ponds before discharging into Coon Creek. The developer will have to comply with the watershed's plans and the City's Water Resource Management Plan. He was not sure whether the new wetland laws effective January 1, 1994, will apply to this plat since the developer has submitted a grading plan to the LGU for review. However, if the City requires some changes to the grading plan, the developer will be required to make those changes and also get approved of those revisions from the watershed. Councilmember Jacobson expressed several concerns: 1 ) He felt the logical extension of l41st Avenue east to prairie Road should be checked to be sure it meets the separation of roads, as he felt it is too close to the proposed access to prairie Road for the amount of traffic that will be coming out of the plat. 2) From prairie Road on 141st all the way to Quince on the northern end of the plat, the traffic flow is atrocious. Why doesn't l41st go all the way through to Quince? 3) He didn't think the parcel on Prairie Road would be sold in the near future. For that reason, he suggested in Block 5 look at a possible north-south road to meet it. 4 ) Block 3, Lots 11 and 12 -- why is Lot 12 oversized and Lot 11 so small? Mr. Haas thought there was wetlands in that area. 5) Councilmember Jacobson would like to see 14lst extended across the top of Lot 12. 6) On the west side of the tracks along Coon Creek the City has a linear park along the creek. He didn't understand why the Park Board didn't extend that through this plat to have the linear park from here all the way over to prairie Road. He felt this is an opportunity to get a trail all the way through along the creek, quarreling with the Park Board in their decision. 7) Lot 1 on the top of the plat, and Lots 30 and 31, the 100-year flood line shows there is very little left for a pad. Mr. Haas stated much ..- -- ......-. ~ I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 12 (Crown pointe East Sketch Plan, Continued) of that is considered flood fringe which can be filled with the necessary permits. They have already assumed that the area will be filled at some time in the future. Councilmember Jacobson expressed concern with all the fill that is being done. 8) The northern cul-de-sac, Lots 26, 27 and 28, it looks as though part of the lots extend across the creek to the west side, actually severing the lot with the creek. He thought that those portions on the west side of the Creek would be incorporated into Crown pointe instead of splitting them up. 9) Councilmember Jacobson didn't think he would approve a preliminary plat that does not have an extension over Coon Creek into Crown Pointe. Some sort of road extension is needed in the area of l43rd for a second outlet for public safety. 10) He has a problem with the configuration with one exit. He suggested the developer look at developing in stages, first the northern tier of lots north of l4lst and not develop the reaminder until access can be assured to the northern thumb. He felt it is too far from the northern point to prairie Road with only one access unless there is access to the west across the creek. 11) Block 1, Lot 3, contains a hexagonal indentation toward the edge of the lot line. Mr. Haas stated he would check it, but felt it may be a delineation of the wetlands. 12) Councilmember Jacobson was not ready to vote on this if there are variances just because a minimum lot size cannot be met. As far as he is concerned, a lot should be lost rather than vary for it. 13) The legend shows the proposed zoning as R-l. It should be a proposed zoning of R-4. A resident whose driveway is directly across from the proposed exit of 141st Lane onto prairie Road was concerned about the potential of traffic driving into his yard. Mr. Haas stated they would sign the roads according to the manual. They will look at that when they get to that point. Steve Jonak - asked the Councilmembers how they feel about the proposed plat. Councilmember Perry saw no reason for providing lots simply for the economic benefit of the developer. The City should be adhering as closely as possible to the ordinances, though there are times when variances make sense. But never for economic benefit. She didn't think anyone on the Council would like to see a final draft with the street configurations as shown. She hasn't looked at the comprehensive plan trail system, though she would like hear the rationale of the Park Board of electing to take cash in lieu of land before she comments on the park. She assumed the Park Board looked at that plan in determining if this would be a natural extension of that trail system. She normally is in agreement with the Park Board; but she would be very supportive of Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 13 (Crown pointe East Sketch Plan, Continued) setting aside land as a passive nature area. However, she felt it would be a foolish taking if property was taken simply to take land which would be left to gather sandburs, which has been done in the past. A woman asked if this will eventually open the land up to the Ham Lake border for city sewer and water. The Council and Staff reviewed the comprehensive plan and the eventual plan to develop along Bunker Lake Boulevard east to the City's border. They also noted the policy of not assessing parcels for utilities until they are developed into lots. Councilmember Knight stated he is extremely concerned with wetlands and is not easily moved when people want to stack houses willy nilly. He doesn't share the belief that the more houses in Andover the better the city is or that all growth is good. Also, he does not believe in assessing farmers out of their property. In voting for this or any other plat, his overriding concern would be for the wetland and environment as compared to the number of houses. Councilmember Dalien felt this sketch plan does have serious traffic problems that need to be resolved before he would consider approving the preliminary plat. This proposal is funneling all the traffic into one spot, which is not acceptable because of the public safety. He did not consider that an environmental issue. The idea of doing this development in phases makes some sense at this point, and connecting the two plats has some merit which he hopes can be accomplished. Mayor McKelvey stated there are several things he doesn't like about this sketch plan. He looks at how the City employees can do the best job with street maintenance, and the proposed street layout is a snow plower's nightmare. There will have to be some streets that are straightened out even if it takes the loss of some lots. He is also not happy with only one access unless the plat to the south develops at the same time. He agreed with connecting the two plats with a bridge across the creek, plus he'd like to see a straight road to the south to Bunker Lake Boulevard. He also felt there were some lots that may be too small to put a house on, though those issues will be resolved within the preliminary plat process. He apologized if the Council's action on the EAW this evening offends the residents, but they are trying to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Right now nothing will happen until the Metropolitan Council makes its decision on the extension of the MUSA line. There was some discussion with residents on the traffic concerns raised by the Metropolitan Council Staff, the 2010 Study done by the county, and what has been done to date with regard to the study now being done by Anoka County, Andover and Ramsey that was required by the Met Council. There were no further comments on the sketch plan itself. NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, in the affirmative on Agenda Items 8-24 but delete No. 9 and l2a: 0- .. - -0 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 14 (Non-Discussion Items, Continued) Hire Public Utilities Maintenance Person Amend Ordinance 66, City Council Ordinance Authorize Purchase of Photocopier Approve Recording Secretary Contract Increase Adopt Resolution/Water, Sewer, Central Equipment Fund (See Resolution R277-93) Approve Change Order #2/IP92-13 (See Resolution R278-93) Approve Final Payment/IP92-13 (See Resolution R279-93) Approve Revised Grading Plan/Pheasant Meadows (See Resolution R280-93) Approve Joint Powers Agreement/Signals at Bunker and Crosstown/IP93-1 Approve Change Order *4/IP93-1/Pinewood Estates 2nd (See Resolution R28l-93) Receive Petition/IP93-28/Watermain/13828 Round Lake Boulevard (See Resolution R282-93) Receive October Financial Statements Approve Change Order #1/IP93-ll/Emerald Glen (See Resolution R283-93) Approve Final Payment/IP92-24/Andover Boulevard (See Resolution R284-93) Approve Change Order #2/Pinewood Estates/IP92-3 (See Resolution R285-93) Approve Final payment/IP92-3/Pinewood Estates (See Resolution R286-93) Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/HOME OCCUPATION/17528 FLINTWOOD STREET NW Councilmember Jacobson questioned if the request would have been recommended for approval if it was located in an R-4 zone. Is the ordinance being applied equally? Mr. Carlberg stated the required setbacks probably would not be met in an R-4 zone. There are no neighbors in this case. They have been consistent when reviewing these requests, but there has been none from the urban area. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dalien, the Resolution granting the Special Use Permit for Tim Dugas. (See Resolution R287-93) DISCUSSION: Tim Duqas - stated there is only one house in the area that is within eye shot, and it is still at least 300 feet away. All of the landowners in that vicinity have signed a waiver sheet agreeing with his request. It is a very remote area. Motion carried unanimously. LOT SPLIT/101-157TH AVENUE NW MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, the Resolution granting the lot split request of Steve Hughes to create two parcels. (See Resolution R288-93) Motion carried unanimously. .... . - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 15 DISCUSS OUTLOT A, EMERALD GLEN/IP86-21 Mr. Haas reviewed the proposal made by Jim Stanton concerning the acquisition of Outlot A of Emerald Glen by the City. The proposal is an attempt to equalize the treatment between Mr. Stanton and the property that was purchased to the east for ponding purposes from Hubert Smith and for Kirby Estates Outlot A. The approximately $71,000 in assessments are pending and will be spread over the lots owned by Mr. Stanton in Emerald Glen. The assessments haven't been levied as the project isn't complete. Jim Stanton - stated there have been assessments levied against this property but not for the current project. The $71,000 is on nine acres which had a 2 1/2-acre pond before it was developed. Attorney Hawkins advised this is a question of re-apportioning the assessments against the land, pulling out the amount allowed against the outlot. With this agreement, all issues of ponding on this property are resolved. A deed will be given to the City for Outlot A. Mr. Stanton - stated he will waive the hearings for the assessments. His policy is to pay all tentative assessments, even before they are levied, before a builder gets the property, so the assessments will be his responsibility. Under the proposal, $21,000 will be reduced, and the remaining $50,000 will be spread across the 15 lots he owns in the subdivision. He has received the October 27, 1993, letter from Mr. Hawkins and is in agreement with it. MOTION by Dalien, Seconded by Knight, to accept the proposal as stated in Mr. Hawkins' letter dated October 27, 1993, directing Staff to prepare the documents. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION/PROJECT 91-16/159TH AVENUE Attorney Hawkins provided the background information regarding the allegation by Roosevelt and Lucy Gains and James and Wendy Evertz that the City doesn't have sufficient right of way; and the result is the Renners, Kinans and Livingstons trespass onto their property to access 159th Avenue. Mr. Hawkins stated the City's position is the right of way does abut and are contiguous with the property to the south. In his opinion, the issue becomes a civil matter between the Gains and Evertz's and the property owners to the south. He felt this is an informational matter and that no Council action is needed. Mr. Hawkins stated he will write to the attorney representing the Gains and Evertz's explaining the City's position, which is the road is established and the City doesn't feel there is anything further it can do in this matter. The Council agreed. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL EXTENSION REQUEST Mayor McKelvey noted the December 3, 1993, letter from Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council, requesting a 30-day extension on the City's MUSA Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1993 Page 16 (Metropolitan Extension Request, Continued) expansion request. He explained he discussed this issue with several Metropolitan Council members, who expressed shock that they have had this request for over five months already. This item is already on the December 29 Metropolitan Council agenda, and he did not feel a 30-day extension should be given at this time. Mr. Carlberg stated in talking with Mr. Thompson today, a meeting is scheduled with representatives of BRW to review the progress of the transportation study to date. Based on that meeting, they may be able to make the current December 31 deadline. As a sign of good faith, he suggested the City grant the 30-day request for an extension. Mayor McKelvey disagreed, suggesting if anything, the item be tabled to the December 21 meeting so it will be known the results of the meeting with BRW. His first preference would be to deny the extension request, feeling the City may have the support of the Metropolitan Council. He did not want to see this pulled from the Met Council agenda. If one extension is granted, there is no assurance they won't ask for another, which then jeopardizes the next construction season. The other Councilmembers preferred to show a sign of good faith and grant this extension request with the understanding that if it is not approved at the end of that extension, serious consideration will be given to alternative development such as one-acre lot sizes. The general agreement, then, was to grant the 30-day extension request from December 31, 1993, to January 30, 1994. If the expansion is not approved, a special meeting will be scheduled to discuss options and to make changes in the development policies if necessary. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Perry, the approval of claims to the tune of $354,317.82. Motion carried unanimously. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Litigation/Snowmobile Accident - Attorney Hawkins briefly reviewed the litigation brought against the City as a result of a snowmobile accident. There is a factual dispute regarding the City's responsibility to the area in which the accident occurred. No Council action was required. MOTION by Jacobson to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully SUb! jt.~ L ~~~ >C~ Mar 1 a A. Peach, Recording Secretary