Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC February 21, 1995 CITY of ANDOVER Regular City Council Meeting - February 21, 1995 Call to Order - 7:00 pm Resident Forum Agenda Approval Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes Discussion Items 1. Public Hearing/Flood plain Ordinance 2. Public Hearing/Vacation of Right-of-Way/Bunker Lake Blvd. Frontage Road 3. Hire Fire Chief 4. Approve Development Contract/Urban Area 5. Approve Development Contract/Rural Area 6. Receive Supplemental Feasibility Report/Crown Point East/ 94-22, Cont 7. Approve Revised preliminary Plat Resolution/Crown pointe East, Cont. 8..Approve Final Plat/Crown pointe East, Cont. 9. Approve Development Contract/Crown pointe East, Cont. 10. Award Bids/Crown pointe East 11. Approve Development Contract/Sharon's 2nd Addition 12. Approve Final plat/Sharon's 2nd Addition 13. Schedule Special Meeting w/Park & Recreation Comluission 14. Accept Easements/93-30/Bunker Lake Blvd. Frontage Road 15. Approve plans & Specs/94-1/City Hall Park Complex #1 Lighting 16. Approve Final payment/92-25/University Avenue 17. Accept Drainage & utility Easements/Foxberry Farms 18. Order Appraisals for purchase of Property/94-18, Cont. 19. Approve classification and Sale of Forfeit Land 20. Septic Update EDA Meeting 21. Public Hearing/TIF Redistricting 22. Appoint EDA Officers Staff, Commissions, Committees 23. Backyard Composting Program 24. Taro Mulching Mower Program Non-Discussion/Consent Items 25. Authorization to Purchase Street Sweeper 26. Approve Final payrnent/93-18/pine Hills Mayor-Council Input Payment of Claims Adjournment . -- " - - .... ( REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA APPROVAL . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 CONSENT AGENDA Authorization to purchase street sweeper ....... · · 1 Resolution R020-95 approving final payment/IP93-18/Pine Hills . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 PUBLIC HEARING: FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 Motion to repeal Ordinance 50 and adopt Ordinance 107 · · · · 2 PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY/BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD Resolution R021-95 to vacate right of way · · · · · · · · · · 2 HIRE FIRE CHIEF (Dan Winkel) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS/URBAN AND RURAL . · · · · · · · · · · · · 3 Motion to table but adopt seal coating provision · · · · · · · 4 Motion to schedule special meeting for February 28 · · · · · 4 SUPPLEMENTAL FEASIBILITY REPORT/CROWN POINTE EAST/IP94-22 · · · · 4 Resolution R022-95 to adopt supplemental feasibility · · · · 7 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT/CROWN POINTE EAST . . . · · · · · · · · 8 Resolution R023-95 approving preliminary plat · · · · · · · 9 FINAL PLAT/CROWN POINTE EAST · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9 Resolution R024-95 approving final plat · · · · · · · · · · · 10 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/CROWN POINTE EAST · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10 Motion to table · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11 AWARD BIDS/CROWN POINTE EAST Motion to table · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 12 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/SHARON'S 2ND ADDITION Motion to approve Development Contract · · · · · · · · · · · 12 FINAL PLAT/SHARON'S 2ND ADDITION Resolution R025-95 approving final plat · · · · · · · · · · · 13 APPRAISALS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY/IP94-18 · · · · · · · · · · 13 Motion to route majority of sewer extension on City-owned property · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 14 BACKYARD COMPOSTING PROGRAM/TORO MULCHING POWER PROGRAM . · · · · 14 SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING WITH PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION (March 2, 1995, 7:00 p.m.) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 EASEMENTS/IP93-30/BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD Motion to accept · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 PLANS AND SPECS/IP94-1/CITY HALL PARK COMPLEX #1 LIGHTING Resolution R026-95 approving final plans and specs · · · · · 15 FINAL PAYMENT/IP92-25/UNIVERSITY AVENUE Resolution R027-95 accepting work and directing final payment 15 ACCEPT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS/FOXBERRY FARMS Motion to accept · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 CLASSIFICATION AND SALE OF FORFEIT PROPERTY . · · · · · · · · · · 15 SEPTIC SYSTEM UPDATE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 15 TIF REDISTRICTING Resolution R028-95 modifying Development Program · · · · · · 16 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Updates from Attorney · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ADJOURNMENT . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16 ~~~. ~ - - -....... -- - -, <- - ! ¡ ,'~.'. CITY of ANDOVER .l.. ' 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 21, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on February 21, 1995, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Dehn, Jacobson, Knight Councilmember absent: Kunza Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins TKDA Engineer, John Davidson Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas - City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Planning Director, Dave Carlberg City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve the Agenda. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. CONSENT AGENDA Item 25 Authorization to Purchase Street Sweeper Item 26 Approve Final Payment/IP93-18/Pine Hills (See Resolution R020-95) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 7, 1995, Regular Meeting - Correct as written. February 7, 1995, HRA Meeting - Page 2, Third Motion, Delete reference to Resolution Number. February 9, 1995, Special Meeting - Correct as written. Mayor McKelvey asked for a motion to approve the Minutes for all three meetings. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to so move. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE 7:06 p.m. Rosella Sonstebv - asked what changes were being made. Mr. Carlberg explained there are a number of additions to the definition section. A section was added to replace mobile homes with manufactured ()'\~~. =- ~ <Y'- ~(Î 115' ~-- ,- -~-~~.-- - .~--- - ....- - -- -.-~- -- - I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Flood Plain Ordinance, Continued) homes, plus a section was added on the Board of Appeals to provide an appeals procedure. There were also some changes on some of the flood plain maps that have changed since 1980 which have been approved by the DNR. Ms. Sonstebv - thought there should be a map showing those changes. She didn't know what those changes were and did not like surprises. The City has changed her wetland since dumping all the water onto it. In the 50 years she's lived there, it's never been higher. She wondered if more flood plain is being declared on her land. Mayor McKelvey stated there are no changes to her land. A gentlemen asked if there are any changes to the 100-year flood plain elevations. Mr. Carlberg stated there are no changes. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. The Mayor asked for a motion to approve the ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 50 and adopting Ordinance 107, an Ordinance for the management of flood plains in the City of Andover. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, to so move. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. 7:13 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY /BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD 7:13 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to move the Resolution vacating a portion of right-of-way for service road in Pankonin Addition with the following change: In Item 2, which reads "That Murphy Oil, Inc. , is to dedicate the 60 feet that is necessary as shown on the City of Andover Right-of-way Plat No.2..." , change that to "That Murphy Oil, Inc. , dedicates the 60 feet that is necessary. . . " (See Resolution R021-95) DISCUSSION: Councilmember Jacobson noted with the change in wording, the dedication must be done immediately, not at a future date. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. 7:18 p.m. HIRE FIRE CHIEF MOTION by McKelvey, Seconded by Jacobson, that we hire Dan Winkel as our new Fire Chief. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. ... ._þ~- , I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 3 APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS/URBAN AND RURAL AREAS Mayor MCKelvey stated there is a request from some developers to table this until they can meet with Staff and someone from the City Council. Jerrv Windschitl. Ashford Development - stated he was speaking for himself, but the proposed Development Contract is really a significant change to development in the City, such as the escrow for sealcoating. The City will be collecting for sealcoating from lots sold under the new Development Contract to be used six or seven years from now; but during that time the real estate taxes from those same lots will be used to pay for sealcoating other parts of the City. The escrOw amount is double or triple the previous amounts in some cases, and the escrow for erosion is in there three times. He felt if there is a need for an erosion escrow, it is valid; but he didn't understand why it is needed three times. He also questioned raising the performance bond to 100 percent for two years in the rural developments. If they sell lots to a builder, are they as developers still held responsible for putting in the turf if it is ruined by the builder? Once they have their erosion control established, will the developers be responsible for what a builder does to a lot after it is sold? The question is the same for tree removal. In many cases it is a fee title transfer, and the developer has no interest in the property any more. He didn't know what was mean by "appurtenances" mentioned in Item 4 of the Agenda material. Also, they would be severely restricted in the number of building permits they could receive, which means it would be difficult to market a development through the Parades and Previews. Rather than discussing these points at this meeting, the developers hoped to meet with Staff or the Road Committee or have the Council hold a special meeting. Councilmember Jacobson stated he had questions on some of the same items. He was in favor of tabling the item for two weeks to allow the developers and Staff to discuss those items with the Mayor. Mr. Fursman explained all of the changes in the Development Contract are not intended to stand alone but to go hand in hand with Ordinance 10. Unfortunately, those Ordinance 10 amendments will not be ready until the next regular Council meeting. He reviewed the background of the direction Council gave Staff to address the problems associated with the rapid development over several years and to develop policies to help the City develop in a responsible way. One of the areas of concern is the immediate need to be sure the new infrastructure is kept in a state of repair. With the City's scarce resources, there has been limited upkeep of the City's streets. It will require in excess of $500,000 to bring the cracksealing and sealcoating up to date. The Staff has held a series of meetings with the Road Committee and with the Council and discussed the proposal of escrowing for sealcoating on all developments to minimize the development impact. At previous meetings the Council got bogged down with discussions of the septic system issue being mandated by the Metropolitan Council. There is still no progress to report on that issue, but the miles of City roads continues to grow and so does the problem. He urged the Council to at least act on the seal coating issue. _0-'- _ .. _ _~_ I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 4 (Approve Development Contract/Urban & Rural, Continued) Councilmember Jacobson agreed the sealcoating issue had been discussed by the Road Committee, and the Engineering Department argued the first seale oat is a part of the overall construction of a road. But he was still concerned with some of the duplication in the proposed Development Contract, plus he felt some of the costs are high. Mr. Erickson stated the 100-percent bond in the rural area is to warranty the work, similar to what is required in the urban area. A one-year 100-percent bond is currently required, but a two-year bond is not an unusual request. It provides additional security for the City that there will be someone around to repair any problem. He also explained the $1 per square yard for sealcoating was based on previous cracksealing and sea1coating projects. Councilmember Jacobson noted the wording of a two-year bond in the rural area accepts the improvements lying within the public easements. That could also include cable TV, phone lines, gas lines, etc. He felt the language needs to be reviewed. Mr. Erickson agreed to clarify that. Council discussion continued on this item. It was finally decided a special meeting will be held to meet with the developers next week to hear their concerns and to approve the proposal that developers escrow for the first seal coating within their developments. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, that we table Items 4 and 5 except for the issue of sealcoating in both the urban and rural areas and make the sealcoating provision in both of those items included in the Development Contract from this point on, $1 per square yard. Table the rest to the next meeting. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, that the City Council hold a special Council meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 7:00 p.m. at Fire Station No. 1 to discuss with the developers and other interested parties the Development Contract for the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. RECEIVE SUPPLEMENTAL FEASIBILITY REPORT/CROWN POINTE EAST/IP94-22 Attorney Hawkins advised that approval of the Resolution means the Council is both receiving and accepting the feasibility report. Jerrv Winds chit 1 , Ashford Development - presented to the Council copies of letters dated February 21, 1995 from himself and one from his engineer regarding the watermain looping in the proposed plat. Pete Raatikka, EnQineer for Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. , representinQ Mr. Windschitl - stated they reviewed many plans done in Andover where the watermain should have been looped according to the City's policy but was not. In reviewing the Standards for Waterworks adopted by ten state¡¡, the main reason for looping deadends is to provide increased reliability of service and to reduce head or pressure I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 5 (Receive Supplemental Feasibility/94-22, Crown pointe East, Continued) loss. In his opinion, the water is not going to be stagnant in the Quince Street cul-de-sac because there will be 16 connections on it; and he did not see the need for the looping of the watermain. Mr. Erickson explained the recommendation is to loop the watermain to the closest possible future watermain to help keep the line from accumulating a lot of sediment and clogging the system. Because it is not known what will develop to the east, the proposal is to provide for future looping of the watermain to the west to the proposed future Crown pointe plat. It has been the City's experience that cul-de-sacs over 300 feet need to be looped. Mr. Windschitl - argued the $44,000 escrow being asked is over and above what is required in Crown pointe East. Andover has never required a developer to pay for any construction outside of the plat; it has always been limited to the plat itself. The problem with the loop is it would be going through the middle of a wetland, and there is no guarantee that he will be able to get a permit to get the line through it. He also argued similar loops have not been required in the past. There is a cul-de-sac to the south that is approximately the same length as Quince, and that was not required to be looped. Mr. Davidson stated what is unique to this plat is that while the cul- de-sac is only 500 feet, until the road to the east is constructed, from Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition to the cul-de-sac it is one long deadend line. In the past there had been discussions of coordinating utilities and benefits to the property west of Coon Creek. At one point he was specifically asked to consider the two plats, so they put the numbers together for thet alternative if the property west of the creek were built. They were also lead to believe if that property west of the creek were developed, it was going to have two accesses. The other alternative to looping the watermain to the west would be to extend it to a future connection north to Andover Boulevard. Mr. Davidson also explained the watermain system as it relates to development to the east of Prairie Road and how all of the system ties together. He has reviewed those places pointed out by Mr. Raatikka that were not looped. He explained all but two or three are less than 300 feet and a 6-inch main is installed to create more velocity in those lines. The longest one, Eldorado Street in Meadows of Round Lake, was installed with the intent that the street would be extended to Highway 116, and then the line would be looped in the future to the south. The DNR has not yet permitted the extension of that street over the wetland area. The wetlands is also an issue on 147th Avenue in that same development. In Crown pointe East, the intent is to construct the line to the creek so that in the future it can cross the creek and tie in with the property to the west. Mr. Winds chit 1 - stated his principal objection is being asked to escrow money, the $44,000, that isn't going to benefit this plat. If it is determined that a loop is needed, he would not object to that portion being constructed within the plat itself. He did feel, however, that the most logical extension would be to the east; because as that property develops, there will almost assuredly be a cul-de-sac directly Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 6 (Receive Supplemental Feasibility/94-22, Crown pointe East, Continued) east of the Quince Street cul-de-sac because of the nature of that land. They would work with the Staff to find a route to get through with a looped watermain; but he felt very strongly about the $44,000 being asked for something outside of the plat that may not be built because of the wetland. He was not aware that this line is trying to be used for a trunk line to service property to the east. In further discussion on the reasons for looping and the maintenance requirements of deadend water lines, Frank Stone, Public Works Superintendent, explained they must flush those lines that are not looped. Normally the lines are flushed twice a year and cul-de-sacs about four times a year. He also noted that 16 homes on a deadend line is too many. If something happens to the line, it is too many homes that would be without water. He also predicted the water will get stagnant and rusty. Mr. Erickson explained the experience has been the looping eliminates the rusty water complaints. Mr. Davidson stated the next area to be included in the MUSA boundary will probably be to the east of this area, but it is not within the five-year plan. The area to the west is within that five-year plan. He was working with known factors. If the DNR refused to allow the watermain to go through the wetland to the west, they would deal with it; but he did not see a problem getting a permit because it is not a DNR protected wetland and is under the jurisdiction of the Coon Creek Watershed. There was some discussion about getting a permit from the Watershed to cross that wetland with the watermain loop while going through this process; however, Mr. Windschitl noted a permit is only good for one year. Mr. Erickson stated the looping through the wetland is only one alternative. They would look at the shortest and best route for it. Councilmember Jacobson noted the feasibility states the watermain loop goes between Lots 14 and 15, but the map shows it between Lots 15 and 16. Mr. Davidson verified it should be between Lots 15 and 16. During the construction of Crown pointe East, the portion of the watermain to be looped would be brought from the street to the rear end of the lot. It would still have to be piped under the creek plus the rest of the construction when the western property is developed. Councilmember Jacobson again asked if Mr. Windschitl is not objecting to that looping being done in Crown pointe East as long as he doesn't have to put money aside for the western property. Mr. Windschitl - is objecting to the looping, but has less objection to building it if it is in the plans for Crown pointe East. Their biggest objection is to escrow the $44,000. It is tying up a lot of money for something that mayor may not be built. If the Crown pointe East plans are approved tonight with that piece of pipe in it, he does not object to it. He would, however, like to try to look at other alternatives, particularly going to the east. He can meet with the individual who owns that property. That property will have a cul-de-sac, and connecting the two cul-de-sacs would get the best conditions. There is also stable soils on this side of the creek, as it has been farmed for years. -- .--- I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 7 (Receive Supplemental Feasibility/94-22, Crown pointe East, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to adopt the supplemental feasibility report of watermain, street, storm drain and appurtenances as per the Resolution. (See Resolution R022-95) DISCUSSION: Mr. Windschitl - didn't know on whose authority this supplemental report was done and who is paying for it, though he assumes he will be billed for it. He alleged this has never been authorized by the City Council. He wanted just the normal established process to be followed. The Council responded they asked the consulting engineers to come back with some numbers. The bridge has always been an issue. Mr. Windschitl - stated they have no objection to the location and have set that location aside. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Erickson provided some background in this entire process, noting they have tried to follow the direction of the Council. The Attorney may, however, need to check to be sure all of the proper resolutions have been passed. When the preliminary plat was approved on September 6, the Council asked the amount of funds that would be needed for the construction of a street to the west and asked that the source of funding be addressed. Item 4 of the resolution approving the preliminary plat addresses the creek crossing issue, plus it was discussed on two other occasions. Councilmember Jacobson asked Mr. Windschitl if he felt the City has not progressed in the normal manner with normal public hearings. Mr. Windschitl - stated the sequence, to be best of his knowledge, is correct. The preliminary plat was approved on September 6, 1994. The item referred to by Mr. Erickson is in the resolution, but that referred to the street. The Minutes show the feasibility report was approved before it was prepared. The date of the feasibility report is September 19, 1994. He was simply asking if there is to be additional feasibility reports prepared, that they be ordered by the Council. Councilmember Jacobson again asked if there is anything improper or out of sequence in the City's procedure. Mr. Winds chit 1 - stated only that the feasibility report is asking him to escrow something close to one-half million dollars. Councilmember Knight noted the issue of a second crossing needed to develop the property west of the creek has been discussed at a number of meetings. Mr. Fursman stated this was discussed last fall, and the concern is the cost of constructing a bridge would be an issue unless other alternatives for developing the property to the west were found. At that time the agreement was made that the City would allow this project to proceed with the understanding that any future development would depend on that bridge or another crossing. The feasibility was designed to establish the actual costs of constructing that bridge or crossing. At this point the consideration is whether or not it is advisable for the developer to include some kind of provision with Crown pointe East for the construction of that bridge/crossing because it appears the other development would not be able to finance that construction on its own. It is important to understand that another access will be required at some point, to understand what those costs are, and to discuss how to .------ [ Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 8 (Receive Supplemental Feasibility/94-22, Crown pointe East, Continued) fund it. Councilmember Jacobson agreed the City's suggestion was to spread the costs over both plats; however, it is the developer's option to put it all on the proposed Crown pointe development. Further Council discussion reiterated its decision that a second access will be needed when the property west of the creek develops for safety and emergency reasons. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT RESOLUTION/CROWN POINTE EAST Councilmember Jacobson noted the original preliminary plat had only one variance and this one has five. Mr. Erickson stated one variance is the same one, three are for smaller type variances that were not picked up in the original review, and the other is for a different request. Nothing has changed from the original plan review. Attorney Hawkins understood there will be a street easement over Outlot C to the creek so the City can have access if needed in the future. The disadvantage is if it is an outlot, it can go tax forfeit. The policy also is to have a street constructed to the edge of the plat. If it is not going to be constructed now, there should be some financial guarantees provided by the developer. Jerrv WindschitL Ashford Development - stated they have agreed to provide an escrow for the construction. If the road isn't used for a street, he thought he had an agreement with Mr. Fursman that the Development Contract would provide that the land would be given back to him. So the chances of it going tax forfeit are zero. The next item on the agenda provides that prior to plat being filed, he will escrow for the construction of Quince to the creek. Attorney Hawkins also noted there is a provision in the Development Contract that the developer acknowledges that a bridge or crossing is needed to develop the proposed Crown pointe property and the responsibility to pay for it. He believed the City would have a legal basis to require Mr. Windschitl to pay for that crossing. That provision binds Ashford Development and would be recorded as a covenant so any future purchaser would be aware of that obligation. Mr. Erickson also noted the approval of the revised preliminary plat means the revised grading plan will also be approved. Some lots need to be raised. There was also some concerned raised by an adjacent property owner on the change to the swale along his back property line. The original grading plan called for a small scale, which was enlarged and deepened as a result of concerns raised by residents. Aesthetically it is a large change. Mr. Windschitl - stated the revision keeps all of the water on the plat. The changes were made as a result of a number of residents accusing two developers of flooding them out. The lots behind Dave Erickson are two - - -<0-- .... .-._ _ __ _ _. . I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 9 (Approve Revised Preliminary Plat/Crown Pointe, Continued) feet higher than the original plan to make sure the water didn't run onto the adjoining property. The tree quality in that area was very limited and some trees were taken out with the grading work. There is a row of trees still there which are on his property, but they are further down from Mr. Erickson's property. Mayor McKelvey had the impression the whole row of trees would not be disturbed, an issue also raised by some of the adjoining residents. The City Engineer stated the grading change creates a deeper swale to the north, plus it is quite a bit wider. Both the original grading plan and this revised one will function to keep the water off of adjacent property. Dave Erickson, 745 l40th Lane - wanted the Council to know the swale is really a ditch that is six feet which doesn't look good from his yard. He met with Mr. Windschitl before it was excavated. There were some small oak trees behind his property and Mr. Windschitl told him he didn't think the grading plan would change anything behind his house; but it has. He didn't understand how the change has helped him or anyone else because his property doesn't drain to that ditch. Maybe there isn't anything that can be done, but it just doesn't look good. He was told one reason the large swale was needed is to be able to construct walkout basements. He wasn't sure that is a good reason to dig all of that out. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, the Resolution amending Resolution No. 216-94 approving the preliminary plat of Crown Pointe East as being developed by Ashford Development Corporation, Inc. , inserting the date of January 24, 1995, in Item No. 3. (See Resolution R023-95) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE FINAL PLAT/CROWN POINTE EAST Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - thought two of the three issues have been resolved with Staff. He understood that Item 7 of the Resolution, receipt of all necessary drainage utility easements outside of the plat, will be obtained by Staff, as he has no ability of acquiring those easements. Mr. Erickson stated that is correct. Not all easements are in place yet, but Staff is working with the appropriate property owners to obtain them. Mr. Winds chit 1 - also understood that Item 12 is moot since the preliminary plat has just been approved. Mr. Erickson agreed. Mr. Winds chit 1 - stated Item 11 is the only remaining issue, that the developer escrow for the extension of 142nd Avenue, the creek crossing, and also the watermain loop. He will provide the escrow for the connection to the creek for that portion inside the plat. He is also agreeable to provide the watermain loop inside the plat itself . In response to a question from counCilmemb~JJ:'20bSOn, Mr. Windschitl CI ."", ,¿ stated other than for Item 11, he has no Jlto the procedure. The bulk of what is in this Resolution is the stand rd form. a___ /1.0 3- 7- 95 -"" --~.~. . "- - . - ..- . -- -. ~- -- + . I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 10 (Approve Final Plat/ Crown pointe East, Continued) Steve Nash, Attornev representinq Mr. Windschitl - would not give a legal opinion on the procedure, but he does have an issue with the Development Contract which is the next agenda item. Mr. Windschitl - stated Item 11 is stating in order to develop Crown pointe East, he must give $44,000 for the watermain loop and approximately $400,000 for the bridge out of Crown pointe East. He argued that neither one is a part of the approval process for Crown Pointe East. Mr. Fursman stated Staff is not necessarily recommending No. 11. It was put in for discussion so everyone clearly understands what is going on. Councilmember Jacobson agreed with the looping and street extension within the plat. The suggestion was to have the developer spread the costs of the bridge or crossing between the two plats, but that is the developer's option. councilmember Knight was concerned with getting in the position of an argument being raised at the time the western property is developed that a crossing is not feasible economically. Attorney Hawkins advised the language in the Development Contract clearly obligates the developer to the construction of the looping and street extension and those costs. It would not necessarily have to be escrowed now. The Council then suggested a revised wording of Item 11 to "The developer escrow for the extension of 142nd Avenue NW to the creek." Mr. Winds chit 1 - agreed and noted the provision for the watermain loop within the plat itself is already taken care of. He also noted the Watershed Board ultimately has control over Outlots A and B. Easements across them are being given to the City. The Watershed Board will make a determination in early spring as to whether they are or are not buildable lots. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jacobson, that we adopt the Resolution approving the final plat of Crown pointe East as being developed by Ashford Development Corporation, Inc., as amended, specifically Item 11 as agreed and omitting Item No. 12. (See Resolution R024-95) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/CROWN POINTE EAST Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - suggested the Development Contract include a provision that in the event Outlot C is not used for the crossing, that it would be returned to him or that easement would be vacated. He reads Item 13 on page 12 to mean the bridge is to be built, but it doesn't provide any ability of doing anything else. It shouldn't be in the Contract because it does not relate to Crown pointe East; it relates to the proposed Crown Pointe. Crown Pointe East does not need a bridge, so the item should be removed. Steve Nash, Attornev representinq Mr. Windschitl - argued Crown pointe does not exist today. The assumption is also being made as to who owns - ---" o _..__ -- --- - I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 11 (Approve Development Contract/Crown pointe East, Continued) the property west of Coon Creek. That property may not be used in the way it is being assumed. They have heard comments about the possibility of different ways to provide access to that western property, whether it is a bridge, a crossing, a culvert, or some other alternative access. Those will be issues no matter who owns the property, but they are being denied by Item 13 in the Contract. He argued a second access can be made a condition of the development of that western property, and the point of this statement is to make his client aware that this is what has to be done and that this is an issue that will be dealt with. The City has the mechanism to protect itself at that time. As written, the Contract states a bridge must be built for that development; but it doesn't state what type of bridge or that alternatives may be considered. The clause says "he" when the Contract is with Ashford Development and should state "it". If the western property were under different ownership, this condition should not be in the Contract. This clause has never been in an Andover Development Contract before, and it sets a precedent for any number of scenarios. There is also the issue of potential changes if the property is developed five years from now with a different Council, different philosophies, different engineering technologies. Also, the City doesn't have the legal right to require Mr. Windschitl to build a bridge he doesn't need for this plat. After considerable discussion with Mr. Nash and the City Attorney, the Council suggested the wording of Item 13 be revised by Mr. Nash and the City Attorney that would put Ashford Development on notice that in order to develop the property west of Coon Creek, it will have to have two accesses because it is a public safety issue. The language should provide some flexibility for possible alternatives, noting one of the options is a bridge at an estimated cost of almost $400,000; but they didn't want someone to be able to come back saying they didn't know they had to build a bridge for that cost. Attorney Hawkins also recommended the same language for looping the watermain. Mr. Nash - was agreeable to that change in language to put Ashford Development on notice. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to table the Development Contract for Crown pointe East as presented to allow the Attorney for the City and the Attorney for the developer to get together and come to a common language on Item No. 13 in the Contract, which is the Future Utility, Road and Bridge Construction; come back to the Council at the next meeting with language acceptable to both parties to ensure both parties' rights. DISCUSSION: Mr. Fursman asked if the Development Contract should include the revision approved this evening to escrow for the first sealcoating of the streets. Mr. Windschitl - stated the normal practice is to not require new changes for projects that are already in front of the Council. After some discussion, the Council agreed that the change made this evening would not be applicable to projects already in process, that is for those plats that already have preliminary plat approval. Therefore, that provision would not apply in this development. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. .-.- - -- -" ~- - I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 12 AWARD BIDS/CROWN POINTE EAST MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to table this to the next regular meeting to make sure the Development Contract is agreeable. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. The Council recessed at 9:56; reconvened at 10:06 p.m. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/SHARON'S 2ND ADDITION Mr. Haas explained the suggestion to require the developer to pay for the costs associated with the installation of a pumping facility for Pond C within the Hills of Bunker Lake Addition. That pumping facility was required because a number of homes along it were built by Ron Smith at elevations below what was approved. It was not a mistake made by Staff but one made by the surveyor who should have known the elevation of the houses. Mr. Davidson provided the background which lead to the suggestion. At the time the suggestion was made, he did not know that Mr. Smith had made an arrangement with the developer of the Hills of Bunker Lake Addition and had shared in the costs of correcting some of the problem. To alleviate the need to have City Staff pump Pond C whenever the elevation rose to the 100-year elevation, a pumping facility was installed at a cost of approximately $15,000. To spread the costs for Mr. Smith, the proposal is to include that $15,000 in the Development Contract for Sharon's 2nd Addition. The development does not have a direct benefit by the pumping of Pond C. Ron Smith - stated he did not agree to pay for the pumping facility. He owned 25 percent of The Hills of Bunker Lake and he paid 25 percent of the project costs. He already paid for that storm drainage system and did not feel he should have to pay again. Attorney Hawkins agreed the City cannot include that cost in the Contract for Sharon's 2nd Addition. The Council asked if Mr. Smith would be willing to pay a fourth of the cost of that pumping facility. Mr. Smith - stated he was first told the cost of the pump would be $5,000 to $8,000. He could be talked into contributing $3,000. The Council thanked him, asked that Staff find alternative means of paying for the remaining costs. MOTION by Jacobson, that the City Council approve the Development Contract with the costs associated with the pumping facilities for Pond C in the Hills of Bunker Lake to be removed, but also noted that Mr. Ron Smith has voluntarily agreed to contribute $3,000 toward the pumping station and that that be included in the Development Contract. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 13 APPROVE FINAL PLAT/SHARON'S 2ND ADDITION MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, the Resolution approving the final plat of Sharon's 2nd Addition as presented, adding the provision for receipt of all necessary drainage and utility easements outside the plat. (See Resolution R025-94) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. ORDER APPRAISALS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY/IP94-18, CONTINUED Mr. Erickson reported he contacted Larold Thompson, the property owner of 1813 Crosstown Boulevard, who was receptive to the potential sale of the easement for the proposed extension of trunk sanitary sewer line assuming the appraised price was acceptable to him. Mr. Ken Slyzuk, owner of the second property from which easement would be needed, was less receptive to the proposal. Mr. Slyzuk would rather see the sanitary sewer line constructed entirely on the City property, with a possible compromise of selling only 30 feet of easement for the project. He felt the Council needs to address the alignment and the initiation of appraisals to purchase or condemn the necessary easements. The City is in the process of condemning other property, and it would be a significant cost savings to attach this property in the event condemnation ends up being the method of acquisition. He was not aware of a cost evaluation between purchasing easement for the project as opposed to running it on City property. The project will be laying a 24-inch sanitary sewer pipe about 25 feet deep. At least an easement width of 60 feet will be needed plus a spoils pile on one side or the other. Attorney Hawkins estimated approximately 2 acres would be needed to acquire a 60-foot easement from Crosstown Boulevard north to the edge of the City property. The school district has been purchasing property for the new schools at $10,000 to $11,000 per acre, so the estimated cost for the easement would be between $18,000 to $22,000. Ken Slvzuk - was very frustrated that no one approached him about plans for his property, that he hears about plans for his property through the grape vine, and now even that there is talk of condemning his property. He would have worked with the City if it had talked to him initially, but he didn't think this was a very good beginning if the City wants to work with him. He didn't know exactly where the school will be, but he assumed at some point the pipe will have to be bent to get to it. If that is so, he asked why the line couldn't be bent at Crosstown to go up the City property or even all the way over to Hanson Boulevard. He also needed to know if he develops his property in the future, how would his property be impacted by the sewer line through it? How far away would the houses have to be set back from his east property line? Staff noted the possibility of providing a second access with a road along the proposed easement. Otherwise, the normal rear yard setbacks would apply, which is 30 feet for urban developments. Mr. Slvzuk - argued his access would be from Nightingale. He didn't know anything about a road, but he assumed at some point the entire 60 feet will come from his property, which would reduce his building area. - -- .-- ! Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 14 (Order Appraisals for Purchase of property/IP94-18, Continued) Before giving any easement, he would want a written understanding of what could and could not be done with the easement. Again he stated he is very unhappy with finding out about this after the fact. The Council noted the item was tabled to discuss it with the property owners. Mr. Slvzuk - stated he would not agree to the entire 60 feet of easement on his property. Maybe he would give up 30 feet and maybe he would work out a construction easement. He saw no reason why the easement shouldn't be shared with the City. The Council deliberated the route of the sewer line. Staff noted the space between the Public Works Building and City line is very narrow, that 60 feet would be about at the building itself, and that space for public works is very limited with a need for additional storage area. Discussion was also on the potential location of the sewer line once it reaches the northern edge of the City property, the potential service area as laid out by TKDA, and the specific location of some of the lateral lines to the east and west. The specific location of the line to the west to Nightingale was not known by Mr. Haas. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, that we direct City Staff and the Engineering firm to keep the majority of the easement to install the sanitary sewer on City property, east of the line as depicted on a map that was presented to the Council; and to enter into an agreement for the property of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Slyzuk for a temporary easement for spoils pillage. DISCUSSION: Discussion noted the majority of the Council itended that some easement may be needed from the Thompson property to get the line past the Public Works building; but once it is past that building, the line is to be moved as far onto City property as possible. The Council was not interested in purchasing the entire parcel from Mr. Thompson; only the needed easement to get through that area. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, I-No (Dehn as she felt all of the line should remain on City property), I-Absent (Kunza) vote. BACKYARD COMPOSTING PROGRAM/TORO MULCHING POWER PROGRAM Cindy DeRuyter, Recycling Coordinator, informed the Council of the Backyard Compo sting and Grasscycling Seminar scheduled for April 19 at the Bunker Hills Activity Center. In conjunction with the yard waste reduction process, the Toro Company is offering a Grasscycling Seminar to encourage residents to let grass clippings lay instead of disposing them. Twenty-five residents will be chosen to have free use of a mulching lawn mower for a specific period of time, after which they will be allowed to purchase the mower at a reduced cost. Ms. DeRuyter also stated she has purchased some composting bins as well; and she will be checking with the City of Coon Rapids, who is also participating in the program, to determine how much to charge for those bins. No Council action was required. I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 15 SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Council agreed to hold a special meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission on Thursday, March 2, 1995, 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall. ACCEPT EASEMENTS/IP93-30/BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the easements and authorize payment for $7,600 for the purchase of the easements along Bunker Lake Frontage Road, Project 93-30. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1- Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECS/IP94-1/CITY HALL PARK COMPLEX #1 LIGHTING MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, the Resolution as presented by Staff. (See Resolution R026-95 approving final plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Project No. 94-1, City Hall Park Complex #1 lighting) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE FINAL PAYMENT/IP92-25/UNIVERSITY AVENUE MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, the Resolution as presented accepting work and directing final payment to W. B. Miller, Inc., via the City of Ham Lake for project No. 92-25. (See Resolution R027-95) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. ACCEPT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS/FOXBERRY FARMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, that the Council accept the easements for Foxberry Farms on Lots 13 and 14, Block 5 as presented tonight and as depicted on the map. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. APPROVE CLASSIFICATION AND SALE OF FORFEIT LAND After discussing the parcels that have forfeited, the Council agreed the City should not acquire any of them and that all of them should be classified as forfeit land and put up for sale. SEPTIC SYSTEM UPDATE Mr. Fursman noted this item is an informational update on the septic system issue. No Council action was taken. I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 21, 1995 Page 16 The meeting was recessed at 11:29 to hold an EDA meeting; reconvened at 11:40 p.m. TIF REDISTRICTING MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, the Resolution modifying the Development Program for Development District No.1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 and No. 1- 2 to reflect increased geographic area and increased project costs within Development District No. 1 as presented by Staff. (See Resolution R028-95) Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT Updates from Attorney - Attorney Hawkins updated the Council on the progress of the attempt to purchase some of the property south of Bunker Lake Boulevard that is within the TIF District and on the status of a case being litigated. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve Claims tonight in the amount of $352,129.42 as presented by Staff and dated 2-21-95. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Kunza) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, \\~~CÁ.-~~L Marc lla A. Peach Recording Secretary --- ~~~-- - -- ---~- -- - --- -- -.....-- -- - .. ~