Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP February 28, 1995 II CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Meeting - February 28, 1995 Andover Fire Station #1 13875 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. 1. Call to Order - 7:00 pm 2. Development Contract/Urban Area, Cont. 3. Development Contract/Rural Area, Cont. 4. Adjournment .---.... . nl ·9"~'· !, CITY of ANDOVER " ",' .~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.' ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on February 28, 1995, 7:05 p.m., at the Andover Fire Station No.1, 13875 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota, to review proposed modifications to the City's Standard Urban and Rural Development Contracts with Staff and developers. Councilmembers present: Dehn, Jacobson, Knight Councilmember absent: Kunza Also present: City Engineer, Scott Erickson Building Official, Dave Almgren City Forester, Ray Sawada City Administrator, Richard Fursman Developers and Builders: Jerry Windschitl, Ashford Development Tony Emmerich, Emmerich Construction Gary Gorham, Gorham Builder Dean Zaudtke, Zaudtke Construction Byron Westlund, Woodland Development Pete Semler, Semler Construction Steve Jonak Development Contract in Urban Area Developer's Improvements Section Mr. Erickson reviewed the proposed change to the City's Standard Urban Development Contract that would require the Developer to be responsible to maintain the required tree protection for each lot until a building permit is issued for that lot, after which the builder will assume responsibility to maintain the tree protection. The intent is to make the Tree Protection Policy work by making the developers and builders responsible because of the limited Staff. The developers pointed out that once the utilities are in and the plat is accepted, there isn't a need for the tree protection any more. What happens if a house is not constructed on a lot for three or more years or if that lot is sold to someone else who does not pull a building permit for several years? They argued they should not be held liable for property they do not own or after a project is accepted by the City. After further discussion, Mr. Erickson stated this section could be rewritten that the developer would be responsible for the tree protection for the development until its acceptance by the City. At that point, any remaining lots would be the responsibility of the property owner. Staff was trying to get away from having to chase down hundreds of private property owners to maintain the tree protection policy. Councilmember Knight questioned whether the City could legally hold someone responsible for property they no longer own. The developers noted a willingness to put wording in their purchase agreements that when the title is transferred, the new owner is responsible for the tree preservation policy with the City. f'\'~ ~ "'" 3(;¡,)q., . -- - -.-...-. --~.-- -. q¡ Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 28, 1995 Page 2 A lengthy discussion ensued on the City's Tree Protection Policy itself, with several developers and builders stating as it stands, the policy encourages the clear-cutting of land and lots before development. Mr. Zaudtke stated he always tries to save as many trees as possible but he does not guarantee them for his customer. Because he includes all of them in the tree protection zone, he is penalized by the City when some that are close to the new home are accidently damaged even though his customer has agreed not to hold him responsible for the loss. As a result, he feels he would be better off clearing those trees out before pulling a building permit. Mr. Gorham asked what they as developers have done in the City this last year that is so bad that all these changes are needed. He, as well as others, noted they live in the City, are proud of it and think the community is developing nicely. The proposed changes are taking away their flexibility and are forcing them to get the maximum number of lots they can to make a profit. If they cannot come to an agreement here, he proposed the developers collectively pay for a planner to review the contract and its changes and make recommendations that would protect both the City and the developers. Other developers concurred. Mr. Sowada felt the biggest problem occurs when the builder and subcontractors get on the individual lots and the protective fencing is knocked down and trees that were designated for protection are damaged. Mr. Gorham noted that is an administrative process that does not involve the developer. Developers realize the need to preserve trees. His experience also has been that the problem occurs with the City's own contractors coming into the development for the construction of utilities. It is an education process with those contractors, builders and subcontractors. At this point Mr. Fursman showed a video taken during the last construction season of the many violations of tree protective fencing down, erosion control measures missing or inaccurately installed, dirt or vehicles in the roadway, etc. while the subdivisions are being developed and houses constructed. Mr. Emmerich noted the vast majority of the violations were done by individual builders, not by the developer. The developers also pointed out that there have been very few problems with trees dying after a house is constructed; and that if they do, it should not be the responsibility of the City. It is between the homeowner and the builder. The Council suggested when violations do occur, the builder should be immediately red tagged and not allowed to continue until the violations are corrected. Several developers also noted that they respond immediately to violations when Staff informs them. Staff agreed the developers have cooperated whenever asked. Because the Building Inspectors are on the site often, the Council suggested they should also be given the authority to red tag for violations of the Tree Preservation Policy, erosion control provisions, etc. Discussion was that the Tree Protection Policy was adopted from that of '" Lino Lakes, where the policy is working well. Mr. Gorham explained how the policy is enforced in Lino Lakes, noting only those trees on the perimeter of a lot are slated for protection. Anything closer to the house can be left at the discretion of the builder and property owner, _._-- - ----.... ----. .- , , 'll Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 28, 1995 Page 3 though there is no penalty if any have to be removed or are damaged and die. Mr. Sowada also stated it is up to the developer and property owners to determine which trees they want to save. The Council pointed out the reason for the policy was to prevent the clear-cutting of lots. With the understanding that the intent is to save the perimeter trees, the developers and builders felt they have been trying to save more trees than they should and were now more comfortable with the policy. The developers still felt the policy should only be enforced until the City accepts the project. It was generally agreed that most of the problems lie with the subcontractors and that education is a key factor. The Council generally agreed with the interpretation of the policy that the developer or builder will decided what trees are to be saved, acknowledging that everyone cannot be saved. If a violation is found, the Building Official should red tag the project until it is corrected, as it is a duplication to have the Tree Inspector come to the site to tag it. Trees outside of the protected areas mayor may not be saved, but there would be no penalty if they are damaged during construction. The penalty would only apply to those trees within the protected area. Also, the developer would be responsible to maintain the required tree protection until the City accepts the grading and improvements. Mr. Erickson stated he would look at the wording of this provision to make it a workable policy. Mr. Erickson went on to explain the second proposal, that a cash escrow of not less than $5,000 be required for erosion control, with the unused balance refunded upon complete turf establishment as determined by the City. It is the Staff's intent to strictly enforce the erosion control requirements; therefore, additional escrow may be necessary if the City has to correct the problems itself. The developers within the Coon Creek Watershed do have to escrow for this same thing with the Coon Creek Watershed Board. Staff is exploring with the Watershed Board the possibility of being allowed to use their escrow funds if necessary. If the Watershed Board agrees, this escrow would not be necessary. Until an agreement is reached, however, Staff is suggesting the proposal as written. The developers noted the escrow with the Watershed is very large. They also argued they can only be responsible to a certain point. After a building permit is pulled, the builder and subcontractors are responsible. They also questioned the increased amount from $500 to $5,000, as those present had not had their erosion control escrowed ever used by the City because they respond immediately whenever the City calls with a concern. They complained that it appears they are being penalized for the .01 percent of the developers who do not follow the regulations. It was pointed out the $5,000 actually becomes $8,100 with the factors and that all of these additional items are tying up a lot of capital for them. Generally, the developers wanted to see the dollar amount reduced; and those people who are violating this should be fined by the City or denied building permits or Certificates of Occupancy. Or if an escrow runs out, require an additional escrow amount at that point. Staff and Council countered that any fines would then be borne by the new owner of a home, not the developer or builder. -~..-.- - ---....,. ----. -- -. , , 'll Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 28, 1995 Page 4 The Council urged Staff to continue talking with the Watershed Board to be allowed to use the escrow deposited with them to correct violations and to look at whether the $5,000 figure is too much. Staff thought a figure of $2,500 or possibly a per-lot charge in the development could be considered. They will also continue talking with the Watershed Board. Mr. Erickson then reviewed the proposal to add to the Urban Development Contract that the developer shall provide a registered professional engineer or their duly authorized representative to oversee at the Developer's expense the Developer's Improvements until such improvements are completed and accepted by the City. The developers acknowledged they already do this. Mr. Erickson noted the fourth proposal: upon final acceptance of the Developer's Improvements, a two-year warranty bond shall be provided by the Developer to the City guaranteeing all work relating to turf restoration, erosion control and tree removal. Mr. Winds chit 1 felt it is difficult to get a warranty bond and suggested the language "cash escrow or Letter of Credit" also be included. Mr. Erickson agreed. The developers questioned the inclusion of tree removal in the warranty. With the installation of utilities, it is not possible to have trees buried under the streets. It was also suggested that as the number of lots are sold and developed, the City would reduce the amount of the escrow quarterly. Mr. Erickson felt that is a good suggestion. He was also thinking of an escrow for 50 percent of the cost of the development for this item. That amount could be reduced as development occurs. Council and Staff agreed to delete tree removal from this item because it is covered by other policies and ordinances. Developers also noted the problems of ATVs, snowmobiles, horses, etc., which drive over their silt fences, through the sedimentation ponds, over the turf. The Staff agreed to work on specific amounts for this item and to bring it back to the developers and Council. Developer Contract in Urban Area City's Improvements Section Mr. Erickson then noted the first proposal for the City's Improvement Section that the Developer shall be required to pay the cost associated with the first sealcoat for the new streets as a part of the improvement costs at the rate of $1 per square yard. Mr. Windschitl argued the City increased its tax levy several years ago for sealcoating and that with this policy, the new home owners in the City will be paying that the first sealcoat plus their taxes from the general fund which are used to sealcoat other areas of the City. He suggested Andover adopt a policy similar to Ramsey in which the area of the City that will be sealcoated is assessed for those costs. He questioned whether this will help the City catch up on their sealcoating program. Other developers pointed out this means an additional cost of $120 to $150 per urban lot and $520 to $807 per rural lot. __~__...._. --_0-- q¡ Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 28, 1995 page 5 The Council pointed out this is no different than those living on gravel roads paying for sealcoating when general funds are used. They also provided some history on how the sea1coating program got so far behind and the efforts being taken to bring the program to where it should be. They assured the developers that the dollars collected from each subdivision for sealcoating will be used in that specific development. No change was suggested. Mr. Erickson explained Item 2 which would limit the issuance of building permits and Certificates of Occupancy to four lots at each intersection before the first 1 1/2 inches of bituminous is installed. Other permits would be allowed on a service road at the discretion of the Building Official. Mr. Emmerich asked if permits can be pulled for lots that back onto an existing publicly maintained road. Mr. Erickson felt that is still an item for discussion. The intent is to limit access into the development to allow the City's utility contractors to work, to limit the impact of builders on the site. The developers were concerned with having enough homes constructed to market for the Spring Preview in March and the Parade of Homes in the fall. They felt at least ten percent of a development must have houses constructed and that some need to be on the nicer interior lots. Mr. Fursman pointed out the issue is the ability of the City to maintain quality control when all the other construction vehicles are allover the road versus the developer's responsibility for getting the final product completed quickly. The most desirable lots are typically not those right next to the main entrances. The developers also noted that if there is a problem, it is theirs to deal with. Also, Andover and one other City are the only ones who require the construction of a fire road. The Staff also explained that in the entire proposal, the time line would be to have all plats approved and ready to be bid early in the year to get the best bid prices and to be able to begin construction as soon as the weather allows. That would eliminate the concern with when houses would be ready for the Parades and Previews. (Councilmember Knight left at this time; 9:35 p.m.) The developers did not feel there was a problem, pointing to the many developments in the City and how well it has been developed. If there is a problem with curb and gutter being ruined, it is ultimately the developer's responsibility, not the City's. Council suggested Staff again look at the number of permits that would be allowed taking into consideration the discussion this evening. Mr. Erickson noted Item 3 is to allow the City Building Official to issue a cease and desist order for violations of silt fencing, erosion control or tree protection. The developers generally agreed with that provision. - ----....- --,.-, , , ill Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - February 28, 1995 Page 6 Development Contract for Rural Area Developer's Improvements Section Everyone generally agreed the same changes and issues would relate to the first four item as they do in the urban area. The concern raised by the developers was on Item 5, that upon final acceptance of the City maintained improvements lying within the public easements, a 2-year warranty bond shall be provided to the City by the developer for 100 percent of the improvements costs. They argued that makes the assumption that nothing they did was right. Typically warranties are never that inclusive. Mr. Erickson noted the deposit could also include a cash escrow or Letter of Credit. The provision is the same as what the City requires of contractors for projects in the urban areas. Also, the City does not have a full-time inspector on the site of rural projects. The two years gives the City extra insurance. The developers countered they must have an inspector; that GME does inspect and certify and must be out there enough to make that certification. It would be cheaper for them to have a GME inspector on site at all times rather than warrant for 100 percent of the project. They also argued that there are utilities in the urban area; whereas there are only roads in the rural area. They asked if there has been a problem in the past, as they did not think there has been because the escrows have not been used. It also means they have to have a lot of capital tied up far a long period of time for no apparent reason. It is a tremendous burden for the developers. The Council noted it will ultimately be their decision as to the amount and length of time for the warranty. Staff was directed to make changes suggested this evening and consider others based on tonight's discussion and come back to the Council when both the Staff and the developers have agreed on the proposals. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Dehn, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 2-Absent (Knight, Kunza) vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l\~~~<- ~ Mar la A. Peach Recording Secretary . ------- - -----...-- --- .-- , ,