The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP January 12, 1976 ClrY 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 12, 1976 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Richard J. Schneider, January 12, 1976, at 7:36 P.M., at the Andover Community Center, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W., for the purpose of discussing the Comprehensive Plan. Counci1persons present: Ho1asek, Rither, VanderLaan, Windschit1 Counci1persons absent: None Also Present: City Administrator, Norman Werner; City Attorney, William Hawkins; Jim Barton of the Metro Council; Dave Jack, Chairman of Planning/Zoning Commission. Mayor Schneider began by reporting to Mr. Barton that the Council / had adopted the "principle concept" of the Plan, the concept of rura1- urban districts and that the engineer has established boundaries. He then asked Mr. Barton!if the City should provide improvements in urban areas before development or if the developer should provide improvements. Mr. Barton stated that the finalizing of the Plan would be necessary. Implementation deviceJ are the most important aspect at this time. I Mr. Hawkins explained points covered in his letter to the Council (attachment A) which included low density or large lot zoning, developer restrictions concerning specified times, developer restrictions concerning maximum lot size and eminent domain. I Mr. Barton introduced the Council to three publications that could possibly help them with implementation and management: 1. Urban Growth Management Svstems; 2~ Fiscal Impacts of Land Development; 3, Management and Control of Growth~ I He discussed decision making and forcasting and stated they should be related to development. The objectives of the detail management system , are: 1. to economize the cost of providing services; 2. to retain municipal control fo~ eventual character of development; 3. to maintain a desirable degree oj balance amoung various uses of lands, as a result what are the services necessary to support it. I He stated that the Andover Council must consider and form procedures through reasonable background and research: 1. where the community is going in terms of assessed valuation; 2. what it can afford in annual , expenditures; 3. overall indebtedness. The financial health of the City must be considered in longe range forcasting and development and financially stay within what thelCity can absorb in additional development. Over development means a ecrease in levels of service. Controlled development , keeps the level of service high. The Comprehensive Plan is a reference point and should be a flexible document. Special Council Meeting - 1/12/76 Minutes - Page 2 Capital needs such as roads, sewer, storm sewer, water and their cost must be considered in a Capital Improvement Program, a schedule of commitments to implement a certain policy. Investments are then made with public dollars in an attempt to maximize these investments for development in the predetermined area. Costs will be matched with fiscal resourses to program staged investments. Then you allow develop- ment to occur where you have made your initial investment. Ordinances are available to help control development such as a facilities ordinance, environmental ordinance or drainage ordinance. There was some discussion on Capital Improvement Programs using Ramapo, New York (see attachment A) as an example. A five year plan would be the most practical. Anything after that becomes very "iffy". The question was raised whether we would be forcing development to move outward. Mr. Barton replied that this was possible but the low density, large lots were necessary from a pollution standpoint as well as from a maintenance standpoint. A big expense for the City will be in maintaining existing roads without having created neW ones. It all goes back to what the City can afford. I Mr. Jack, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, stated that the "expectation ievel" in the City is building. Citizens are wondering where their City services are. He further stated that the Comprehensive Plan must be adopted by ordinance in order to give the Planning and Zoning Comcission some direction and guidelines. Councilperson Rither asked what type of development the City wants for itself. He said the question has never been answered and probably never asked. I He also suggested¡ that Hr. Hawkins, Hr. Jack, and Mr. Barton sit down before the next meeting and prepare an effectual outline of what was covered tonight. I Councilperson Windschitl asked if Mr. Hawkins could elaborate on the three question in his letter to the Council. He especially wants to know what would constitute confiscatory taking. I Mr. Barton reiterated that the Metropolitan Council will back the , City with legal and financial aid when or if the implementation of Hetro Council policy is challenged. 1976 at The heavy meeting schedule was discussed and Harch 11, 7:30 P.H. was set for 'the next and last meeting on the Comprehensive Development Plan. MOTION by Windschitl, ¡seconded by VanderLaan that any proposed changes anyone has to the Comprehensive Development Plan should be received by the Clerk/Treasurer by Harch 1, to be typed and distributed to the Council by Harch 5, for c::onsideration at the meeting Thursday, Harch 11, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Holasek, seconded by Windschitl to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously_ Meeting adjourned at 10:30~ 't'óM ,~O'r'r'~./ ~(Ibl¡ j an Babcock, Secretary I BABCOCK, LOCHER. NEILSON & MANNELLA ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ NORTH.TOWN CENTER tIT NORTHTOWN DRIVE BLAINE. MINNESOTA 155434 TEL.l C812) '788-02&0 fUND P. BABCOCK ANOKA OFFI("E DÓL J. LOCUER 118 EAST MAIN STR}U;T (ER M. NEILSON' ANOKA. MINNESOTA f'jð803 ,IX A. MANNELLA. T8L. (812) 42t-allS! N n. SPEAKMAN liARD BRENS lEnT F. MANNELLA 1'1 M. BURKE .LIAN a. HAWKINS lALD B. PETERSON iUBry 12. 1976 ,over' City Counoil ',over' meeota Comprehensive Deve~opment Plan Itlemen: I lm writing in response to your request ¡'or my legal opinion eollt"'l'r.~.." 'eral questions that ~he Council has raised in dißeussin~ cr~tniG - ,Ú use controls proposed in the Comprehensive Development Pi;'i. 'suant to the memorandum dated December 9, 197'5. I met ~'TitL tor ~ropoli tan Legal Stafr on !1ondny, January 5, 1976. to (¡1ecu:;;:; ;;", ';'11 aspects of imposing large lot or low density type zon1n;; ::. ;h the rural and urban develo¡JfI\en1; di3tr.:cct3, cont(:.n¡11ntu, ,-" m. In issuing thie :opinion. I ~TOuld like to point out to 1;¡, ' meil that there is qo specific r.tatutory authorizatioa 1n ;.;: '.. i" , a municipal eorpor1tion to adopt 1m.. density or lar<"e 10',; 'i'~..:, 0. meanB of land use control. SlTi1~LJ..arlYJ there have been :ì.\)~' _,':'Oi-.v tile rUnnesota Supreme Court ßrantin¡~ authority to municip ,u t' '. , icl' the general lnn~Uage of the Hinnesota :·¡unicipal Planr.in" "",- utilize the above m ntioned land use teehniques. Therefor". by ,cssity the rocus oflmy research has been on etatutes and Cou~c "loiol1s issued in State and Federal Courts outside Minnesot~. "ltl'~ wy m'!eting ~rith Jthe ?ouncl1 3tr~"'>'. ! r::t;.sc<l, ~he G.1t~."t:r. Jolble legal and rin ncia¿ aupport ~or toe C¿ty ¿> wc ~~" ~"~ 'lsity or large lot Z~ning and a challenge 1'1'13 made to this nc·"',,,,,. ~ns informed that a r emorandum would be directed in the ..car :uL,,,'l. the Counoil requesting their consideration or auch aesistance. I ' .~ rirst question that is posed 1s the legali~ of the ten "Cl'C lot- ~uircment 1n the rural development area. It would be r;¡y opinJ 0;, at the adoption of either of a large lot or low density zone woulà , a proper exereise of municipal planning authority. Larr;e lot or 1 density zoning. however, cannot be done in a vacuum. Such 7-ones Jt clearly be oonsistant with and buttressed by planning support Lch in its best form includes an adopted atae;ed and balanced community ,'elopment plan. ineluding a faeilitieo element. eonsiatant Hi tb the ;ual use of land within the community. It is my feeling that the oy of Andover. through the de'!elopment and adoption of the COD\ir.unity 'elopment Plan. is meeting the above mentioned criteria, fin addition, order to support this eoneept. it probably will be neeessary to )pt measurea which mitigate and balance the finaneial effect of sueh 1triction on land owners. Sueh mcasureß may include consideration urban service and rural service tax diatriets or reduetion in lesDed value for property tax computationo. In addition. therc must provisions contained which permit limited exceptions to the Itrictions to avoid possible claims of confiscatory takin[) by the ;y. , second question concerns whether the City may legally demand that leveloper not subdivide an area until a specified time. It \1ould my opinion that the municipality would have such authority provided It the community has an adopted development plan. which includcs ¡taged Capital Improvements Plan to extend public serviceo and .litieo within a "reasonable" period of time to the area on which '0 lopment is restricted. This raises the question as to what iß a lSonable length of time. One of the leadinß land use planninG :ißionß in the country. Golden vo Planning Board of the 'rO\'IJ1 of 1'11'0, upheld the restriction of development under a timed and ¡uontial phasing plan: for a period aD long as 18 years. 13aoed on ! arguments presented in this caoe, it Hould seem rea~onable to ¡ume that l1inneso-éa WrUld uphold similar developmental restrietion¡¡, ! third queßtion eoncerns Hhether the City ean impose rcr,trictioj;J m a developer pertaÜl1n~ no1; only to minimum lot si:::c but also :imum lot size in the] urban area. There appears to be notl1inl~ in enablin~ legialatior which grantß the municipality authority to ;ablißh various lot sizes that would prohibit the imposition of ,h a restriction. Furthermore, if the eoneern is one of street itinuity and extension of public services and utilities. a ìicipality would appe~r to have the authority to regulate lot oizo , locéltion throur,h the subdivi¡¡ion ordinúnce. , final quostion eone~rns the definition of eminent domain nG pOfled Hi thin the fra e-Hork of the Comprehensive Development Plan. ,nent domain is defined as the acquißition of property by a political division for a pUblig purpose. The primary use of this pO~ler as templated under the omprehensive Development Plan Hould be i'm' the I uisition of permanent open space. parks and recreation area3 in green ,tine;. These would all appear to be valid public uses for whicil City may utilize its power of eminent domain. In addition. the I , in proposed the use of zoning with compensation. The Minnesota >reme Court has in the past ruled that a municipality has this ;hority under the eminent domain statute. This technique is not )d to acquire a fee simple interest in land but is used primarily condemn all rights in derogation of the zoning ordinance including . right to a vested non-eonform1ng use and a rißht to a varianee lause of unnecessary hardship. As a part of this question I Has uested to list the criteria that the City Hould employ to utilize !ir power of eminent domain. I respeetfully decline to answer this !stion since once legal requirement of pUblic purpose has been .filled, it would be a policy decision of this and future councils determine when and where eminent domain should be used to effeetively 'ry out the objeotives of the development plan. loerely, liam G. Hawkins