Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 29, 1976 ¡ CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 29, 1976 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Richard J. Schneider, March 29, 1976, 7 :30 P. M.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Cros stown Boulevard N. W. , Anoka, Minne sota, for the purpose of reaching a decision on the option to follow relative to the Comprehensive Development Plan/Metropolitan Council A-95 Review. Councilpersons present: Holasek, Rither, VanderLaan, Windschitl. Councilpersons absent: None Also present: City Engineer, D. R. Kasma; City Clerk, Patricia K. Lindquist; and approximately 60 residents-the majority of which represented the 76-1 Project Area. Mayor Schneider explained to the audience that the purpose of the meeting was to cover the options presented by the Metropolitan Council Staff to the Engineer and Clerk at a meeting On Friday, March 26, relative to the recommendation by the Council Staff to the PI;>ysical Development , Committee that the A-95 receive an unfavorable review due to the change in th~ Comprehensive Plan from the original 10 acres to 2 1/2 , acres and the permitting of commercial and industrial growth in the , rural planning district, both of which did not conform to Council guideline s. I I Engineer Kasma reviewed the Clerk's letter (Exhibit "A" attached) to the City Cf,uncil; and noted that he had contacted Mr. Barton cf the Metropolitan Council Staff and was advised that the Council uses 10 acres as a guide-line, and if it is less than 10 acres the community has to present factsl that in no way is the reduction in acreage requirements going to cause any problems insofar as providing services to the residents, etc. Mr. K~sma further stated that he had contacted the City Fiscal Consultant relative to tIie cost figures on a conventional loan vs. F. H. A. loan; and was told there wduld be a lower total cost figure on the conventional 20-year loan, however, thel yearly cost to the resident would be approximately $100 more than with an J' H. A. 30-year loan. The followin citizens commented as shown: (Staff responses are indicated in parenthe ses) Walter L. Arntzen - Asked if the City had ever negotiated with the Council regarding lowering the 10 acre requirement. (No) Stated that the City would not be providing services, as evidenced by the negating vote of the City Council on requesting blacktop streets in rural plats. ( Blacktop would be required on lots of less than 2 1/2 acres. ) Special City Council Meeting - 3/29/76 I Minutes - Page 2 W. Arntzen (continued) _ The City Council is exerting the same type of powers as they are stating is being used by Metro Council, in that the decision to change the Plan from 10 acres to 2 1/2 acres was made and the notice of the meeting was not published. (A notice was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall. ) Terry Zeigler _ Stated that is the people in the 76-1 area that are going to suffer if the F. H. A. loan is refused; and that the urban area should be built up first to help pay for the project, because if it isn't, it will co st those residents living there now e>::tra money. (It will be a general tax levy if at least twenty four new homes are not built each year in the sewered area. ) The three people voting against the ten acres are throwing a "temper tantrum" to prove a point that we and Metro Council might be right. Art Jaworski _ The Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about commercial and industrial development-who can say what the Council feels is compatible; once it is done, you can't tear the buildings down. James Griswold - Stated that he did not understand how the Planning and Zoning Commission and Metropolitan Council could say that ten acres was right-and three people say it is not correct. (Other residents and communities believe in the 2 1/2 acres; Andover is unique because it can be enforced here because of the sewer project.) Is it bad to be unique in taking a step forward. Metro Council may have something going for them in that they have the foresight to see future problems. Donald Ha Iblade _ Asked Councilperson Windschitl on what he was basing his statement that property values would go down in the rural area and that the tax burden would shift to the entire City; and stated that a large portion of the rural area was already under Green Acres, so in a sense this has been the case for years. ( The attorney stated that there would be separate tax districts-do not think this is fair a s the urban area would be paying for most of the services to the rural area-only a small portion of the City is under Green Acres.) Asked Councilperson Windschitl how he could show concern for costs to the people at the time of the Sewer Hearings, and nOw the $100 per year difference in assessments to each resident did not matter. (The urban and rural taxing districts would affect more people. ) Special Com. .1 Meet. 0 - 3/29/76 ] Minutes - Page 3 Jerry Elfert - Asked Councilperson Windschitl what he mean't by the high tax burden the urban area would have to bear. (We have sections of land on the west side of the City that are zoned R -2 (1 acre) - if we do what is being proposed, it would be 10 acres and the valuation would be reduced considerably. Michael Jensen - Are we too far down the pike to scrap the sewer project entirely-an F. H. A. loan security was "ne of the reasons that we voted for the project. ($40,000 approximately has been spend to date for plans etc. Because of the sèptic system failures, sewer is still needed. ) Mary Johnson ~ If you drive around Anoka County, Elk River, etc. , you can see what is happening because of urban sprawl and lack of planning. Loren Anderson - Stated that history will provide the proof-if we would look back at Fridley, Moundsview, New Brighton- if they had developed' entirely in: 2 1/2 acre lots, we would be holding this meeting 40 miles north of Braham. It is time to change! Earl Sigfrid - If the City met with the Metropolitan Council and the Council said a definite "10 acres", would the City go along with them and assure the F. H. A. loan? (There appears to be a willingness on the part of Metropolitan Council to negotiate-we need some method of compensation for the decline in property taxes. ) Marvin cJristenson - The Metropolitan Council does not mandate; they have relied on local governments to plan based on the needs of the communities, however, the local governments have not done this, therefore, Metro Council must.. The degree of authority by the Council depends upon how well the community can manage their affairs. A significant factor in Andover becoming a City was that we had a Comprehensive Development Plan that would benefit the entire City. It is to be noted that the people on the Council who o/pose this 10 acres are people who own sizeable tracts of land. Dean Johnson - Stated that the City Council could adopt the Plan I as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the Metro Council_and if necessary, amend various sections at a later time when the need is present. Special Councu Meeting - 3/29/76 j Minutes - Page 4 Councilpersons comments relative to the Metropolitan Council guidelines and the A-95 Review as follows: Mayor Schneider - The City furnishes the services, Metro Council does not; they are making a mockery of the bicentennial-the elected officials have nothing to say insofar as the planning of the community. Services cost as much for the rural areas as they do for the urban area, whether it is for a 2 1/2 acre lot or a 10 acre lot, police, fire etc. are the same. Councilperson Holasek - Mr. Schmid, Andover Planner, worked with the Metropolitan Council in the formulation of the C. D. P. - many paragraphs in the Plan are exactly the same as in the Council information. Where do the people want their government? If Metro Council stipulates that something is to be done and you don't like it, you have no where to go. The elected officials try to go along with the wishes of the majority. If Metro Council said the City was to have water, you would have water whether you needed it or not. Council per son Rither - In terms of a rural and urban districts the only thing that would prevent the City from doing it would be the time and effort to just sit down and establish it. As far as the differential between taxing districts, this will adjust itself-those of us ,living on small lots have to, be willing to pay for additional services. Adjustments ~'7y,<b'ê",-,r:" required later on in time. Many parts òr the . ' ~, -, ',' ,J C. D. P. are word for word of Metro Council, _jY",:"'"'' "'0' but that was because the Planning and Zoning Commission andj;he Pla11J;l);r felt they applied). ,¡,,,,,,,::'::' A 'ì~iì'~{l"""'1r~"R#-\l-;)-;.'~ Jrl/~~<,; 4-1ttL_.. ~t. ,.'i-:¡'j .)(..4.,h.l!..~.,~. to ndover. e A- 5 eVlew aes e ect us _ ,'I _ .d~ it does not effect the adjoining communities. ¡t...: tt'ltl cG-, -1tlJ.. '-f...-r~{Å.~ :-I.;·~-~~' ".:}-to-r,1,.-;.y\ ~'~ ,:':¡·M.~'f_~L<f-,'; -, '",'.' /" I v,.' -; '._ Councilperson Vander Laan-Statements are being made that Metropolitan Council is the villain here - Andover Planning and Zoning Commission formulated our C. D. P. to control "urban sprawl" as it has been proven that as people move out services become more expensive. The attorney does not say that taxes are going to rise in the urban area. The Council has not always voted on the majority wishes of the residents (Green Acres sanitary sewer, storm s~~(~ /~:P~zr-8}l~e;-.t~v'::ere not a majority petition, ~owever passea' unanimously.) t Special Councll Meeting - 3/29/76 Min utes - Page 5 C01ll1cilperson Windschitl - All adjoining communities like Ham Lake, Burns, Ramsey, etc., would be in the same situation as Andover right now if they were having an A_ 95 Review. If we went to 10 acre lots it would require some measure on the part of the City to "mitigate and balance the effects of these large lots". The attorney says there will be a market decline in the rural area. If the market declines as does valuation, the taxes from the rural area will be reduced and those of us in the urban area will have to pay more taxes-do not think this is fair at all. What is urban and what is rural is hard to define. It is very difficult to find out what Metropolitan Council's position is on the acreage requirement, they want to leave room for error. The people who came to the C. D. P. Public Hearings from the urban area did not want the 10 acres. ,'~ \ MOTION by Windschitl, seconded by Schneider, to declare a moratorium on the rural area, request that the City Engineer meet with Metropolitan Council formally to establish a . policy on exactly what they are suggesting; and based on this, request that the Physical Development Committee give a favorable review on the A-95; and advise them that we will conform to their policy if we receive a favorable review. Dave Jack, Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, stated that he believed the motion to be ill-advised and that it was only a "stall tactic "; and if anything less than 1 0 acres were adopted, it would take a complete reworking of the C. D. P. and would not be dçme in two weeks. Councilperson Rither noted that he believed that:";i;'moratorium\tb"Bk"'é~ricious, arbitrary, and discriminatory in terms of shutting off a certain segment of the City as..Úlf'.as development; and that the Metropolitan Council's Physical Development Commi~~,:,l:;f.s_~~,!t~Jvery clearly the fact, that "you are going to have to show'"us that it:·s the best way to go"; and the sewer project is presently in jeopardy and as time passes our chances , of receiving an .f.-95 negative review increase_there is a simple solution in adopting the C.:p. P. as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. C01ll1cilperson JanderLaan stated that the decision was up to the Council now, and giving it back t Metropolitan Council was only a "trade-off". Council person Holasek noted oppositiorl to a temporary moratorium and the commitment of doing what Metro Council ~equests. Motion withdrawn. MOTION by WJdsChitl, seconded by Schneider, that the City C01ll1cil agree to revise the Comprehensive Development Plan to conform to Metropolitan Council policies by July l, and authorize Toltz, King, Duvall and Anderson. Inc. to work ,', with the Metro Council staff in preparing a position paper on existing alternatives. I Same objections' as to previous motion.' Vote: Yes - Schneider, Windschitl; , No - Holasek, .l)ither, VanderLaan. Motion defeated. Special Council Meeting - 3/29/76 Minutes - Page 6 MOTION by Rither, seconded by VanderLaan, that the Staff be directed to prepare a Resolution stating that the Andover City Council <'Igrees to Revise the Comprehensive Development Plan as Adopted March 11, 1976, with Said Revision to Become Effective by July 1, 1976 - said revision shall reinstate the Comprehensive Development Plan to its original form as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 19, 1975 for adoption by the Andover City Council. It was noted that a Public Hearing .::; would be required for such an amendment. The question was raised on how the Plan could be modified by the Council on March 11, 1976 without a Public Hearing, and yet a Public Hearing would be required to amend. Vote: Yes - Rither, VanderLaan; No - Schneider, Holasek, Windsc1tl. Motion defeated. . I '} - _ S'.' "', .. .(. ' ~.~ _. " . . '~l I - ; . . -' ___ . . e f· I...>f,!.l l'-!_¡.I.-t'u.Jt f'J"~(~~( l /lu-:.,~ -('''It''''''l ¿(., ; '.t!~'1 "/-r,¡u!"i,(h -u.-Fl.it.......;..-;..,o-.. )-',Jotl"'-'...~l é/~ . ,-!,;.. . - . /~.. MOTION by Holasek, seconded by Schneider, to have the engineer and planner, Messrs. Kasma and Hendrickson get together with the Metropolitan Council Staff on a preliminary basis to iron out the details on their policy; :J. and meet with the City Council to supply us with the information; and to request that the A-95 Review be po;t'poned to Thursday, April 8, 1976. Vote: Yes - Schneider, Holasek, Windschitl; No - Rither, VanderLaan. Motion carried. Adjournment MOTION byRither, seconded by VanderLaan, to adjourn. Vote: Yes _ Rither, VanderLaan; No - Schneider, Holasek, Winds chitl. Motion defeated. Storm Drainage Plan Mayor Schneider asked for consideration to have the Engineer !'hold" on the Comprehensiv~ Storm Drainage Plan. This item was not on the agenda, therefore, the Council felt it should not be discussed. Adjournment MOTION by Wmdschitl, seconded by Holasek to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. I 10:35 P.M. Moo'''', .djO"Td' JJ."i[ / ¡ V ¡;' r1 \ '\ ,-1 ,jÝ" ,/ C¡;'V^ JJ orr ¡ CITY of ANDOVER M E M 0 R A N 0 U M To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Copies To: ENGINEER AND ATTORNEY from: r.T.F.RK D ate: MARCH 26. 1976 Reference: SPECIAL MEETING - A95 REVIEW Mr. Kasma and I met today at the Metropolitan Council Office with Messrs. Moe Dorton, Director-Environmental Planning Committee, and Karl Burandt, Council Staff Engineer. This meeting was called by Mr. Burandt as an administrative advisory session to give us a report on their recommendations to the Physical Development Committee relative to the A- 95 Review scheduled for April 1, 1976. The Position Paper, filed today in final form, shows a "negative II review. The primary reason being the change in the Andover Comprehensive Development Plan from 10 acres to 2 1/2 acres , for development :in the Rural Planning Area. The permitting of commercial and industrial growth in this area was also mentioned as being a part of their reason for a "negative" review. The importance of conforming tolMetropolitan Council guidelines was emphasized most strongly. You w,ill receive a copy of the above Position Paper on Monday, March 29. We were advised that the City had the following options at this point: l. Meet prior to the scheduled A-95 Review, and rec.onsider adopting the Comprehensive Development Plan as originally proposed ,lnd approved by the Metropolitan Council, thus assuring, favorable Review; and permitting F.H.A. approval 2. of our prer'ent loan application and of future applications. Meet with the Committee on April, 1976, ,and attempt to convince them that we can meet all requirements on the 2 1/2 acre lots. (In reply to my question on our chances of succeSS with this option, I was told by Mr. Burandt- "Mr. Hoffman, Committee Chairman, is a very strong advocate of controlled growth". ) a. It is to be noted that approximately 40 persons have indicated a "negative" review to this point. Mayor and Council March 26, 1976 Page 2 3. Assuming we receive an unfavorable A-95 Review, request an appeal and look into other and additional means to satisfy Council requirements. a. It was pointed out to Mr. Kasma and me that Andover's Loan Application will automatically be put aãide by the F. H. A. people upon receipt of the negative review; and should an appeal cause a favorable review at a later date, F.H.A. will reactivate our application. however, it will be placed at the bottom of the list and the chances to receive a loan from them will be drastically reduced. 4. Request a one-week delay to April 8, 1976, for the A-95 Review, to allow additional time for the City to act on the information received today. In view of the above, we would recommend that a Council meeting be called for Monday, March 29, 1976, at which time a decision should be made on which option to follow. Mr. Kasma will be available for this meeting. Time appears to be of the essence now, especially with regard to the availability of F. H. A. money, and for the over-all 76-1 Project. (2 Patricia K. Lindquist