Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC August 8, 1977 . . CITY of ANDOVER CO'ITnTUED CITY COUJlCIL HEETING - AUGUST 8, 1977 J1INUTES The Continued Regular Bi-!!onthly Heeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by I~yor Jerry ITindschitl on August 8, 1977, 7:35 p,m" at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstovm Boulevard N~, Anoka, Hinnesota. Councilpersons present: Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, VanderLaan Councilpersons absent: lIone Also present: City Attorney, "illiam G, Hawkins; Building Official, James Thurston; Planning and Zoning Member, "alter Bruns; City Clerk, P, K, Lindquist; and interested resident, Ap;enda Anuroval MOTIO~ by Lachinski, Seconded by McClure, to approve the Agenda as itemized. Motion carried unanimously. "inal Svste!!!s Statement - Pesolution for Hearing Attorney Hawkins explained that the Pesolution can be directed to either the State Office of Hearing exaMiners or to the Metropolitan Land Use Advisory Committee. General consensus of the Council was to direct the Resolution to the !1etropolitan Land Use Advisory Committee since it is a body of people consisting of elected City officials who would probably be !!!ore fa!!!iliar with the problem involved, and more than one individual would be Hearing the Resolution as opposed to one examiner in the case of the State Office of Hearing Examiners. General consensus was that there is a discrepancy in the proposed population figures both in the Final Systems Statement and those that are recommended to be adopted, as they re- flect a decreased population in the rural area by the year 1990, Discussion was on questioning the meaning of the figures as they are presented -- do they reflect an expansion of the,sewered area (however, they know our maximum sewer pipe capacity and our Comprehensive Sewer Plan and have approved our boundaries); or do the figures reflect an airport search area existing in Andover (however, the remaining sections of the Pinal Systems State!!!ent do not take into account the airport search area), These figures reflect the unsewered areas loosing population when in actuality that population will increase. I :Then the City's levised sewer study was done, figures were used and agreed upon by the Hetropolitan Council thinking that that would be the population in the year 2005, The City shouldn't bJ planning for one population and them planning for another, The figure of 14,000 people [was arrived at based on the urban area as we see it now, with no intent of nutting pipe beyond that, The City's objection would be that the planning they are I usin~ for our sewered area is not consistent with our Financing Plan; that the Financing Plan was defined lin a document sent to the!!! with the pipe known, the boundaries set as far as where the pipe is going, etc.; and that in the rural area they are showing a population of 2,500 by 1990, which is impossible because there is more than that there no~ Counciluerson va~derLaan questioned whether we are going beyond the parameters of the Syste!!!s Statemen as the preciseness of the figures in the unsffivered population are not as irn~ortant as they relate to !1etropolitan Systems as they are in the sewered area. . , Councilperson OrJtel felt the rural area is one of the most important parts of the Systems Statemen1 as that is the area we have to plan for -- the urban area is already nretty much planned, Attorney Hawkins explained we should set out the two issues in the Resolution (population and airport); and if you receive the population, you can enter into Continued City Council Heeting Minutes - August 8, 1977 Page 2 (Final Systems State~ent - Resolution for Hearing, Continued) a stipulation to agree to the population figures arrived at but still not stipulate as to the airport ~rovision until after the Hearings are held in October, He felt the City would be financially better off to resolve both issues at one Hearing. Xayor Windschitl internreted the procedure that they will hold a Hearing within 60 days to resolve other issues, then we would enter into a stipulation that this will be solved after the October Hearing. Discussion continued on the procedure involved. Councilperson Orttel felt the airport issue needs to be resolved before any planning can be done, The airport search area could possibly be left in even though an air~ort isn't needed out here now, !~yor Windschitl read the ~roposed Resolution prepared by the City Clerk relating to the Airport Search Area and suggested an addition be added which in essenCe stated the pop- ulation figures in the sewered areas do not correspond to the Internal Financing Plan used to develop our existing sewered syste~; and we find that in the year 1990, a re- duction of 1,500 residents haG occurred in the unsewered area; adding what we feel the population figures should be,' Hayor :'!indschi tl suggested the figures in the unsel'lered areas would be 5,000 in 1990 and 6,000 in 2000, Councilperson Lachinski felt the figure should read 6,000 in 1990 and 9,000 in the year 2000, In looking at the building in the City for the last few years and at the population projections ~ade in the Financing Plan for the se~ered ,areas, these figures can actually be calculated, I Discussion ¡'¡as on whether to leave the words tlPlannin~ and Zoning Commission" in the Resolution. Final consensus was to lèave the~ in as they have done research and work o~ the Syste~s State~ent, Last þaragraph on first paß8 should read "'\'lhereas, if there i.s to be such a facility, Section "A" (Transportation), Section "C" (\'Iaste Hanagement), ,'J.nd Section II'!)" (Recreation Open Space) J:mst encompass the planning for sa~e." Total population 1 for the year 2005 should be around 14,000 in the sewered area according to the Financia~ Plan; po~ulation in the sewered and unsewered areas need to reflect this, Suggested change was population in unseweted area in 1990, 6,000; and in the year 200, 9,000, This is to be typed into a draft form for approval, Discussion was oln the interpretation of the paragraph on the second page of the proposed resolution askin'g that the entire paragraph on airports be deleted, It was "-£;reed that the wordin~ should be chan~ed clarifying the meaning. ITe cannot simply asl:t~~m to take out the airnortsl section of the Syste~s Statement -- the intent is that we want to be kebt informed Of the situation; and should, after the October HearinGs, it is deter~ined that the north search area will not be needed or that a smaller search area will be neede~ that section sho~ld be removed or a~ended in our Final Syste~s State~ent, Hr, Hawkins , and Hs, Lindquist were directed to clarify the wording in the Resolution to state that intent, I Ten-minute reCess at ß:50 p,m, I Buildability Ordinance !~, Thurston co~ented on the Ordinance: Section A -- He felt that he could conduct the required tests, but worried about the liability incurred as to the validity of those particular testsl if somethin~ were questioned in the fUGure based on the way the State Board of TIegistrrtion feels, They feel these tests are not valid unless done by a registered en~ineer or expert, Doinr, these tests would also be very time consu~inG, He also felt I . the person should have the choice as to which engineer would do these tests, as the costs May vary fro~ on~ engineer to anothe~. Continued City Council Heeting Minutes - August 8, 1977 Page 3 (Buildability Ordinance, Continued) ~·3ction B ..- r·T. Thurston questioned the word "proposed" in the Section statin('; "The ùuilding Inspector shall indicate whether or not the proposed septic system , , " Sale , of land doesn't necessarily nean they know what they are going to build on it, Until they have plans, we can't tell then what the proposed septic system is (';oing to havc to have to meet State Code. So the worst situation would have to be indicated, based on. the largest conceivable single fanily dwelling, which nay or nay not be fair, Discussion was on indicatin('; the number Of bedroons the land is suitable for relative to a septic systen, V~, 7hurston stated based on the tests, he would know how nany bedrooms would be suitable, The ehGineer can give the indicatings as to what design will be necessary for the soil conditions, 'T, Thurston felt he couldn't sign the Certificate that he is the expert in this; however, he could sign the results of the tests he got when he did the tests, lIe would not be willing to sign his name to a Certificate on a parcel that didn't have a 80i18 test. Generally, in plats there is no þToblem with soil conditions. In the case of open land, he would be leary of naking a statenent, At present he required borings done approximately six times, out of approxiMately 100 in the last year and a half, Councilperson Orttel commented that under this Ordinance, we're going to ask 100 people to have a soil boring because of a few problems that were detected anyway by observation, It appears,.as though the observation is as accurate as the borings, and he felt that it was not the intent of the Ordinance to require everyone to have a soil boring. Jfr. Thurston agreed it would be more logical to state the Building Inspector may "request" perculation tests, soil borine;s, etc" with such a charge assessed to the owner. In that way, he can request the seller to furnish this infor~ation from a regis- tered engineer, 1 Jrayor l'Iindschitl nointed out that the Ordinance states the Building Inspector shall 'indicate whether or not the water table and soil conditions on the parcel are suitable for construction. This determination cannot be done without conducting the tests, !T, Thu\ston exnlained that he usually tries to do an on-site inspection of a lot before construction bef,ins, Section D -- Ifr,' Thurston explained he could nake the statement about the water table, soil. conditions,' etc., but felt he couldn't list the nodifications or changes needed to make the lot buildable, as he is not an engineer, Væ, Bruns felt the Planning and Zoning Co~mission woul~ aGree to delete that particular Section and that the Ordinance gives the Building In~pector all the tools needed to nake a determination of what needs to be done, !T, Thurston stated he didn't J.-..now of anyone buying a lot which ViaS deternined un- I buildable because of soil conditions, Ee couldn't begin to guess how much time it would take to enforce ;this Ordinance, but explained that Many tines lots are sold which are not recorded, often ¡in the case of parcels bought on a personal note, contract for deed, etc" or not recorded luntil the builder is ready to close on the mortgage of the new house, ¡'fr, Thurston guessed that out of 100 transactions, possibly 20 to 30 þarcels would be in the gray are5 where he would need tests done, If the engineer did it, little tiMe wouE be spent, If he had to do theM hiMself, it would be very tiMe consuMing, ¡fr. Bruns felt tlis Ordinance would protect the conSUMer in that a leGal title search would indicate t'o hi!:! that he needs this Certificate of TJuildability prior to any money chan~in~ hands. IllS" Lindquist stated th::1t more than 95 þercent of the cases were someone can't build on ~ ~arcel is because of the violation in the Ordinance (size of lot, fronta~e, etc,), not because of the soilG, Also, this Ordinance does not protect the buyer if he dlJesp't know he is going to r,et a Certificate. Attorney Hawkins exþlained that if ì.7e prose?uted a seller for violating this particular Ordinance, it would not necessarily be!lstit the buyer.. At the present time the buyer has a recourse against misrepresentation; however, the seller not giving the Certificate l'Iill not benefit the buyer. It is extremely difficult to prove misrepresentation; and the seller can just say Continued City Council !·!eeting Minutes - Au~ust ß, 1977 Page 4 (Buildability Ordin~nce, Continued) he never intended to sell this as a buildable lot, He is not liable for ~isrepresentation because he didn't issue a Certificate of Buildability -- there has to be ~isrepresentation about the buildability of the lot and ~ore than just the Certificate would need to be proved, l~. Hawkins also stated that from. the standpoint of enforcement, the burden is upon the City to prove the intent, This is especially a problem where nothing is done for a period of time, and then we have to go back and charge the seller, Again, it would be difficult to prove the seller intended to sell this as a buildable lot, Councilperson Lachinski asked if it would be reasonable to put a sign at the entrances to the City infor~ing consumers to contact City Hall before purchasing land, Discussion was also on the proble~ with the County in that they are not cooperating with enforcing our O~dinance at the nresent ti~e (registering lots that are not of legal size according to Andover Ordinances), Also, !~, Haw!Üns felt that if sellers are going to be prosecuted, it would create a backlog of work and the courts wouldn't be very receptive to the idea. ènd the only reason for an Ordinance is to enforce it, Xs, Lindquist also staun that about 50 percent of the buyers do not have title searches done and in'that case the buyer would have no way of knowing he has to have the Certificate. !:o ac tion was taken on this ~atter. Acceleration Ordinance Mayor Windschitl, as a member of the Crime Prevention Co~mittee, reported that they have reviewed this Ordinance and are recommending adoption of it with no changes. There are several law enforce~ent people on the Com~ittee who';stated this Ordinance would greatly help them, Councilperson Orttel questioned this Ordinance pertaining to private as well as public ~roperty. Councilperson ¡'¡cClure questioned the purpose of the Ordinance in that the squealing and noise does not endanger anyone and also the enforceability as to exactly what it fovers, Someone going around a curve could Gqueal their tires. fIr . Haw]Üns explained that it would be at the discretion of the officer to determine whether this was a~tuallY excessive acceleration or not. At the present time the officer also uses his discretion in dealing with careless or reckless driving. This Ordinance covers , trail bikes on public and private land and snowmobiles on public roads, !.~, Hawkins stated the Ordinance applies to so~eone accelerating unreasonably and that almost all of the major Cities in the area have a similiar ordinance. 110TIO~ by orttell Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Council adopt Ordinance Number 40, an Ordinance prohibitin~ the starting or accelerating of any ~otor vehicle with an unnecessary eXhi~ition of speed; providing penalties for violation; with t~o changes: 1) The change in Section 2/Penalty, delete everything after the word misdemeanor and add "as defined y State law"; and 2) in Section 1 with the deletion of Private way, Discussion: Councilperson Orttel felt the deletion of private property was necessary in that the City hab a lot of open space which lends itself to the use of trail bikes and snow~mobiles, and if individuals want to race on their ovm land, they should have that right. VOTE ON 1·:DTIOl1: YES-Lachinski, Orttel; nO-HcClure, VanderLaan, \'lindschi tl !·'otion defeated, !·!OTIn~J by Vander~aah, Seconded by \'lindschitl, proposing adoption of Ordinance 40, an Ordinance prohib~ting the starting or accelerating of any ~otor vehicle ~ith an unnecessary exhibition of sp~ed; providing penalties for violation, with a change in Section 2/ Penalties, deletion of the entire sentence after misdemeanorand'insert the \'lords "as defined by State Law," VOTE ON ¡!OTImT: YES-VanderLaan, \7indschitl; !TO-Lachinski, HcClure, Orttel '!otion defeated, Continued City Council !Ieetine; ]'"!inutes - August 8, 1977 Page 5 Lot Sulit Ordi~once !{r, Bruns explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the possibility of changing the number of lots allowed to be split to three; however, it was their feeling that it should remain two lots, and anyone wanting to split more than two could request a variance under Ordinance 10, the Hardship Provision as they do now, They wanted to ~ake it easier for someone to split a lot for any reason without having to plead a hard- shi, yet still make the requirements ridged, It would give everyone a chance to split a lot once, and any thine; beyond that would be governed under Ordinance 10, SO!!leone wanting to split more than two lots could request a variance from either this Ordinance or from Ordinance 10. Ns. Liildquest comMented we want to be eliminatinG variances as much as possible rather than encouraging them. General consensus was that under the definition, the size of the lots that would be affected should be added as was orie;inally proposed -- when one or both divided parcels have a width of less than 300 feet or less than 5 acres, Also, under the penalty provision, eliminate the ~300 li~it and change to: as defined by State Law for each offense, Further discussion was how the lot split of two lots would be affected in the Rl and R2 areas, where the lot sizes are larger versus how it affects the R3 and R4 areas where the lot sizes are considerably smaller, The denser the zoning, the more lots that should be allowed. !!s, Lindquist stated that this Ordinance affects the area more where we need restrictions the least. W)TI01T by Windschitl, Seconded by IIcClure, to adopt Ordinance 41, an Ordinance regulating the division of lots within the City as written except for two changes: 1) not more than two parcels in the PI and R2 zoned areas and not more than four parcels in the R3 and R4 zoned areas; andl2) under penalties, following misdenc~nor it would read: as defined by State law for each offense; adding, when one or both divided parcels have a width of , less than 300 feet or less than 5 acres, Discussion: !·Iayor \'Iindschi tl explained all I we are controllinc; is divisions in less than 5 acres, No unbuildable lots are being I created as a resµlt of this Ordinance as all lots must still meet the Ordinance requirements, Discussion was alGo on whether or not this Ordinance affected the General Business 'Jistrict, l'r, 'Jruns stnted the P t Z had intended it to include residentinl lots only, I AI!B?m:'r<:1'rT TO ¡'¡OnCm by Lachinsld, Seconded by HcClure, to change the titel to: An Ordinance ~egulating the Division of Residential Lots Within the City of Andover; and under Sectiohl, definition of lot split is nny division of a residential lot, parcel or tract of landl Further discussion: How and where would this Ordinance tie in with Section 14,02, Hardship Provision of Ordina~ce 10? !~, Hawkins felt that some wording is needed to tie~the two tOßether, or something to bring all lot splits under the same Ordinance, Orig ~ally ]~, Bruns had wanted to repeal Section 14,02 so everything would have to come under the same Ordinance; however, it was his understnnding that at that time ]~, Hawkins advited against this, It wns suggested that the motion be tabled until the Clerk and Attornl,y hnve time to investigate this more thoroughly and comment on it, I . VOT:8 on Aj-Œ!TDr-fm1r: YES-L?chinsl-:i, lfcClure, ','lindschitl; NO-Orttel, VanderLaan as she ...¡as uncertain whether it is proper procedure to vote on the ar:en~~ent and then table the motion, Hotion carried, Council"erson HcÇlure then withdrew his second to the motion; Hnyor \'indschitl withdre\'¡ the motion, I Continued City Council ~-~eeting Hinlltes - August 8, lC)77 1)a~e fS Hobile HOMe Permit - Holnberr; I:O~IOTT by Orttel, Seconded by !~cClure, that the City Council grant !.~, and I~s, TIayne HolMber~ a teM~orary }!obile HOMe Permit for a period of 6 Months subject to his providing adequate sewaGe and ITel1 faciliticc at 17011 ~ard Lake ~ive rn7. Hotion carried unaniT.'!ous1y. !lOTIon by Lachins1:i. Seconded by !'cClure, to adjourn, notion carried unaniY:lOus1y. ¡Teeting adjourrred at 10:48 )1.r.1, Respectfully sub~itted. -~\~~~=~F~~ ~~rcel a A. Peach - ~ecordin0 Secretary " . Î ~ '. : ~ r> _ f, r CP' '\', .~ 'II ~ . \ ..: , .. .