Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP August 23, 1979 ~ o¡ ANDOVER August 23, 1979 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Discussion - Comprehensive Development Plan 3. Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 1- Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Agenda Approval 3. Rum River Ordinance 4. Zoning Map Ordinance 5. Lot Split Ordinance 6 . Discussion/Dedicated Streets v. Non-accepted Streets 7. ~pproval of Minutes B. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment · ~ o¡ ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 23, 1979 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on August 23, 1979, 7:37 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: P & Z Commissioners Walter Dick and George Lobb; P & Z Chairman d'Arcy Bosell; City Engineer, Mark Schumacher; Midwest Planning Representative, Martha Greenwald; and City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist Discussion - Comprehensive Development Plan Ms. Greenwald presented an overall view and general concept of the City's proposed Comprehensive Development Plan. She explained that this is essential]y the third and fourth stages in the planning process, with the Planning Tactics report and the Planning Inventory as the first and second stages. The policy plan is what is different between this plan for Andover and the 1974 Development Plan. Land use planning for the City is a lot density of 2~ acres in the rural area and higher density-type development within the urban service area. Staged provision of urban services, concept map: Ms. Greenwald stated some of the concepts of the Development Plan are to maintain an appealing natural environment, to provide continuity of development in the community, parks as the focus for the different neighborhoods, to provide transition between land uses, to preserve suburban and rural environment, and to avoid premature extension of urban services by establishing an urban service area. Discussion was on the projected dates for sanitary sewer service in the western portion of the City. Mayor Windschitl stated that to his knowledge the City has never been in favor of going farther than Round Lake with the sewer interceptor line because of the cost of the lift station needed. He also questioned the accuracy of the area shown to be serviced by the CAB interceptor, as he didn't think the CAB had the capacity to service that large of an area. Mr. Schumacher stated they will research this further and correct the map, possibly putting the area west of Round Lake in an indefinite status pending the CAB interceptor. Map on SAC charges: Mayor Windschitl stated in all likelihood the service area will be lower than it is presently, as there are areas in the north that it is almost physically impossible to serve. He felt that we ought to be able to draw another line, as it is extremely doubtful that services will ever extend past that line. At the present time the City still collects tR~ SAC charge as required, but the monies are put in escrow rather than forwarding/ ~o the MWWC. That line can be determined by the Engineering firm and the Clerk. Councilman Lachinski also felt that additional reference should be made in the Plan to the fact that the Metropolitan Council is reviewing the SAC charge area within the City. Page 24, Natural Environmental Issues: Ms. Greenwald explained some of the issues relative to natural resources including the protection of shoreline areas, the development along the Rum River, and visual impacts of outdoor storage. The potential livestock/poultry agricultural impact in the northwest corner is making reference to the effects on development of the agriculture in that area. It is an issue that has been mentioned -- should we be preserving agricultural land or not; and if so, what impact do the development policies have on those. ~myor Windschitl felt the most significant issue in the City is not on this map, which is some chemical operation taking place about 20 years ago in the area of Cecil Heidelberger's off Bunker Lake Boulevard. Ms. Greenwald was asked to identify the location, possibly getting information from the PCA, and show it on this map. Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Discussion - Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) Ms. Greenwald went on to explain another natural environmental issue is the City's extensive areas that are subject to flooding and wetlands which have development limitations. The map is HUD's flood plain map showing flood plains in the City. There is a wetlands map in the City's inventory and a severe soils limitation map showing the unbuildable peatlands. She explained that part of the plan is to provide overlays of the wetlands, flood plains, scenic river corridor and shore lines which will show that a substantial portion of the City is affected by these limitations and which begins to provide a very low density character in the City, insuring the kind of low density character that the Metropolitan Council is asking for. Councilman Lachinski didn't feel that this point is stressed enough in the Comprehensive Plan. He fe It that this plus stating the percentage of developed land in the City should be put in verbiage in the Plan. Land Use: Ms. Greenwald reviewed the map showing higher density in the southern portion of the City and the areas outside the urban services area with maximum density of one unit per 2~ acres. The map generally parallels the City's current zoning. Commerc i a l.. development shown is totally a concept at this point. Council discussion addressed the possibility of establishing an industrial center to create jobs within the community; that the logical location would be along the railroad tracks between Andover Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard; on the availability of that land as it was felt that residential development is eminent on some of that land; that that would be a proposed land use after urban services are available; that it is on the edge of the existing sewer service area; and on the actual extension of the sanitary sewer trunk line to that area. Ms. Greenwald noted that the reason the amount of industrial land was limited in the City was because of the large amount already existing in the southern neighbors and the problems they are having marketing it. The problem with designating large amounts of land for industrial in hopes of attracting industry is that you get inflated land prices. Ms. Greenwald recommended against an isolated circle of light industry in the City as it would change the entire pattern of land use within the City, and they have expanded some of the current light industry on this map. Council discussion was also that it is physically impossible to develop the landfill as residential areas and on the proposed high-density housing south of Bunker Lake Boulevard along Coon Creek. Ms. Greenwald stated the reason for putting that there is the concept of having transitional land uses, of the feasibility of having higher density housing next to the junkyards. Councilman Orttel had a problem with the high density proposed because it creates the artificial marKet for the property and to date that area was proposed as single-family residential. It ignores what is already here. He felt there should be a zoning map to follow the Plan. Sbouldn't we be fairly accurate? The Mayor was against that type of high density because of the school district. Council in general 'felt the density proposed is too high and would prefer multiple or quad housing instead. It was explained that this is a concept map, and the zoning map will not be drawn to reflect what is conceptually proposed; the zoning map will reflect what is in the City now. The procedure that Midwest Planning is hoping to use is to get approval from the Planning Commission and City Council prior to submitting the Plan to the Metropolitan Counci 1. It was felt that a Council/P & Z work session will need to be held to deliberate the question of density and the designation of a light industry area plus any other concerns. Ms. Greenwald stated included in the addendum to the Plan is a proposal for establishing an agricultural zoning district in an area well beyond the urban services area. She suggested that within the new zoning ordinance, you have an agricultural preservation district that permits one residential unit per 40 acres. The nature would be such that Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Discussion - Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) if a landowner wanted to have it, he could petition to the City. There is a new law before the Legislature that would offer a substantial tax benefit under that zoning if the landowners qualify for the ag zoning. Discussion again noted that by eliminating the development of wetlands, problem soils, flood plains, and agricultural lands, etc., that the overall City density in the rural area would be something substantially greater than 2\ acres per lot. Page 66 - map, has been deleted from the Comprehensive Plan: Mayor Windschitl stated the basic idea is still in the plan as there are sections within the Plan that still make reference to this. Councilman Orttel suggested identifying all undeveloped districts and then setting a minimum acreage size. Discussion noted that the overlay districts will accomplish that. They could develop under certain controls, under very specific guidelines; the City can incorporate into the ordinances that massive amounts of earth would not be moved around for development in flood plair. or wetland areas; Midwest is recommending that the City implement two other ordinances -- a wetlands and a flood plain ordinance to have some ability to stop what happened in North Birch Creek Estates. Councilman Orttel stated that by applying the number of lots to the gross lot area, the average lot sizes over the last few years is about 3\ acres including roads, parks, etc. He suggested possibly that minimum lot size would be 2\ acres but the lots would have to average, for example. 3.3; but in those other areas the minimum lot size would be 2\ acres, however you must average 10 acres because of the low areas. This will also reflect a lot mòre closely what our average lot size is. Some cities do include the road when determining the 2\-acre lot size; Andover does not. By eliminating all agricultural land, wetlands, flood plains, public water ways, determining a gross acreage for the City in the rural area that is developable and then have requirements on density, it would more accurately and closely reflect our density. Mayor Windschitl felt we should build a statement into the Plan that states in the City's opinion the functions that are being allowed, or zoning, isn't going to create any more metropolitan significant requirements -- sewer, water, transportation, etc. Ms. Greenwald agreed to add a composite overlay map of unbuildable land in the City into the Plan. The Mayor also asked to be able to cite statistics of gross acres of land of wetlands, flood plains, and peatland to obtain the net total of land that is undevelopable in the City and would then be zoned for no residential development. He felt that at the public hearing, the City should know exactly what is in the City already; and if the Metro Council is going to require one lot for every 16 acres, we should know exactly what effect that is going to have on us -- have a colored map shwoing which sections we wouldn't be able to issue building permits on anymore. Other Council discussion was on the possibility of being able to tell them for example X percent of the land is unbuildable and by our ordinances we are going to require the gross lot size per home inside a plat would be, whatever it is (3 to 3\ acres), figure all that out and give an example of how it would work out; suggested that the presentation could be made by districts rather than the entire rural area. Sanitary sewer -- The statement that we need a new sanitary sewer ordinance is not correct, as Andover's Sanitary Sewer Ordinance has been applauded by the Metro Council in the past. Ms. Greenwald reviewed the changes in the Street Plan which is a reflection of the Anoka County thoroughfare study, in which they basically wanted to improve the east- west traffic flow by the Rum River crossing and improve north-south circulation by improvement of County Road 9 and the extension of Hanson Boulevard. Discussion on the transportation plan was that that portion of Prairie Road that has beed constructed MSAH should be shown on the map. Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 4 (Discussion - Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) Ms. Greenwald reviewed the Communities Facilities issues map. Council recommended a more accurate date on the CAB interceptor availability to the City, in that the earliest it could be available is 1985, and that the search areas for future fire stations are inaccurate. Page 106 - Water System - Mayor Windschitl felt the statement was inaccurate relative to the potential of ground water pollution. The City has told the residents, and an engineering firm as done the tests, that there is no potential of ground water pollution in the sewered areas because of the deep wells. The Engineer will reword thgt entire paragraph. , During discussion it was noted that the Council must now work on specific changes desired in the Comprehensive Plan at a series of work sessions and that the Plan must be submitted to public hearing and to the Metropolitan Council on July 1, 1980; however, there is a 6-month referral to neighboring communities. It was felt that it would be helpful to review what the surrounding cities are doing as well or possibly meet, with them (Ramsey, Oak Grove, Ham Lake, primarily). Council generally felt that the overall concept of the Plan is heading in the right direction. Recess at 9:42; reconvene at 9:52 p.m. Park Board Ordinance (Ordinance No. 47) Section 2.16: Discussion noted that if it was enacted as written, the Fire Department would not be allowed to hold their Fun Day, which is not the intent. General consensus was it is not necessary in the ordinance. Delete the section entirely. Section 2.3: Questioned what type of licenses would be required; suggested no advertlslng or "unapproved" solicitation is allowed rather than "unlicensed"; the Exclusive Use Permit has not yet been'adopted by the Council; felt Section 2.3 and 2.18 are duplicating one another; Change to: "No advertising or unapproved selling or solicitation is allowed in park or recreation areas. A. An Exclusive Use Permit may be approved by the City Council and issued by the City Clerk for selling of food, alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages as set out in City Resolution." Sections 2.13 and 2.14: Jiscussion that the way it is written, a Boy,Sço.ut woid.~~nôi: be allowed to camp ln his puptent in a City park; generally felt that if there was a large group of campers or if things would get out of hand, that there are other portions of the State law that would be applicable; concern over the issuance of the permit. After discussion, the following chanåe was agreed upon: Eliminate Section 2.13. Section 2.14 to read: City Parks an recreation areas shall not be occupied or used nor may motor vehicles be parked therein between 11 o'clock p.m. and 6 o'clock a.m. except: A. When camping. B. When participating in an activity for which a permit has been granted by the City of Andover. Section 2.18, Group Use of Parks: Questioned whether a permit is needed and its enforceabllity; that it would be reasonable to have a group reserve a park or a portion thereof for which a permit could be required; did not see the need to have the Park Commission approve the permit. Because "Exclusive Use" is covered under Section 2.3, it was agreed to delete Section 2.18. Section 2.1, Firearms definition: Change to: "No firearms as defined by Ordinance 12A or explosives shall be brought lnto or used in City parks except by approval of the City Counci 1." Section 2.4: Problems in parks is with pocket gophers which needs to be removed from ball flelds, etc. Council can approve activities in this section as allowed by the addition of Section S. Change to: "...such rattlesnakes and/or other hazards to human safety may be killed and/or removed..." Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Park Board Ordinance (Ordinance No. 47), Continued) Section 2.10: Questioned whether it is allowable to lower the speed limit below 30 mph. Clerk stated the Deputy's opinion is the City can lower the speed limit in the parks, which would make it an ordinance violation. Reword to: "No one shall ride or drive a vehicle at a rate exceeding that posted in City parks or 15 mph." Sections 2.8 and 2.9: Questioned if they weren't in conflict with one another. General agreement to delete Section 2.8. Add Section 5: That the City Council may at its discretion waive sections of the ordlnance. Page 1, Section 1, 1.1 A: Add: "...Commission members shall be appointed for three- year staggered terms..." MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the City of Andover adopt an Ordinance Establishing a Park Commission, Regulating conduct in public parks, Providing for the enforcement, and Prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions as amended on 8/23/79. VOTE ON MOTI ON : YES-Jacobson, Orttel, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Lachinski, as he felt there were so many changes he wanted to read a revised copy. Motion carried. Rum River Ordinance (Ordinance No. 48) Discussion was on Section 5.03, Substandard Lots, on a change suggested by Councilman Lachinski, questioning whether S.02.0J'should be deleted so that continuous lots under single ownership would not havp. to be combined to meet width requirements of the ordinance; that requiring a soil boring on every substandard lot is very restrictive; that the ordinance as proposed requires meeting the 60 percent requirement in size plus meeting all requirements of septic systems to determine its buildability; that it was felt that there are only three lots in the northern portion of the district in question that could present a problem relative to meeting the size requirements under this ordinance; and that this section of the ordinance should present no problems, but if it does(The Cedar Creek area was noted), the variance procedure can be used. Page 7, 5.02.01: Question was raised whether the City wants to allow four-acre lots as required in this district with 2S0-foot frontage when a 300-foot frontage is required in the remainder of the City. Suggested requiring 2S0-foot lot width for lots of record at the enactment of the ordinance and 300-foot lot width for future subdivision. A majority of the Council didn't feel 300-foot frontage was necessary with the four-acre requirement. Discussion noted that a separate zoning district is being created by this ordinance and that this ordinance would prevail in this district if there is any differences between this and other City ordinances. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Rum River Ordinance, including index to the Rum River Scenic River Ordinance, be adopted as written on 8/23/79. After discussion, the following amendment was made: AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, in Section 9.01.02, change to: that ln cases of conflict with other City ordinances, this ordinance shall supersede all other ordinances for this district. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously. Discussion: Ordinance cannot be published until the DNR Commissioner has reviewed it. ADDITION TO MOTION by Orttel, to be in full force and effect after the publication, which will be made after review by the Department of Natural Resources. Second still stands. Discussion: If the DNR does not make any changes within 30 days, the ordinance as adopted this evening will become effective. Motion carried unanimously. Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 Zoning Map Ordinance It was noted that for now the Scenic River District overlay be sent to the DNR with the Rum River Ordinance and that the zoning map will have to be redone for the Comprehensive Plan shortly. No further action was taken on this item. ~ot Split Ordinance (408) General consensus of the Council was that the Lot Split Ordinance should apply to the rural area as well as the urban area (Reference August 21, 1979, Council Meeting Minutes). There was a lengthy discussion on the definition in Section 1 and what language would best portray the intent. It was suggested the language be changed to: " ...when all resulting parcels meet or exceed the zoning requirements for that area." Councilman Peach argued that there are times when we do not necessarily want tó split off buildable lots but just to add an additional strip of land to a lot. Discussion was also on the Question of the park dedication fee, where Councilman Orttel felt that park dedication fees should not be collected unless additional building sites are created by the lot split. The Clerk also recommended additional language for clarification that was acceptable by the Council. The question was also brought up as to whether more than two parcels should be allowed to be created under the Lot Split Ordinance. Councilman Orttel stated that the Metropolitan Council has encouraged small plats up to five and six parcéls with most of the platting requirements waived on them. Nothing further was done with this question. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, Ordinance 40B on the typed copy before us, Change Section 1, Definitions to read as follows: A residential lot split is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimums for lots in the applicable zoning district. Discussion: Because further discussion and changes were desired on Section 5 of the Ordinance, Councilmen Orttel and Jacobson Withdrew the Second and Motion. Discussion on Section VA: Clerk suggested taking out engineering fees and adding consultant fees because sometimes attorney fees are incurred for title opinion, etc.; and engineering costs can be considered consultant fees. Section VB: Discussion that Council should have the discretion of collecting park fees on lots over five acres. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council, City of Andover, accept Ordinance No. 40B, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 40 and Ordinance No 40A, an Ordinance regulating the splitting of residential lots, parcels and tracts of land within the City of Andover, with the amendments as noted. (Definitions: A residential lot split is any division of lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimums for lots in the applicable zoning district. Section V - Fees. A. There shall be a single charge of $25.00 plus consultant fees, if any, for a lot split application. B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the charge of $100.00 for each lot created under this ordinance may be assessed for park fees.) Discussion: Councilman Peach was opposed to the wording in Section 1, as he felt the Clerk's recommendation of ...when one or both divided parcels are less than five acres in size... would be better. He felt there are times when people want to split land when they do not necessarily want to build a house on it. TffieRClerk stated if a portion of land is desired to be split, it should not be done as a lot split but would come under the variance procedure of the ordinance. There was some question as to whether or not this was true. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; NO-Peach Motion carried. Special City Council Meeting August 23, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 Discussion/Dedicated Streets vs. Non-accepted Streets The Clerk explained that in the old plats within the City, the streets are dedicated to the City which the City accepts, but they are not necessarily constructed. Under the interpretation of Ordinance 10, the City has to issue a building permit on the unconstructed dedicated road. She didn't think that the City wanted to do that. Discussion was on the accuracy of that interpretation that it is required to issue a building permit on a non-existing road. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the matter of dedicated streets and non- accepted streets be referred to Planning and Zoning Commission for theirs and the Attorney's opinion. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes August 7, 1979: Page 10, 4 lines above 1st motion: approximately 2 acres (sp) Page 9, 8 lines from bottom: acres (sp) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we accept the regular City Council Meeting Minutes for August 7, 1979, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte 1, that we accept Check Numbers 2650 through 2677 for a total of $13,322.84, and Check Number 138 to the State Bank of Anoka for $5,767.25, and Check Number 298 to Motorola for $2,058.23. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted ~Cc Ma lla A. Peach Recor ing Secretary