Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 27, 1979 · - ~ o¡ ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 27, 1979 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on September 27, 1979, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, for the purpose of awarding quote for repair of the fire truck; discussion of items with P & Z; and a review of the City's proposed Comprehensive Development Plan. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach Councilmen absent: None p & Z members present: Chairman d'Arcy Bosell; Commissioners Richard Okerlund, George Lobb, Ralph Kishel, Larry Retzlaff, and Byron Copley (arrived at 8: 15) Fire Truck Repair Mayor Windschitl explained that the motor on the 6x6 fire truck blew up and the Fire Department has obtained two quotes to repair it. Jack's Auto Repair quoted $350, which is an estimate on labor only and does not include any parts. There would also be more charges for a tow truck if they are awarded the bid. One of the firemen, Rich Lindeen quoted $225 and guaranteed it would be running by Monday, October 1, provided all parts are available and there are no unforeseen problems with equipment and existing parts. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, that the Council acknowledge the quotes from Jack's Auto Repair for $350 and Rich Lindeen for $225 for the repair of the fire truck and award the maintenance work to Rich Lindeen. Discussion: The Fire Department was authorized to shift budget items within their budget previously; Chief Palmer stated the funds were available. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on Rezoning the Urban Service Area Chairman Bosell asked specific direction on the City Council's referral for the rezoning of the urban services area. Mayor Windschitl stated that developers are putting restrictions on subdividing 2~-acre lots (Lund's Evergreen Estates) and there are inquiries from developers wanting to develop 2~-acre lots within the urban service area (from Ron Roth plus on land next to him). If the sewer line is to extend through this district as TKDA has laid out, the City shouldn't be closing parts of it by allowing large lots. The City has approximately $300,000 of that original sewer line that was not assessed. The City is paying for the oversizing cost, which was necessary if the sewer line is to be run to its logical termination. 2~-acre development within that area is going to end that sewer line, or we will end up with some excessively large assessments against people on those large lots when it is extended past those lots. Discussion was on suggestions for the P & Z to consider: that there be a moratorium on any platting in the urban area for anything that wasn't or couldn't be serviced; the building on every other or every third lot concept; require the developer to put in all the utilities when the development is done and let the on-site system function until the main trunk gets there; extend the main sewer line as far as we logically think it would build up in a 10-year development plan; if 2~-acre lots are desired, then require the cross streets to be built; set up a program of extension of the sewer lines and not allow anything to be platted until it can be sewered; write into the ordinances requiring urban-type standards for road construction possibly placing road off center to provide room for utility installation when sewer is available; consider the repercussions of having all R-4 zoning in the urban services area; and that the entire problem of area-wide storm sewer assessments, sanitary sewer, and water be addressed as well. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 2 (Discussion on Rezoning the Urban Service Area, Continued) Discussion was on the feasibility of extending the sewer line to the lO-year development plan; the problem of financing; the possibility of getting an agreement with property owners as to a blanket assessment for that extension; that because of escalating costs, developers might be willing to extend the line now rather than wait; the City is paying for the capacity in the sewer line already; that there will also be some unassessable lands; maybe some figures should be obtained prior to making a decision as to a cost analysis to extend the sewer to its termination points in either direction; and that if this course of action is recommended, that the trunk line not be extended past the proposed lift stations. It was also suggested puttinq a six-month to one-year moratorium on building in the urban service district area while this problem is resolved. It was stated that the previous moratorium never affected the urban areas; therefore, it was felt that a moratorium within the urban area would be allowable. This would be done as soon as possible to protect the area and to allow time for the City to enact a solution. A moratorium should only halt the development of something other than sewered lots in the urban service area. P & Z is also to consider the area along the railroad tracks for the possibility of zoning it Light Industry, as that would be the logical extension of the sewer line. It is open enough on both sides so it wouldn't be offensive to residents. P & Z also to consider obtaining expertise from people who have developed industrial parks (suggested City of Brooklyn Center); find out what is the suggested width,and use that as a basis for acreage needed; generally talking about the land along the railroad tracks on either side from Bunker Lake Boulevard to Andover Boulevard. Rum River Scenic River Ordinance Chairman Bosell reported she has met with the City of Ramsey and Oak Grove Township to learn more about their comprehensive plans and their proposals for the Rum River Scenic River ordinances. Because Oak Grove is a township, it is under the Anoka Water Management plan. And Anoka has proposed to the DNR that the first tier lots on the river would have 300 feet of river frontage and road frontage, four acres in size. All other tiers would be 2~-acre lots. Apparently the DNR is looking at this proposal favorably. Ramsey is submitting their Ordinance with 2~-acre lots, even along the river frontage. Our Scenic River Ordinance is adopted but not published because no response has been received from the DNR. After discussion, Council generally agreed that because of the concern over the buildability of existing lots within this District, that the ordinance should remain as it has been approved. If the Council would desire a change in the future, they could request an amendment to the ordinance. Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Development Plan Chairman Bosell stated that since the last meeting on this subject, Midwest Planning has submitted three proposals for an overlay district. Mayor Windschitl felt that the overlay district has to be enlarged upon, that the narration to go with it, the statistics and figures, have to be incorporated into the plan. His suggestion was to put a section either in the front or back when the future is talked about on lot sizes, etc., go through a calculation as to how much land is excluded already, how much is potentially buildable, and divide that back out to the gross acreage. Councilman Lachinski suggested that that should be done by various areas of the City rather than on the City as a whole, covering exactly the amount of good buildable land in each area and how much is already built upon, going into population forecast based on that. He also felt that we should spell out how we handle the sewer problem per the City's ordinances. When talking about servicing the rural area, point out those important pOints about the existing ordinances. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) Mayor Winedschitl stated if the Metro Council holds to their proposal of 40 houses per section, there is a large section in rural Andover that wouldn't be able to have another building permit theoretically. Councilman Orttel also felt that they should be made aware that any increase in fire or police protection is paid for by the City, and indicate who is paying for each level of service, and that we're not looking for assistance for police protection. (Byron Copley arrived at 8:15) Further points to consider were that having the answers built into the plan all in one document will be to the City's advantage; when addressing individual areas of the City, give an in-depth accounting of what exists, character that would prohibit future development, etc.,; and possibly consider a more specific definition of rural area. Council and Planning Commission went through the proposed Comprehensive Development Plan document page by page and agreed upon changes or made suggestions for changes: Section 1, Page 15, last paragraph, change to: 1. Protection, preserve and enhance the community's natural/rural environment. (eliminate last two lines) Page 17, change to: 2. Growth shall be regulated so that the need for a premature extension of sewer service can be avoided. (eliminate first l~ lines) 3. (eliminate entire paragraph) Section 3, Page 27, the map: Map needs to be revised to show the hazardous waste area in the area of Cecil Heildelberger in the southern portion of the City; to delete the poultry agricultural impact area around Round Lake as it no longer exists; to delete the shoreland development restrictions on Bunker Lake as it is a County park; and to incorporate the scenic river shoreline. Page 28, second paragraph, last sentence, change to: ...Because of these and some additional associated problems (slopes, bearing capacity and shrink-swell potential) there are definite limitations that must be recognized. (eliminate remainder of the sentence) Page 29, third paragraph, last sentence, revise to: Incorporation of the required regulations into the zoning ordinances has taken place. Page 31, Principles, #1, delete "in naturally or environmentally sensitive areas", so it reads: The City shall require that all development shall conform to local, watershed, metropolitan and state regulations. Page 33, #20, second line, delete "wild and", to read: ...as may be amended to protect the scenic character of the Rum River,... #3, second line, Policies 28 and 29: Chairman Bosell is to ask for a clarification of these policies. Page 34, #6, change to: The City has enacted the Scenic River Ordinance in accordance with Minnesota Regulations NR 2710; conform to the provisions of Minnesota Regulations NR 78-81 the Statewide Standards and Criteria for Minnesota Scenic Rivers System and the Rum River Management Plan as may be amended. Page 36, second paragraph, fourth line from bottom: improbable (sp) Last paragraph: Planning Commission to update the paragraph. Page 37: Planning Commission to update the paragraph to make reference to the Cedar Creek Watershed. Special City Council Meeting_ September 20, 1979 - Minutes P~e4 (Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) Section 4, Page 41: Lengthy discussion on the lot size paragraphs; felt the change was difficult to follow; that it is written wrong because at present it states when services become available the area will be reduced to 2.5 acre lots, which is not the intent. Commission to revise the paragraphs on Page 41 considering the following: not necessarily in agreement with the acreages; that the City wants 2\-acres generally throughout the community and subdividable when services are available. Page 43, last paragraph, reword to: Is an agricultural economy a viable consideration for Andover? At present, agricultural and commercial farming activity occurs within the City. The decision to preserve the agricultural and commercial farming economy will have an impact upon community growth patterns and as a result, upon lot sizes. Page 44, paragraphs under Unbuildable Lots - Undevelopable Land: Commission to rewrite the paragraphs and to consider the heading in that the heading and the paragraphs do not correlate -- heading suggested were: Potentially Unbuildable, or Potentially Undevelopable Lot; or just Undevelopable Land. Page 46, paragraphs under Service Availability Charge (SAC): Questioned if this and the map is consistent with what the City is doing, as the City has taken the position of not paying SAC charges for a portion of the area. Suggested some reference be made to that philosophy in this section. Suggested the Clerk review this section for consistency. Recess at 9:18; reconvene at 9:26 p.m. Agreed to discuss some of the major issues rather than continuing the page by page review of the plan. At the next meeting, the page by page review will begin on Page 47. Page 61, map on Proposed Land Use: Lengthy discussion on the proposed land use questioned the multi-family residential up to 17.5 units/acre designation as to its location (some felt that area along the creek is potentially some of the nicest residential land within the City); as to the need or desirability of the high density; as to whether that much land is needed for this designation; that the quads proposed by Mr. Carlson along Bunker Lake Boulevard could be considered low-cost housing and should be shown as multi-family designation; that the proposal is intended to be a buffer between residential and industrial; that an informal request has been received for a single/family use of that land; that sewer is available; possibly the industrial delineation on the map is not correct; questioned where else low cost housing can be provided for in the City; low cost housing by definition is not necessarily apartment buildings; that the Planning Commission had not recommended the multi-family residential be up to 17.5 units as shown; suggested that that number be reduced; Midwest has not updated this map to show the proposed Light Industry along the railroad tracks as was discussed at the previous meeting on the Comprehensive Plan; Council generally felt that should be shown; the Scenic River Corridor is incorrectly shown as compared with the DNR's regulations; questioned exactly what is 17.5 units/acre or 6.2 units/acre; suggested another area for multi-family residential could be as a buffer along the industrial zone being suggested along the railroad tracks and around the present general business area; that realistically the City doesn't need that much land for multi-family residential; there should be an area protected exclusively for single family dwellings within the urban service area; that the zoning proposed mixes single and two-family housing under the category of Single and Two-Family suburban, 3.3-6.2 units/acre (max.); suggested the whole thing be looked at by people from the City; and suggested that general conceptual areas be noted as is ... ., -0 .. Special City Council Meeting September 20, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 (Review of the Proposed Comprehensive Development Plan, Continued) done elsewhere in the plan instead of specific defined areas. Planning Commission is to review the map and make a recommendation to the Council. Page 62, map on Staged Provision of Urban Services: Chairman Bosell noted this is supposed to be corrected, as TKDA and the Clerk are to delineate the lines they are actually collecting the SAC charges from. Page 60, map of Existing Land Use: Chairman Bosell noted this is accurate as of 1977. Council indicated that the most recent map available should be used. It is to be updated. Pages 122 and 123: Oudated; update to show all existing Park and Open Space areas, etc., to date. Pages 71-72, Zoning: Districts proposed are not necessarily so zoned within the City, but this is a guideline for the future. Page 71, second paragraph, second sentence: Language needs to be changed to Agricultural Preserve District. Discussion was on the average lot size. Suggested taking the developments over the past few years, divide the number of lots by the number of acres to determine the average lot size, which is close to 3\ acres. Suggested that that should be used for average lot size rather than 2\ acres. Planning Commission to look at the proposed districts again. Page 84, Map of Transportation Issues: Hanson Boulevard is proposed to extend due north. Update the map. It was generally felt that such a group meeting with the benefit of the discussion was the most desirable way to proceed with the review of the plan. General agreement was to meet again on Thursday, October 11 at 7:30 p.m., to continue discussing the proposed Comprehensive Development Plan beginning with Page 47. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , , /~ '1ì~oc.\j~'-~Et~ Ma lla A. Peach Recording Secretary