HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 24, 1980
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 24, 1980
MINUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschit1 on April 24, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, for the purpose of considering changes to the present urban service
area and to consider rezoning changes within the urban service district.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Engineers, John
Davidson and r·1ark Schumacher; Planning and Zoning Commission
Chairman, d'Arcy Bose11; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others
Mayor Windschit1 explained that the reason for the hearing is because of the law
requiring municipalities to submit a Comprehensive Development Plan to the Metropolitan
Council by July 1, 1980; and this is part of that planning process. Engineer Davidson
reviewed the proposal on the western portion of the City relative to the areas designated
for eventual servicing of sanitary sewer by the CAB Interceptor if and when that
interceptor is available, noting the Council has considered reducing the MUSA area in
some parts of the City and increasing it in other portions. Any reduction in the MUSA
area on the western portion of the City would only serve to reduce the capacity in
that CAB Interceptor. The intent of retaining the service district boundary to the
year 2020 would mean to reserve that capacity and have it available as a means of sewer
service should it become necessary to service this area within Andover. It is anticipated
that with large-lot development, it would be some time in the future before sanitary
sewer is necessary or required. He also noted the wetlands in that area north of
the City line and west of Round Lake Boulevard and the present zonings in that area
as we 11. Mr. Davidson then explained that by reducing the MUSA boundary from the
present line, the City could increase the density within the service district to 55
persons per acre to utilize the available CAB Interceptor capacity. For normal
residential development, they figured 10 persons per acre to the original MUSA line.
It is their recommendation that the MUSA area be retained where it presently exists.
Rich Ramseyer, 14870 Blackfoot Street - seemed to him that someone has concluded there
must be a sewer and now we're trying to figure where to put in enough people to justify
it. If we don't zOne it so there is going to be a lot of people, we don't need a
sewer. Since nobody wants a sewer, what is the purpose? (Mayor Windschit1 explained
that there are sewer problems existing in that area, specifically Dehn's Addition,
where one house has had four systems going in already.)
Karen Ames, 4310 144th Lane - presented a petition to the Council from residents in
Dehn's Addit1on, Lund's Round Lake Estates, and Johnson's Oakmount Terrace asking that
the City Council recommend to the Metropolitan Council that the urban service boundary
west of Round Lake be moved south to coincide with Andover's southern boundary with
the City of Anoka. Ms. Ames also stated the house referred to by the Mayor has been
sold again for about the third time in three years. She stated at the time the house
was built, the builder was told not to build in this area because it is lowland.
Lee Warneka, 14791 Blackfoot Street NW - are you saying that the City is intending
to plan the MUSA boundary because one or two people have had trouble with sewers?
(Mayor Windschit1 stated no. We know of some problems in Dehn's and at the last meeting
two residents from Dehn's were asking for sewer.) Would simi1iar planning be done if
there were sewer problems On the north boundary of the City? (Mayor Windschitl
explained that the City has to submit a plan to the Metro Council for the City of
Andover which will include an urban service district and a rural service district.
The only sewer allocated to us is through the Waste Water Control Commission. There
is approximately the equivalent of 32,000 person capacity out of the Coon Rapids
Interceptor and approximately 7,800 out of the CAB Interceptor, which is all that is
Special City Council Meeting
April 24. 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
being planned through the year 2020 for the entire City. For anything that would
require sewer outside of the urban service district, the City has the responsibility
of providing the service however it could. The intent is trying to increase the lot
size in the rural area so there is nO potential for sewer problems.)
Mr. Warneka - the petition presented the Council exceeds 85 percent of the people in
Uehn's subdivision who are saying they do not want or need sewer.
Peter Rauen, 4110 147th Lane NW - presented a position paper to the Council on the
rìty's rezoning and changing of the MUSA area. They have the feeling that the planning
in this area of the City is dictated by a justification for sanitary sewer, that one of
the City's largest resources is its large lot sizes, and they don't want to see the
density higher. They feel the type of action going on now is only going to encourage
high-density housing that the residents don't want and they don't see any need to
bring sewer into the City in that area. It appears that the capacity is reserved for
the City in the CAB and now the City is justifying the need, and they feel the whole
process is going on backwards. Their position is the area below Lund's should remain
R-1 or possibly R-2, which is reasonable and compatible land use. (Councilman
Lachinski stated that with a lift station, the City already has sewer capacity for that
area through the Coon Rapids Interceptor.)
Mr. Rauen - felt if the City doesn't need the capacity, that we should tell Metro
Counc1l we don't need it. He didn't think it is responsible government to say we
have to build the City, that we don't need it now but we've got toi.have it to reserve
it in the future. He felt we should plan so we don't need it in the future, which is
what the Metropolitan Council is after. He also felt that developing to higher
density than R-1 in that particular area was not compatible with existing land use.
(Mayor Windschit1 explained that what the MWWCC has required the engineers to do is
to put together a differentiation between an urban service district and a rural service
district. They have given so much capacity to Andover. If the City would release a
portion of that capacity, it would be lost permanently. The only way that Andover
could then build would be to construct its own treatment plant, lagoon system, or
whatever. The Council is trying to put together a plan for urban and rural development.
At the present time, rural development is 2~ acres, which the Metro Council feels is
still urban development. The Metro Council's version of rural development is one house
every 16 acres.)
Mr. Rauen - stated he has discussed this at length with the Metrop101itan Council, and
the1r concern is not to restrict any area to that type of density but are concerned
that a major interceptor would have to be developed to go into one particular area to
take care of some sewer problem. He felt some of the emphasis should be placed on
improving the ordinances to make sure we don't have problems in the future.
(Mayor Windschit1 explained that Andover is one of only two cities in the metro area
that has an existing on-site sewer ordinance.)
Ron Haskvitz, Attorney representing Mr. Ha¥, 100 Quebec Avenue South - Mr. Hay owns
the property that has the spec1al use perm1t for the mob1 Ie home park. It is their
position that the sanitary sewer should service the area where the mobile home park
would be going.
Jim Hiltz, a professional planner, 4060 149th Avenue NW - felt the City isn't taking
a stand on how the plann1ng is to take place. He stated there are three different ways
to change from one zone to another: 1) create a barrier; 2) create a void; and 3)
natural progression. It was his opinion that in this portion of Andover, a natural
progression would be the most feasible and the most rational method of zoning, gradually
increasing the size of lots from R-4 around the Anoka/Andover City line to the R-l
zOne in Lund's Round Lake Estates. With the CAB sewer line having to come across the
Rum River, he also questioned whether the sizing of the pipe for Andover becomes an
.. ,
Special City Co""cil Mee .Ig
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
unnecessary burden on the taxpayers. It was his contention that the progression to
large lots from the Anoka City line should start soon, as there might be existing
sewer capacity from Anoka to service a small portion of Andover. (Mayor Windschitl
explained that there is a $310,000 pipe already in the ground that sits right off
Seventh Avenue, which he thought was part of the planning to tie into the CAB. The
City has been denied service through the Anoka internal sewer system in the past.)
Mr. Hiltz - then reviewed what he felt would be progressive zoning from the M-1 area
on the corner of Seventh Avenue and the Andover line up to Lund's Round Lake Estates.
Bruce Hay, 39 North Oaks Road - stated that the land above Dehn's Addition already
has an R-4 zoning. Mr. Hiltz noted that it is developed to R-2 sized lots.
Mr. Ramseyer - didn't feel his question had been answered. Since none of the landowners
except Mr. Hay want sewer in this part of Andover, why do we keep trying to get a
sewer there? (Councilman Lachinski explained it is not that we're trying to get a
sewer there but that we're trying to plan to allow to have it there at some point in
time. One of the things the Council is charged with is to do orderly planning for
the City.)
Mr. Warneka - didn't think the City needs the extra people in the schools, for extra
f1re protection, etc. So why plan on overcrowding?
Alexander Kopiecki, 147th Lane - asked how it is known that people are going to move
lnto Andover, as poss1b1y they wi 11 move south or west.
Ms. Ames - felt it doesn't seem like it has been planned for a lot of extra people in
the area, as a petition for parkland about a year ago was turned down. There is no
parkland for children in that area; and the schools are overcrowded. High density is
not what the residents want in that area. (Councilman Orttel noted that the City is
not trying to encourage or discourage density. There will be no immediate result of
anything done here because it is all based on the sewer. We're planning strictly for
the future.)
Mr. Kopiecki - didn't think the Council has looked ahead on the gasoline crunch. The
problem 1S the City has permitted development to jump from one place to another.
(Counci lman Orttel stated there is a move by the Metro Council to make the city lot
sma 11er. The City is trying to stop leapfrog development, noting this problem in
the Metro Area, particularly that occurring in Isanti County. We are trying to con-
centrate the deve 10pment in the urban area and leave the rural area "rura 1.")
Mr. Kopiecki - disagreed with Councilman Orttel, noting all the shopping centers
developing in the various areas, feeling this is the reason for urban sprawl.
~ouncilman Orttel thought most shopping centers do a lot of studies to determine if
there is a market place for their goods.)
Mr. Warneka - felt there is a large amount of developable land between Andover and the
core of the cities and felt there is a movement back to the cities from the outlying
areas. According to his studies, the population growth is going to drop off in about
five years. (Councilman Ortte1 stated that there are a great many major problems in
the economy today, but solutions come about. Look what happened to the housing industry
between 1950 and 1970. The Council is charged with planning for the future. He
didn't believe there would be a move in the foreseeable future to put sewers into
those areas; however, he didn't think that development can be excluded in the rest
of the City.)
Mr. Warneka - asked what is the City's motivation for rezoning that property south of
the1r area to an R-4 zone. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the WWCC is trying to
contain small-lot development within the circle of the twin cities to provide the sewer
service for those municipalities. The City of Anoka, for all practical purpose~ is
built out. The City of Coon Rapids has moved their development line to the Andover
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
border. Andover is the next city out that is considered an urban city. Within the
urban part of Andover, we have been provided so much sewer capacity. It is logical
to come from an R-4 zone in Anoka and come across the street to an R-4 zone in Andover.
At some point the urban service district has to abut an R-,l zone because there are
essentially only two zones left in the City -- an urban zone and a rural zone.
Councilman Lachinski explained that the City is trying to extend the sewer in a logical
fashion, and along with the sewer line goes R-4 density development. The Council is
trying to plan for the maximum limit of R-4 development and the maximum limitations we
see for sanitary sewer.)
Mr. Hiltz - his suggestion for rings of transition was at some point the sewer has to
end. The City has the right to zone R-2, which does not need sewer. (Council noted
that R-2 is no longer allowed within the City, explaining the problem with one-acre
lots being the question of how long a one-acre lot can sustain an on-site septic
system. The City feels that the R-l, 2~-acre lot, requiring 39,000 square feet for
septic systems, will sustain septic systems and have a lot better chance of existing
without the necessity of sanitary sewer; and the City is not willing to gamble going
to one-acre lots. Council discussion with residents was on questioning the length of
time the lots will sustain an on-site sewer, noting that it also relates to the care
of the system by the individual owners. It was also noted that R-3 zone also requires
sanitary sewer.)
Mr. Ramseyer - stated that the Council also has a responsibility to the present
res1dents. If we don't want the sewer and we don't want high density, why can't you
take the sewer some place else where people might want it. (Council noted that they
are not planning on putting sanitary sewer in Mr. Ramseyer's area; that there is a
substantial investment in the trunk line already, explaining the present bond indebted-
ness, the oversizing costs, and the logical amount of homes needed to be built in the
City to payoff that bond indebtedness or those oversizing costs will need to come out
of general funds.)
Mr. Rauen - noted that the area south of Dehn's is owned by Northern Natural Gas and
quest10ned if there are any plans for that area to be developed. The undevelopable
land in that area of the City could provide a buffer between the larger lots to the
north and smaller lots southward toward the City border. It appears compatible
that there should be no need to extend sewer service or the MUSA line into his area.
He didn't think it was fair to abut R-4 housing next to their R-1 zoning in Lund's
Round Lake Estates because it would affect their property value and general quality of
life of their neighborhood, and is not compatible development. If that should happen,
they would probably want to divide their lots into R-4 also. The petition presented
indicates that a majority of the residents want the MUSA line drawn on the border
with Anoka. (applause from the audience.) (Mayor Windschit1 informed the residents
that once that area is taken out of the MUSA area, there would be no ability to get
sanitary sewer service to that area.)
Council discussion was then on suggestions for rezoning portions.'of this area and
establishing the urban service district in this area. Councilman Lachinski felt
that most of that area could remain in the urban service area and remain zOned R-l
if the City could solve the problems of developing the property at an urban density
when it develops in terms of future subdivision of the R-l, obtaining cross-street
easements, etc., so that when sanitary sewer is available, it could be easily sub-
divided down to an R-4 zone.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council notify the Planning Commission
that they conceptually agree on the rezoning of the property in the southwest corner
of the City as follows: Change to R-4 those properties south of a line which would
run one 40 line north of the Anoka City limits adjacent to the Noon Addition along
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
(MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, Continued)
Seventh Avenue, excepting the westerly most 40 which would retain its current
zoning, and then the line easterly to Round Lake Boulevard and south to County Road 116,
excepting those areas which currently maintain higher zonings. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Council rescind those motions made
Wh1Ch deleted areas from the Metropolitan Urban Service area in the westerly portion
of the City. Discussion: This would retain the original MUSA boundary in the western
portion of the City. There was some question on whether or not the area east of Seventh
Avenue and north of Lund's Round Lake Estates is in the MUSA area. The intent is to
remove the area from the MUSA; it will be researched to see if that has been done by
prior Council action. Motion carried.
Council discussion was on the property west of Round Lake Boulevard currently zoned
R-5 and M-1.
Frank Voth, Good Value Homes - stated that they would not be opposed to rezoning
those properties west of Round Lake Boulevard presently zoned R-5 and M-1 to an R-4
zone. (Engineer Davidson also noted that some part of those two 40s have the potential
of being served by gravity through the Coon Rapids Interceptor limited to the topography
of the ground.)
Mr. Voth - requested that it be parenthesized at this time with the idea of servicing
these two 40s from the Coon Rapids Interceptor, which would be an engineering decision
at the time that property is developed.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that that portion of Section 32 now zoned R-5
be rezoned R-4, and the 40 just east of the R-5 zone, Multiple, be rezoned to R-4 in
concept, and that the P & Z be directed to look into it. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was on the commercial zonings in the northeast quarter of the corner of
Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards. The 10 acres running along Round Lake Boulevard
has already been approved Shopping Center as requested by Mr. Rademacher. Councilman
Jacobson had no problem with retaining the present SC zoning and the additional NB
area running along Bunker Lake Boulevard; however, he was opposed to additional NB
area running along the east side of Round Lake Boulevard ilnmediate1y to the north of
the present SC zone as shown on Rezoning Proposal Draft #4, 4/24/80. He felt there
has been sufficient commercial area designated in that area. Chairman Bose11 stated
that the reason this has been proposed is that Round Lake Boulevard is a heavily
traveled road and commercial would provide a buffer between the road and residential.
MOTION by Orttel that the property shown as commercial development on the north side
of Bunker Lake Boulevard be conceptually approved by the Council, and direct the
Planning Commission to consider that at the public hearing for rezoning in the urban
service area. Motion dies for lack of a Second.
Mr. Voth - stated they are selling the property north of the SC zone to the Rademacher
f1rm. They are presently trying to prepare a preliminary plat. It seems it would be
good to reserve this land for this type of usage. He knows that it is preferable to
have a proposed preliminary plat in as soon as possible to facilitate in the planning
of the sanitary sewer extension project. If this is set in abeyance, they don't know
what to do with their plat and TKDA doesn't know what to do on the project. He felt
it might be better to rezone it so that it would be reserved for that purpose. Other-
wise they are at a loss as to whether or not they should plat that area or not.
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
MOTION by Jacobson, the sense of the Council to the Planning Commission that we would
conceptually look with favor on development north of Bunker Lake Road and east of
Round Lake Boulevard in the areas on the map that we had been given tonight labeled F
and G only. Motion dies for lack of a second. Councilman Jacobson was opposed to
the GB classification as noted on the map.
Wayne Anderson, 1018 Main Street - representing Mr. Rademacher - stated the reason
for the GB des1gnation for that corner was because of the amount of area, which is
very small as a result of the street required to be put through there. There isn't
enough to zone it SC. The use would be strictly commerica1. He had no objection
to rezoning that area NB. (Mayor Windschitl stated that the rezoning request would
be for the entire parcel; street alignment would be discussed when the plat comes in.
Chairman Bose11 stated that this area was part of their review, and their recommendation
is for those parcels marked F, G, and H be proposed for public hearing to some type of
commercial zone.)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we refer to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for review and recolnmendation back go the City Council the uses for
parcels F, G, and H on the plat map before us. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to refer the identified properties A, B, C,
and D to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to the City
Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Council generally agreed that an Agricultural Zone shoù1d be created in the City.
Council discussion was on the question of the conditions of those special use permits
granted for the NB zonings of the Conroy property on Crosstown Boulevard and 138th
Avenue and the Chutich property on Round Lake and Bunker Lake Boulevards. The Clerk
and Attorney were directed to research the Resolutions during the recess.
Recess at 9:18; reconvene at 9:45 p.m.
Attorney Hawkins stated that the ordinance reads that after a two-year perio~ if
nothing has happened, before development can take place the applicant must get a
special use permit and the Planning Commission may initiate a rezoning after two
years, but it is not automatic.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that those areas Council has not previously given
conceptual approval to in the urban service area between Round Lake Road and Crosstown
Boulevard and between Round Lake Boulevard and Coon Creek south of Bunker Lake
Boulevard and northerly to approximately Coon Creek be given conceptual approval to
an R-4 zone, except those areas that show other zonings of a denser nature; and also
that the Council recommend the Planning Commission give consideration to eliminating
some of the low areas and some of the farmed areas from the R-4 zoning. Discussion:
Intent is to eliminate the farmland, lowland, and undevelopable land around the creek
area from the R-4 zoning, dealing with those areas on an individual basis. The creek
might be a likely boundary for R-4 zoning. The boundary in the northwest corner of this
area would be Round Lake and the MUSA line. One of the considerations might be
eliminating Field's Plat and that area to the east already subdivided by metes and
bounds because it would be a long time before it is serviced with sanitary sewer.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that the open area On the immediate south shore
of Round Lake between Round Lake Boulevard and Auditor Subdivision 82 be conceptually
rezoned and recommend to the Planning Commission as an R-4. Motion carried unanimously.
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 7
Council discussion was on the southern area of the City just west of Watts' Garden
Acres recommended on the Rezoning Proposal Draft #4, 4/24/80, for PUD or R-5.
Councilman Peach felt that it is good planning to have an R-5 zoning designated in
the City. He felt this area would be the best location. Mayor Windschitl stated
that under the special use permit mandate by the Supreme Court for a mobile home
court in the western portion of the City, it in effect creates an R-5 zone in the City.
Councilmen Orttel and Lachinski were opposed to designating an R-5 zoning in the
area under discussion unless it is requested.
Mr. Warneka - understood that if the City removed the R-5 from the Good Value property,
that 1n essence tended to remove the potential for the R-5 special use permit and gave
the City grounds to redesignate another area with R-5 zoning. He felt that opportunity
knocks at this point to find an appropriate place in the City for the R-5 zone.
(Mayor Windschit1 expressed the concern for the area in question is the litigation
involved because of the hazardous waste in that area, because of the pollution question,
and noting the City cannot relegate high density development to the. undesirable sites
in the City. He felt this site is not a viable site for that rezoning.)
Mr. Warneka - stated the City Attorney advised what the City should do is properly
plan for a proper place for an R-5 zoning. He has gone to the expense of obtaining an
attorney's opinion for the purpose of solving the problem in a reasonable way. And
that opinion states an area should be designated R-5. Now that the R-5 zone is removed
from the Good Value property, hopefully the city will plan for a proper place for an
R-5 zone. (Attorney Hawkins stated if we are going to remove zonings in the western
portion of the City, the City better have some good planning reasons for doing it and
put it in a better place. Councilman Peach felt that putting an R-5 next to an R-l
is poor planning. It appears that the proposed PUD or R-5 on Proposal #4 is a good
area as there are no residents around it, it is buffered from all density housing, and
it seems like a better place to put it. Mayor Windschit1 understood that the area would
have to be the same size as well.)
Debate continued on what should be done with this property. Commissioner Bose11
suggested changing the line 20 acres east of the Section 34 line, and running it
straight south to the City's border, making everything to the east of that line
General Industrial, and the two stacked 20s to the west of that line being either PUD
or multiples with R-4 to the west of Section 34 line all the way to the creek. She
noted the present GB zoning is being recommended to change to General Industrial.
Discussion was also on the proposed rezonings along Bunker Lake Boulevard and northward
along what is the proposed Hanson Boulevard extension.
Ron Roth - asked that because of the setback requirements of residential abutting
commerc1al, that the PUD zoning as shown on the Rezoning Proposal Draft #4 west of
the proposed Hanson Boulevard extension be moved even farther west to the 40 section line.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that those areas shown as commercial PUD to the
north of Bunker Lake Road and on either side of Hanson Boulevard proposed extension be
conceptually approved and recommend that the Planning Commission consider them at
their public hearing for that use. Also, they should consider moving the line further
to the west to allow for the setbacks, and so on, required of commercial development
and at the same time keep in account some screening for residential areas. Also move
that the area known as the landfill be rezoned to General Recreational; and that the
General Business district shown as being changed to General Industrial be conceptually
approved also; and that area shown on the Zoning Proposal Draft #4 shown as General
Industrial and the additional 60 acres located in the area of the hazardous waste
site be conceptually approved as General Industrial. Motion carried unanimously.
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 8
Attorney Hawkins advised that the City does not have a PUD district, but they are
allowed by special use permit in certain districts. Mayor Windschitl felt that
it would be preferable to create a PUD zoning district and list what can or cannot
be done in that zone.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that everything south of Bunker Lake
Boulevard east of Coon Creek to the section line between 33 and 34 conceptually be
rezoned to R-4. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the two ZOs just to the east of the
sect10n line between Section 33 and 34 and south of Bunker Lake Boulevard conceptually
be rezoned to either PUD or R-5. Discussion: Chairman Bose11 noted that the definition
of a PUD is two or more uses on a single lot and is much less restrictive than an R-5
would be. She didn't feel they would ever come up with a recommendation for a PUD
trailer court. She felt it would be either PUD or R-5 district and suggested it may
be better to rezone this area to an M-1 or M-2.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach; NO-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl
Motion failed.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to conceptually approve PUD or M-l or M-2
(for that area noted in the previous motion by Counic1man Jacobson). Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the area shown on Rezoning Proposal #4
between the PUD area on the north side of Bunker Lake Road and the General Recreational
area and west of the PUD along Hanson Boulevard and east of Red Oaks be rezoned to
R-4 classification on a conceptual basis to be referred to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the area shown On the Rezoning Proposal
Draft #4 that lays north and south of Andover Boulevard and designated as R-3 be
conceptually approved as an R-3 zone. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, the properties west of the General
Recreation conceptual rezoning to the Crosstown Boulevard designated as R-4 be
conceptually approved. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was on the property between Andover Boulevard and Coon Creek west of the
railroad tracks.
Winslow Holasek - stated that most of the people want to see that area remain zOned R-l.
James Meri1a, representing the owners of that property - desired to leave the land
zoned R-l. They were not opposed to being included in the MUSA area as long as they
could continue with their plat. (Chairman Bosel1 noted the problem of the tip of
the property in question which is south of the creek as to whether it should be
included in the plat or whether it should be included with the prposed LI zoning just
below it.)
Pat Anstett, P&Z Commissioner - was asked by the Trail Riders Association of Anoka
County to consider leaving that little tip of land as a park, as they are interested
in working with the County in extending the horse trails from Bunker Park, potentially
going up the railroad tracks to that tip as a park and coming back down possibly through
the electrical right of way. It is her understanding that Mr. Torki1dson from the
County has requested specific data indicating a need for such a trail system.
Council discussion was on leaving the property south of Andover Boulevard west of the
railroad tracks as an R-1 zone or changing it to an R-4 zone and the problems that would
be incurred with an R-4 zoning relative to development prior to the availability of
sanitary sewer.
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 9
Mr. Merila - felt that the creek provided sufficient buffer between their residential
land and the proposed industrial zoning south of the creek.
The majority of the Council expressed the opinion to leave that property as an R-1
zone.
Discussion was then on the suggestion of extending the MUSA line northward to encompass
an area up to the City Hall site. Engineer Davidson had an overhead showing a proposal
to utilize the Coon Rapids Interceptor maximum capacity in the City going northward
along the proposed extension of Hanson Boulevard up to one 40 north of the City Hall
site. Discussion with various members of the audience was On the reasons for ex-
panding the urban service area; noting it would allow developers to develop their
property without sanitary sewer but in such a manner as to allow for future subdivision,
cross-streets, etc., once sewer facilities become available; that it is planning for
the logical extension of the sanitary sewer facilities; and that street easements
would be dedicated and there would be some control over the placement of the house on
the lots to allow for future subdivision for that development in an R-1 zone within
the urban service area. Engineer Davidson recommended that there be some consideration,
at least for the MWCC 40-year projection, that would indicate a future urban service
district somewhat larger than the present one to retain the present capacity. That is
based on the removal of the CAB Interceptor area plus removal of certain areas of
present R-1 development within present urban service district.
Dave Groat, 14545 Palm Street - thought that perhaps it is more logical to go north
with the MUSA area based upon the landowners and plats previously approved. Going
east gets into Barnes Rolling Oaks, which is 2~-acre lots. He felt part of the con-
sideration is future owners should be aware of plans. A lift station would be needed
to get across the creek to the Monite Glue Company property, and beyond that is the
2~-acre lots. Going north from there would be more land that could benefit from the
lift station rather than having it dead-end at Barnes Rolling Oaks. (Mayor
Windschit1 stated there is no and never has been any intent to install sanitary sewer
into Barnes 2Yz-acre developments.)
Discussion was on establishing a search area north of the present MUSA line and having
the Building Inspector contact the property owenrs, explain the City's desire to expand
the MUSA area, and what it would mean to have their property in the MUSA area. Some
residents expressed the fear that once they are in the urban service area that sanitary
sewer is going to follow soon and questioned who is going to pay for it. Council
explained that it is not the intent to extend the sewer line until it is needed,
possibly as long as 40 years from now, and that only those actually receiving benefit
will pay for the sewer when it is extended.
Councilman Ortte1 suggested a search area for the MUSA be 3/4 of a mile ,north of the
current MUSA line the width of Sections 22 and 27 and 1/4 mile into Sections 23 and 26.
Engineer Davidson drew out the area on an overhead map.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the City establish a search area for potential
MUSA line as described in the Engineer's map marked Exhibit Bl and that Dave Almgren
be directed to contact the property owners in that area to explain and to get their
reaction to such a change. Discussion: Councilmen Jacobson and Lachinski didn't
think it would be worthwhile, as they felt nobody is going to want it unless they
understand it, know the benefits, etc. Engineer Davidson explained how they arrived
at the area they had described for the extension of the MUSA area, also noting that
land is definitely more valuable as an urban area rather than rural area.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski
Motion carried.
Special City Council Meeting
April 24, 1980 - Minutes
Page 10
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that the property between Lund's Evergreen
Estates and Hartfiel's Estates and above the R-3 area in the current MUSA area be
rezoned to R-4; and also that area south of Andover Boulevard and west of the Old
Colony Gas property and east of the General Recreational area and north of the section
line of Section 26 westerly to the R-3 area be rezoned to an R-4 zone conceptually.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council generally agreed that that property to the east of the railroad tracks south
of Andover Boulevard remain an R-1 zone.
Discussion was on the proposed Limited Industrial area on the Rezoning Proposal
Draft #4 located north of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Councilman Jacobson was opposed to a
Limited Industrial zone east of the railroad tracks. He had no problem with putting
higher density residential east of the tracks and extending the MUSA line that far.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the area shown on the Rezoning Proposal
Draft #4 be conceptually approved to Limited Industrial, the area described as follows:
that being the property north of Bunker Lake Boulevard in Section 35 except the westerly
40 acres and the easterly 40 acres of Section 35 north of Bunker Lake Boulevard, and
ask that the Planning Commission investigate some sort of a residential use to the east
of this area as a buffer.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson
Motion carried.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to include in the Metropolitan Service Area
that part of Section 26 which lies south of Andover Boulevard and west of the railroad
tracks and that part of Section 35 east and west of the railroad tracks as described
for the potential rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
'\\~ß~ c~L
Marce 1a A. Peach
Recording Secretary