HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC November 17, 1981
I
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-NOVEMBER 17, 1981
AGENDA
1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Discussion Items
a. Ordinance-Agricultural Preserve
b. Amendment-Ordinance 8/Agricultural Preserve
c. Variance/Good Value-Slab on Grade homes.
d.
e.
5. Non-Discussion Items
a. Appointments-Senior Citizen Advisory Committee
b. Worker's Compensation Claim Denials/Fire Dept.
c.
d.
6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards
7. Approval of Minutes
8. Approval of Claims
9. Adjournment
~~-.
I
CITY 01 ANDOVER
M E M D RAN DUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
COPIES TO:
FROM: ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1981
REFERENCE: AGENDA INFORMATION - NOVEMBER 17, 1981
Item No. 2 - Resident Forum
We have received several phone calls relative to the Firearms
Moratorium Ordinance. I would expect several people to be present.
Item No. 3 - Agenda Approval
Please add Item No. 5c-Junkyard License Renewal Fees.
Item No. 4a- Ordinance/Agricultural Preserve
You have all received copies of the proposed ordinance. The maps
were inadvertently not included. These maps show the specific
Ag and AgP districts. They will be on hand for the meeting. You
will note the MUSA is exempted from the AgP District, although
there are areas being open for a rezoning to Agricultural within
the MUSA. It is to be kept in mind that the AgP District only
indicates there are properties within this District eligilble for
Ag Preserve designation; it in no way assures an applicant of
receiving approval for such designation. The attorney has reviewed
the proposed ordinance.
Item No. 4b - Ordinance No. 8 Amendment
This amendment simply sets out the provisions in the Agricultural
Preserve Ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance. It appeared to me
that the 1110" acre minimum is somewhat confusing in that actually
"4011 acre minimum is required for Ag & Ag Preserve, although it
can be broken down in 4 10-acre parcels----however, there can only
be ~ dwelling unit for the entire 114011. Perhaps a footnote could
be added to reference the applicable section in the Ag Preserve
Ordinance.
Item No. 4c - Amended $pecial Use Permit/Good Value Homes
Good Value is requesting approval to allow the construction of a
two-family home in the Northglen Subdivision. You will recall,
the Special Use Permit approved with the Plat provided for a
1008-1116 sq.ft. structure w/basement & double garage for each
side of the double. The proposed would be 928 sq. ft. wIno basement
& double garage. The design would change from a split to a rambler.
You have received the Planning & Zoning recommendation for approval.
. .... f'
Agaijda Information
November 17, 1981
Page 2
Item No. 5a - Appointment to Senior Citizen Advisory Committee
Mayor Windschitl is to formally appoint five (5) senior citizens,
recommended by the Council, to the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee.
Their charge will be to work with the Council, Staff and Consultant
in making their needs known so these needs can be incorporated into
the Senior Citizen Center to be constructed as an addition to
City Hall.
Item No. 5b - Worker's Compensation Claim Denials
At the November 3 Meeting, the Council approved City payment of a
medical bill for Mark Kreutter. The Claim was denied by Worker's
Compo (claimant was not performing his jOb function when the injury
occurred) . A similar incident happened two years ago when Ray Sowada
was attending a required fire school. This injury claim was denied
by Worker's Compo for the same reason as Mr. Kreutters. As a result
Mr. Sowada incurred several medical bills not reimbursed; and lost
five weeks of work. Chief Palmer requested clarification on the
City's policy for such incidents. Invariably this is going to
happen again--what does the Council wish to establish as a policy.
Also, is any compensation either in cash payment or reinstatement
of lost sick leave/vacation to be made to Mr. Sowada.
Item No.5c - Junkyard License Renewals
At the Budget Meeting on November 10, the Council indicated the need
to increase the fee for Junkyard Renewals. It is presently $75.00,
however, the $75.00 is no longer covering the administrative costs
involved in processing the license. Inasmuch as renewals are now
due to be sent out (all current licenses expire December 31,1981),
an amount should be set now.
Item No. 6 - Reports
No information received to-date.
Item No. 7 - Approval of Minutes
July 21, 23, 28, August 4, 11 , 18, 24, September 1, 15, 24, 29,
October 1, 6, 20, November 3, 5
. _0 ,. . . -0· ...
~ 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 17, 1981
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the .~nduv~r City Council was called to order by
Mayor Jerry Windschitl on November 17, 1981, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Clerk, P. K.
Lindquist; and others
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the Agenda be approved with the addition of
items 5 (1), Bows and Arrows; 4 (2) Rifle Ranges; 4 (3) Firearms Limits; and the
addition of 5c~ Junkyard License Renewal Fees. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we suspend the rules. Motion
carried unanimously.
FIREARMS - BOWS AND ARROWS
Kurt Bloomstrom, 15711 Nightengai1 - asked if the law means one cannot shoot a bow
and arrow in his own yard. He didn't understand why that would be. (Mayor Windschitl
stated that is correct and that is the issue being addressed.)
Richard Novak, 14655 Palm Street - asked who passed the ordinance. (It was passed
by the Councll at the November 3 meeting. The motion was passed on a 4-0 vote, with
the Mayor being absent from that meeting. It was a reaction to a gentleman who had
been shot complaining about the firearms ordinance. It is also understood that
there have been at least two other incidents of people getting shot in Andover this
hunting season.)
Ernie Farnsmith (?), Anoka - asked if some of the citizens were present when this
was passed and in what locations were the people shot. He owns 180 acres in the
nothern corner and there is no one close to him. (Discussion was the only people
present at that meeting were those opposed to the firearms ordinance, that two
people were shot by Coon Creek and one south of Andover Boulevard by the railroad
tracks, that two of those people were on their own property and were not hunting at
the time of the accident, that there have been a greater number of complaints this
year than in previous years, and that the Sheriff's Department is saying that the
City's firearms ordinance is unenforceable. Councilman Lachinski stated the Council
had considered not allowing firearms discharge in only a portion of the City and that
the Council is still open to see if that can be done if a reasonable line can be
drawn to protect the residents in the City in the more urbanized area. He explained
that it was felt it would take several months of meetings and discussions with those
that are interested to make an ordinance that is workable in Andover. The Council
is not opposed to hunting in the City if it can be made reasonable for everyone.)
Martin , 15845 Xenia - asked which Councilmen voted the ordinance in to see which
ones won't get re-elected next time. He aske:J if four people out of 9,000 in the City
can set the law that they have to live by. He didn't know about the law until tonight,
and he shoots a bow and arrow in his back yard every day. (Discussion was that the
Council is trying to address what changes can be made to that ordinance, and that the
Council was reacting to the discharge of firearms in which someone had been shot.)
Martin - felt it is wrong for pOlice to shoot firearms sometimes also, and that
it lS taking away one of their basic rights. He also asked about pellet guns. Do
they have any rights on their land? How can the Council pass such a law without
-- - -- .~.~~, 'H
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Firearms - Bows and Arrows, Continued)
letting them know about it? He stated he wants to be able to shoot his bow and arrow
in his back yard. (Councilman Ortte1 stated the intent was to govern the discharge
of firearms and not bows and arrows. He didn't feel the ordinance takes away the
citizens' right to bear arms, and that people do not have the right to discharge
firearms if it endangers anyone else. He also explained that the Council is charged
with the responsibilities of enacting laws in the City.)
Ken TaY10r¡ 16552 Verdin Street NW - stated he thinks the passage of the ordinance is
grossly un air. Many of them are bow hunters and stated that if many had a chance to
shoot at a deer from the microphone to the back wall, many of them would be hard-
pressed to hit it. He didn't think it was right that someone practicing with a bow
and arrow into bale of hay should be breaking the law. He didn't think it was right
to make a law-breaker out of a law-abiding sportsman. (Councilman Lachinski explained
that no direction was given to have people arrested as a result of the action taken
by the Council two weeks ago, recognizing that it was done on the spot. They were
to be given warnings to let them know there was a change.)
Mr. Taylor - stated the office staff told residents there would be a grace period of two
weeks of warning tags issued. (Councilman Lachinski stated there was the intent to
uphold the change; but because it was done the way it was, there was no penalty to
those who were unaware of it. Councilman Jacobson stated when the moratorium ordinance
was passed, he was thinking of rifles and shotguns and not bows and arrows. He didn't
intend it to include bows and arrows.)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we amend the interim firearms ordinance
to allow the use of bows and arrows within the City of Andover for purposes of hunting
and other uses. Motion carried unanimously.
FIREARMS ORDINANCE - RIFLE RANGES
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to amend the interim firearms moratorium
ordinance to allow three rifle ranges within the City currently known as Winchester
Metro Rifle Club, Christian Rifleman Club, and the Minneapolis Police Department
Rifle Range. Motion carried unanimously.
FIREARMS ORDINANCE - LIMITS
Mayor Windschit1 suggested a portion of the City be opend in the center bounded by
Crosstown Boulevard on the east to South Coon Creek Drive, west to County Road 9,
north of County Road 20, east to Verdin, and north to the City limits. He explained
that to make it enforceable, the limits almost have to follow county roads.
Ke11~ Ta~lor, 16552 Verdin - asked if any of the Councilmen hunt. (Councilman
Lachlnskl stated he has; Councilman Ortte1 stated he shoots but does not hunt.) She
stated they live on 160 acres and have been hunting on it for four years. They could
stand in the middle of their land, shoot a gun, and not hit any buildings. She felt
it was redicu10us that with 160 acres they can't hunt it. This year she got a three-
day doe permit, took the time to build stands, plan the site, obtained guns and
supplies; and the day before the season opens, they are told they cannot hunt. Hunting
is the highlight of their year; and to be told they cannot hunt because someone in a
crowded area of the City got shot is, in her opinion, unfair. There are hunters who
are careless and ruin it for everyone, but to take away everyone's hunting privileges
just before the season opens is wrong.
John Mollencam , 140 Andover Boulevard NW - has 17 acres of land with nothing behind
1m ut Wl erness. He 1 n't see any reason why there couldn't be hunting in that area.
The Sheriff came and stopped his boys from shooting BB guns even before this ordinance
was passed because neighbors were complaining the BB's were hitting their houses.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Firearms Ordinance - Limits, Continued)
They are 500 yards from the nearest building, and a shotgun doesn't carry that far.
He didn't think it was right that they can't shoot trap back there when there is
nothing to hurt.
Ken Taylor - according to the proposal, they would be on the wrong side of Verdin
Street. He felt the Mayor's boundary proposal is fairly logical; however, there are
some areas outside those boundaries that are open. BB's and deer slugs only carry so
far. There are other laws applicable to hunting. State laws are that one cannot
shoot across platted roads, which would eliminate places like Hawk Ridge and the
congested built-up areas of Andover. Also, the law states one cannot shoot within 500
feet of an inhabited building. Any good sportsman knows there is a right and wrong
place to discharge firearms. They have never had a problem with anyone hunting on
their 160 acres except those who choose not to ask. Those that asked he felt would not
be doing any damage to his buildings; but those that did not ask are the ones causing
the problems. He felt that some workable solution to the boundaries could be found,
but to have this done in the middle of hunting season has a lot of people angry.
(Councilman Ortte1 was not aware of any problems with people hunting on their own
land. The problems are those hunting on other land and who don't know where houses
are located, etc. The current ordinance requires that you hunt on your own land or
have written permission from the landowner.)
Hugh Florman, 17518 Blackfoot Street NW - thanked the Council for now allowing bow
hunting and for being open to setting hunting boundaries. He has been in contact
with Brooklyn Park, which has an ordinaoce in which they define certain areas of the
city as huntable areas. They also have a system that hunters must have on their
person a description of the land, a note from the landowner, and a permit from the
Chief of Police of Brooklyn Park which costs $5. They seem to think that that discourages
a lot of people from just stopping to shoot their guns, etc. He asked the Council to
keep that type of system in mind. He also asked the Council to keep in mind that there
are a lot of areas in the western half of Andover that are fairly open and possibly
could be open to hunting. As long as there are scattered tracts in Andover, there will
always be some difficulties with landowners about hunting. He felt the City Council
should make every effort' to listen to both sides. He is concerned that people got
hurt with firearms in Andover and also concerned that one or two people came before the
Council and were able to get the law changed. He suggested the City Council make a
decision on this deer season to hunt in Andover and to consider for future some
commission, perhaps with people from this audience, to design a boundary that would
be workable for people who wish to hunt here. And to realize in the future if there
is a desire to change the ordinances, that the public in the City should be informed.
(Another Council suggestion for a boundary to allow hunting would be east and north
of Prairie Road to Andover Boulevard, west to South Coon Creek Drive, west to County
Road 9, north to the City line.)
Bob Filkins, 15620 Round Lake - asked if there could be variances to this ordinance
to lnclude other open spaces outside this boundary. He asked if the Council was aware
of the provisions of the Minnesota Trespass law when this moratorium ordinance was
passed. He, as a sportsman, and all others that he knows of that hunt, are obeying
the laws as they are. If the State law as it is now is unenforceable, how could this
law, which is more stringent, be enforceable when the only ones that will obey it are
those obeying the present law to begin with. (Discussion was that for the Police
Department, there is quite a difference in enforcibi1ity. The problem now is that
people are not getting the required permits, there is the absentee landowner problem,
etc. Possibly something could be made workable in the less dense areas; but in parts
of the southern portion of the City it simply isn't working any more. The Council is
now attempting to determine an area that can be reasonably safely opened up to hunting. )
. . . . -. -
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Firearms Ordinance - Limits, Continued)
Barb Hum¥hreys, 16947 Verdin Street NW - has 80 acres and has been hunting there for 25
years. here are no houses within one mile of her to the north, plus she has friends
with 360 acres that they hunt on and with over 300 acres of sod fields abutting the
land. She asked why that area couldn't be included for hunting. She also asked why
this couldn't be voted on by the people. (Discussion was that the latest suggestion
for boundaries includes her property. The State law sets up the city governments, and
items such as this are not subject to a referendum. Councilman Jacobson also explained
that the ordinance was an interim: ordinance to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission
time to hold the necessary public hearings, to gather information from the resIdents,
and to recommend a workable ordinance. The Council is looking at opening up parts of
the City at this time, but he felt the area in the south should be protected and hunters
kept out. Councilman Ortte1 favored allowing hunting in portions of the City but
favored some conditions be put on it such as obtaining permission of the landowners
and obtaining a permit from City Hall. He recommended eliminating the dense area in
the south for hunting. He felt that the hunters should have something showing where
they will be hunting and that it will not infringe on anyone's house.)
Mrs. Frank Daly, 168th and Roanoke - reviewed the property surrounding their land
noting the large amount of open space in that area. The property has been in the Daly
family for over 100 years, and they moved there so their boys could hunt and trap and
fish. They have permission to hunt on neighboring land as well. She stated she didn't
think the Council was very fair in not permitting them to hunt their land. She then
handed the Council her hunting permit.
Kelly Taylor - asked what happens to those who purchased the three-day doe permit.
(Mayor Windschit1 stated if an agreement can be reached on a boundary, it would be
opened up to allow hunting for the doe season.) Ms. Taylor then presented a petition
with 116 names on it expressing opposItion to the ban.
A1 , South Coon Creek Drive - owns ten acres on the south side of the road and
the ten acres south of hlm plus 17 acres to the west is uninhabitied, and 20 acres to
the east has one dwelling on one end of it. One of the reasons he moved to Andover
was to enjoy some of the comforts of living in the country such as hunting, practicing
on clay pigeons, etc. The boundary as now proposed would prevent him from doing that.
He would like to see a provision whereby those with enough acreage to discharge
firearms safely could do so. He felt the people moving out like the anemities of living
in the country, and that someone is trying to make it into the middle of a major city,
which it is not.
Gary , 176th Avenue NW - hunts around Mr. Taylor's land and stated most people in
the room ask permisslon before going on other people's land. If they didn't care
about this law, they wouldn't be here tonight. He agreed that the heavily populated
area should be eliminated. But where there is 200 to 300 acres, it is not necessary,
noting a person can get killed with a car just as easily as with a gun.
Doug Maciaszek, 15711 Dakota - is an avid duck hunter and likes to hunt on Round Lake.
He hunts on the island on the lake which has 1/4 to 1/2 mile of water surrounding it.
The boundaries as now proposed exclude the entire lake from hunting. During the last
few months, there are probably 15 to 20 hunters in the mornings, which don't present
any problems as far as he knows as long as they stay away from the houses on the southern
end. He thought it was redicu10us to exclude that from the area that can be hunted.
Walter Vosika, 1414 Bunker Lake Boulevard - asked if he has rights also. He related
problems he has had with people setting deer stands on his proeprty without permission.
Two are overlooking his corn field, and it is against the law to shoot over a corn
field. He asked what rights he has.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Firearms Ordinance - Limits, Continued)
Ellie Wood, 3723 145th Avenue - lives on Round Lake and has three small children.
They have hunters walk through their property and shoot onto the lake. Her children
are not allowed to play in the back yard during duck-hunting season becau~Df her fear
of their accidentially getting shot. They have to go out and ask the hunters to leave
their property. The hunters do not obey the laws and she didn't think they should be
allowed to hunt there.
Jo Zil1hardt, 3753 145th Avenue - lives on the lake. They have hunters right outside
thelr house. It is noisey and scarey. She asked how to explain to their little son
the sound of guns shooting at ducks when they like to canoe on the lake and enjoy the
wildlife. They purchased property on the lake to be able to canoe and skate on it.
But in the winter they have to put up with snowmobiles which prohibit skating, and
in the fall there are hunters and it is dangereous to go out in a canoe.
Ann Sikora - owns a lot of land up north. She stated she is not a hunter, but she is
opposed to all the laws that seem to be put on farmers. She is opposed to any laws
unless they vote on it. She also explained the nuisances of squirrels, woodchucks,
etc.; and she felt she should be able to have someone shoot those animals on her
property. (Discussion was her property is included in the allowable area as the boundary
is now proposed.)
Al , 17765 Palm Street NW - because three people got hit, a law is made that they
cannot hunt in Andover. Unfortunately, numerous people get hit every year in the entire
State; so will there be a law of no hunting in the State of Minnesota? (Councilman
Ortte1 felt that three people out of 9500 who were not in the field hunting is an
incredible statistic. When the moratorium was enacted, it was strictly temporary and
was dated. The objective was to give the people time to come in and help draft an
ordinance that would be workable.)
Jerry Bosen, 2027 161st Avenue NW - owns four acres. He has two boys whom he wants to
raise to know the full meaning of hunting, respect of guns, respect of the law, and to
respect wildlife. And the boys do not understand why they can't shoot their BB guns
and bows any more. He felt the reason for living in the country is to enjoy the
wildlife, and the law does not seem fair.
L~le Bradley, 15202 Seventh - has a great deal of empathy for the Council because of the
sltuation they are in. He was also involved in drafting the original firearms ordinance
and felt that one can learn from being involved in the pendulum syndrom. He is an avid
hunter, archer, and ,conservationist. He raised a flock of Canada Geese until a hunter
shot all their stock last year, which inferiorated him. But by the same token, he felt
one should realize that like in automobiles, not everyone who drives a car is completely
responsible either. Their mailbox has been shot twice, but has been knocked down six
times by automobiles. There are some very irresponsible people with guns, but there
are also irresponsible people with every other form of amenity in the culture. Mr.
Bradley felt the Council deserves a pat on the back for owning up to a mistake and
commended the Council for being honest and fair about this.
MOTION by Jacobson, that we change the interim moratorium firearms ordinance to allow
the dlscharge of firearms within the following area bounded by the area as follows:
beginning on the easterly City limits, west on Bunker Lake Boulevard to Prairie Road;
north on Prairie Road to Andover Boulevard; west on Andover Boulevard to Crosstown
Boulevard; south on Crosstown Boulevard to South Coon Creek Drive; west on South Coon
Creek Drive to County State Aid Highway No.9 (Round Lake Boulevard); north on Round
Lake Boulevard to the extension of 149th Avenue; and west to the Rum River...
(Discussion was on the type of firearms that would be allowed to be discharged. One
gentleman suggested restricting to anything that was not legal for the taking of big
. ... , ,
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
(Firearms Ordinance - Limits, Continued)
game, in other words, for small game only. He suggested restricting to shotguns with
slugs or firearms that are legal for the taking of small game. Pistol cartridges, .38-
caliber, .30-ca1iber carbine are legal for small game.
Larry Bross, 15535 Prairie Road - is a firearms safety instructor for the State- of
Minnesota and has been certified for 10 to 15 years, teaching in this area. He agrees
that if restricted for small game, .22's would probably be included. But it is a State
law that anything greater than that cannot be used, such as .30-.30, .30-06, .270, or
even pistols such as .57 magnum south of Highway 95 for deer hunting. He would prefer
the definition of rimfire. Rimfire is just as dangereous. A .22 will travel a mile
the same as a .30-06. But .22's are used for hunting squirrels, rabbits, and is still
a rifle.
C1a~ton Bosell, 341 Constance - didn't think it should be opened to rimfire. He is an
aVl hunter, and doesn't classify himself as a sportsman, defining sportsmen as those
who shoot mailboxes, signs, etc. He felt the gun ordinance should be restricted to
shotguns with slugs and stay away from the rimfire factor because that gets into large
caliber guns and rimfire cartridge. He didn't think it would be necessary to have the
discharge of .22 rifles and larger in the City. A woman in the audience stated the
.22's were outlawed years ago in this City.)
Councilman Jacobson continued with the Motion: to outlaw all rifles in the hunting area
and let them use shotguns with slugs and pellets; and to allow the hunting in this area
so described with bows and arrows also. Motion Seconded by Ortte1.
(Discussion: Someone in the audience asked about pellet guns. Mayor Windschit1 stated
that would be allowable. It was also noted that the Council still intends to have the
Planning Commission update the firearms ordinance prior to February 1, 1982, and that
the Planning Commission will be holding the first meeting on November 24. Input from
both sides of the issue would be appreciated.)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, to amend the motion to note that
hunting and dlscharge of firearms allowed under the interim - ordinance would still be
controlled by the previous ordinance, Ordinances 12 and 12A.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the interim' ordinance expire on
February 1, 1982. (Discussion: Councilman Peach felt that this would provide the
additional incentive to get the ordinances updated in a timely manner. Mayor Windschit1
felt that the ordinance as proposed to be amended is an improvement over the original
ordinance and that it should not expire even if work on the update is not complete.
Councilman Jacobson felt that the motion amends a previous motion calling for an
expiration on February 1, and he felt that still holds.)
Councilmen Orttel and Peach WITHDREW the Second and the Amendment to the Motion.
VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously.
VARIANCE/GOOD VALUE - SLAB-ON-GRADE HOMES
John Peterson, Good Value Homes, 433 Jackson Street, Anoka - provided a map of where
the proposed structures would be bUllt. Heexp1alned they are asking for permission to
build a 928-square-foot twin home, which is only slightly smaller than the minimum size
of a single home. They are proposing a double garage, and these homes would actually
improve the subdivison by getting a better-looking subdivision. They want to build a
home that is affordable in today's market. Interest rates are coming down slightly,
but not enough to make enough of a difference. They feel this home would not depreciate
the value of the homes in the area and would add to that area. They would like to put
- - . , q.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Variance/Good Value - Slab-On-Grade Homes, Continued)
this twin home in any of the remaining lots in NorthG1en. But if that doesn't meet
with Council approval, to construct 14 of these homes, they would be willing to go to a
position of something less than that.
Mayor Windschit1 had a problem with the slab-on-grade homes because of the limited
storage space and resale values. It may be a different question if it would be in a
new development with like-type construction, but he had trouble with putting it into
an area where other buildings are in and approved.
Mayor Windschit1 also read into the record two letters objecting to the slab-on-grade
homes in that development: one&om Robert LeRoy, 3505 139th Lane and one from Mrs.
Robert Lather, 3516 139th Lane.
Mr. Peterson - stated he walked through the neighborhood last weekend and knøcked on
every door of the twin homes and some of the single family homes. And he did not get
a single objection to this idea. He felt he had good answers for each of the Mayor's
object ions. They do not feel they will be depreciating the neighborhood, and the
homes will cover more ground area and look substantially larger than the home they are
now building.
Councilman Jacobson agreed with the Mayor, feeling basements are needed for protection
against storms in this part of the country. Once a PUD is established, he didn't feel
it should be changed in the middle. He objected to coming in later asking for a change
for purely economic reasons. Mr. Peterson - stated the Andover standard for this type
of home is 800 square feet; and these homes are substantially 1arg~r than that. Also,
as developers, they cannot anticipate every changing market condition. It is also
possible to build this house slab-on-grade with single garage on the single-family lots
across the street. So he didn't feel they were asking for a lot of change. If they
could have sold the units they had planned, they wouldn't have asked for this variance.
He stated the people in the neighborhood have an interest in having that land sold
and getting the neighborhood finished. Because this will be the area others look at as
Good Value develops the other land in the City, they too have an interest in making it
look good to be able to sell future neighborhoods. It would cost approximately $3,875
more to put a basement in. One of the advantages of his home is everything is on the
first floor. This particular plan would not work with a basement as there is no place
for the stairway.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that the City Council deny the amended Special
Use Permit request by Good Value Homes for the following reasons: granting the amended
Special Use Permit would adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of
the occupants of the surrounding properties; the granting of the amended Special Use
Permit would depreciate established values in this PUD; it would increase the danger
to residents during severe storms; and it would dimish the buffer zone between the
residential area and the shopping center area by lowering the height. DISCUSS ION:
After further discussion, Councilman Peach CHANGED THE MOTION to take out the last
reason. Second stands. (See Resolution R93-81)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to delete only one-half of the
requested lots for this amended Special Use Permit. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski
stated the only reason the Council gets to act on it is because it was a special use
permit and there was an agreement on the outward appearance of the buildings. If this
house had been presented to the Council at the time the original PUD was approved, he
felt they would have been approved. Councilman Orttel stated that slab-on-grade houses
are allowed by ordinances and controlled by the State Building Code. He also noted that
the slab-on-grade house has footings. Attorney Hawkins stated the Council does have
control over the buildings if it is felt the construction is injurious in any way because
it is controlled by the special use permit. Mr. Peterson -also noted that Coon Rapids
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 8
( Variance/Good Value - Slab-On-Grade Homes, Continued)
has been allowing single-family dwellings without a garage for as little as 800 square
feet on slab. He also noted that the homes they are presently building are also slab
homes, there is no tornado shelter, they are poured on grade with 2~-foot mound of
dirt on each side.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1
Mot i on failed.
VOTE ON MOT! ON: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1
Motion carried.
Councilman Lachinski stated for the record that he agrees with the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation for the reasons they cited. Personally, he feels this home
would actually make the residential neighborhood more attractive, and feels we are
missing the boat.
Mayor Windschit1 agreed with Councilman Lachinski on the exterior looks. His only
point is with the basement.
Recess at 9:22; reconvene at 9:34 p.m.
Councilman Jacobson left the meeting at this time.
ORDINANCE - AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE
Pat Anstett, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, reviewed the Agricultural Preserve Study
report presented to the Council which reviewed the findings of the Commission which lead
to the proposed agricultural preserve ordinance. She then introduced Romey Sloviak
from the Metropolitan Council, who showed a slide presentation on the State law enacted
which created the Agricultural Preserve Act, why it is necessary, the benefits, and the
requirements of the Act.
Following the slide show was Council and audience discussion on questions about the
proposed ordinance. Mayor Windschit1 began by asking how abuses of this ordinance
can be prevented. Is it mandatory that the Council approve every request for ag
preserve or what is the criteria used for making the decision?
Dick Swanson, Anoka County Extension Agent - with the high interest rates, he didn't
feel anyone would hold land for eight years for no reason. He doubted there are any
holding corporations that will hold land for that long. Even if that were done, what
harm would it do? It also provides the City with the knowledge of where land is in
ag preserve, tha t it will not be sewered, and the Ci ty can turn its attenti on to other
land. In general, if it is zoned agricultural and zoned 1 in 40, he thought it would
be difficult to turn down an ag preserve request. But it is intended to be a mutual
agreement.
Ms. Slovi ak noted that the act does not require the 1 and -to be farmed. It lists farming
uses but also includes woodlands, wetlands, etc. The idea is that the land not be
developed so it couldn't be used for agriculture. And the act also states the local
government can follow a complaint procedure if there is abuse of or disrespect for the
land in the Ag Preserve District.
Mayor Windschit1 stated he would like to see the ordinance modified so the Ag Preserve
District truly applies to farming, noting the problem with including woodlands, pastures,
and wetlands. He preferred having some criteria the Council can review when acting on
a petition. If a person or corporation got land into this act that was not intended to
be farmed, they are in effect getting relief on the taxes over a period of time and the
rest of the taxpayers are picking up those taxes. If it is a 1igitimate farming
operation, the Mayor stated he has no problem with it.
. -.. .-.. .
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 9
(Ordinance - Agricultural Preserve, Continued)
Ed Fields, County Commissioner and property owner in Andover - stated that developers
are not good providers of revenue for the city, as they generate city and county
,expenses and hurt the general taxpayers. Every new house costs the existing residents
more money in taxes.
Mr. Swanson explained that in Anoka County, the County Assessor has vigorously tried
to administer the Green Acres law the way it was intended, which is not being done in many
of the other counties. That is the reason there would be less of a tax break for the
farmers in Anoka County than in other portions of the metropolitan area. Ms. Sloviak
explained in Green Acres they are charged for the last three years of assessments; whereas
in the Ag Preserve there are no assessments. Also, in Ag Preserve, there is a lid
placed on the total amount of taxes that can be paid. Each year a calculation will be
made as to what the average farmer pays in taxes outstate, and those farms in Ag Preserve
will not have to pay more than 105 percent of that rate. So over time, that might be a
tax benefit to those properties in the Ag Preserve. Mr. Swanson also explained the City
has the right to change the zoning on the property utilizing the same eight-year
period as is available to the farmer. But once the property is zoned for 1 in 40, he
was not so sure the Council had any right to deny the ag preserve application.
Discussion was on the confusion as to what is being created at this time. Council
thought the impression is that everything in basically the rural area is being recommended
for agricultural preserve. Mr. Swanson explained the City's action is to zone the
property for 1 house in 40, and it is the landowner's responsibility to apply to get
into the ag preserve. Ms. Sloviak stated that the City must also come up with a
resolution that certifies that the land is eligible for ag preserve. It is possible
to have land zoned for 1 in 40 but not be eligible for ag preserve. She stated she will
go back to the Metro Council and find out if it is possible to write into that resolution
any kind of qualifying clause.
Mayor Windschitl stated it may be possible to consider each of the requests on a specific
rezoning. Those that have already applied can be considered all at once; and anyone
coming in later will be considered on an individual basis. Attorney Hawkins stated the
City must set out the areas wanted in the long-term plans to be considered for agricultural
lands. He felt the specific districts should be set out now without regard to who applied.
Woodlands and wetlands are not allowed under the proposed ordinance. He feels that
this ordinance is already more restrictive than the State law.
Council then made the following suggestions to the ordinance:
Page 1, last statement in first paragraph, change to: The governing body further finds
that development and urbanization of high-quality agricultural land is detrimental to
the long-range plans of the City of Andover.
Page 1, 2. d. Commercial Agriculture, 2: Delete the word "dogs".
Councilman Lachinski also did not understand the procedure and had some problems with
what happens in the event the City wants to extend roads through ag preserve property,
such as the extension of Hanson Boue1vard. He also noted that this ordinance does not
refer to the State Ag Preserve Act. Attorney Hawkins stated that the City may acquire
up to ten acres through eminent domain without going through the procedure outlined in
the State 1 aw. This ordinance does not set out the procedure for governing the covenant
on the land, that being covered by State Statute. He felt the Council should be making
a specific designation as to what parcels will be agricultural land to be placed on a
zoning map. The map before the Council is more in line with amending the Comprehensive
Plan. Councilman Lachinski was concerned that once the entire rural area of the City is
designated as ag preserve, anyone could come in and request the convenant, and the
Council would have no basis to deny the request.
-- ,-. ..
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 10
(Ordinance - Agricultural Preserve, Continued)
Mayor Windschit1 asked those in the audience if everyone present who wants to have already
submitted their application and description of property for the Ag Preserve District.
Two people indicated they had not yet applied. The Mayor suggested that the matter be
carried to another meeting, and that a map be prepared showing all parcels requesting
the ag preserve designation, with the Council dealing with those specific properties at
that time.
Marge Perry - didn't understand why it isn't possible to have an area designated as
approprlate for ag preserve. Why couldn't there be an overlay map in the Comprehensive
Plan showing the portion of the City that would be appropriate for ag preserve and the
specific areas that have requests and have been approved be so marked? She is concerned
that if property is not included at this time, how would they get into the ag preserve
if it is desired in the future? Mayor Windschit1 explained that a request could then
be made for that des i gnat i on and it wou ld be cons idered,:at that time. The map presenteàl
by the Planning Commission incorporates some extremely dense portions.0f the City. It's
just not a workable way of doing it. If a property wants to be included, it should be
shown with its boundaries on a zoning map with a regular zoning classification on it.
Mr. Swanson stated that then in the zoning procedure, the City would not be leading but
would be following. He felt that not all farmers are interested in the ag preserve
and that the second step should be more positive than waiting for requests.
Councilman Orttel asked what happens if the properties exceed the limits of the ordinance,
as there are already some app1icatio~which have more than one home per 40 acres.
According to the ordinance as written, no more than one home on a 40-acre site is
a 11 owed. Discussion was on the migrate worker situation in the City and whether the
housing for those workers would apply to the 1 home per 40 acre limitation in the
ordinance. Attorney Hawkins stated under the State law, contiguous pieces of property
and even noncontiguous property can be counted in reaching the total density. Discussion
also noted that some of the operations have multiple housing as a necessary part of
their operations. Council questioned if existing dwellings could be grandfathered in
and apply the rule in the future. It was also questioned if this would present a hardship
if additional dwellings are needed for migrate workers. Prior to the next meeting on the
matter, the Attorney was directed to research the number of dwellings allowed in the
original ordinance and what provisions there would be to add on a farm.
Discussion was also on various items that are contrary to the City's existing ordinances
such as the allowance of feedlots or start-ups of any of the commercial-type operations.
The Attorney was also directed to conform this ordinance to Ordinance No.8. It was
felt some language should be inserted stating Ordinance 8 will supercede any conflicting
provisions in the ordinance and that the definitions between the ordinances should be in
conformance. The Attorney stated that those operations would still be governed by
Ordinance 8.
Page 4, D., Special Uses. The Attorney felt the purpose of this section is that someone
may apply for these uses, but then they are not eligible for the long-term agricultural
benefits under the Ag Preserve Act, and the City may want that type of use in that
classification. He felt the section is to allow the City some latitude in allowing
these other types of uses in that area. Those activities would meet the ag district
requirements under the City's ordinances but would not meet the provisions of the Ag
Preserve Act. Council directed the Attorney to write the special use provision so the
uses are agricultural related. It was agreed to delete Section a.: "Outdoor
Recreation Areas"; and to delete the portion in Section d: "commercial hunting and
trapping". Under f. Home Occupations, it was suggested to add "..as described in other
ordinances."
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 11
(Ordinance - Agricultural Preserve, Continued)
The Attorney again explained that if someone applies, the City can rezone the property
to agricultural preserve. They must then make application for the long-term convenant.
If they don't do that, it is still termed agricultural preserve and they can engage in
the special use activities, including the accessories and special uses. The special
uses would not be allowed if the long-term convenant is approved.
Page 5, top of the page, d.: It was generally agreed the entire paragraph should be
deleted, although the Attorney was directed to review it. It was felt that the nuisance
ordinance would be applicable if there would be some problems.
There was then some discussion as to the reason for establishing an ag district and
the difference between the ag and ag preserve districts, with it being noted that there
seems to be a lot of duplication between the two districts. Council generally agreed
that the process should be done under one classification, and the Attorney is to review
the proposed ordinance making that revision. The suggestion was also made that
applications would not be considered in any area within the urban service district,
although there is one property in that district that should probably be considered
separately, referring to the Ken Slyzuk property. It was then suggested consideration
be given to allowing application for ag preserve from properties within the currently
zoned R-l areas. Mayor Windschit1 suggested for the next time this is discussed, the
Council should be prepared to make a decision as to how to treat the urban service area.
Ken Slyzuk - asked if he is not allowed to apply for the ag preserve for his property in
the urban area, would the Council provide a written permit that he will be allowed to
farm. He stated he needs some backing from the City, explaining some of the problems he
has had with neighboring residents about the spraying of his fields, feeling he should
be protected as well. He explained he is abiding by the law in his operations, that the
chemicals and helicopter is inspected; but there are still complaints. Those filing the
complaints with many regulatory agencies are protected with names kept confidential;
but they can try to stop the helicopter operator from flying and to stop him from farming.
By signing the ag preserve convenant with the City, all things that go with farming can
be done. So as long as things are done in the proper way, those complaints would be
invalid. The ag preserve convenant will protected him from those nuisance factors.
There was some discussion as to how the ag preserve convenant would help in a situation
such as Mr. Slyzuk's, afterward directing the Attorney to review that matter further.
Ms. Perr~ - felt the agricultural designated area is separate from the ag preserve area
and woul be for those areas that the Council felt were not appropriate for ag preserve
but individuals within that area would want to continue with their agricultural purposes
and wanted some protection. It would also afford City Hall some protection as to
complaints, etc. She felt it would make the City's job easier and benefit the farmer
who wants to continue with his activities. She would like not only an ag preserve
district, but also an ag district where individuals would not be making the eight-year
commitment. Attorney Hawkins stated that at the present time there is no agricultural
district under the City's ordinance as he had thought in the beginning of this discussion;
and this ordinance will set up the ag preserve district. Anyone who wants to continue
their farming practices can continue under the R-1 zoning which allows rural agricultural
uses. This ordinance will govern everything the City wants as long-term agriculture.
Lyle Bradley - was glad to see this being worked into the City's overall plan. He
wondered if the City has reviewed the New York law which has been in effect the longest
with a great deal of success. He stated he could provide a copy of that law if it was
desired. Mayor Windschit1 asked that a copy be brought to City Hall. Mr. Swanson
stated that law was used as the framework for the Minnesota law.
Commissioner Fields stated he as a farmer wishes to continue to farm with good farming
practices as he has in the past and he doesn't want to be interfered with in the future.
And he felt the agricultural preserve Bet will protect him in the future, and that is the
only reason he wants to be in it.
Regular City Council Meeting
November 17, 1981 - Minutes
Page 12
(Ordinance - Agricultural Preserve, Continued)
Walter Vosika - would like to keep on farming also. He had his application in since
the law was enacted, and the City turned him down. He's owned the place since 1948 and
farmed it all that time. Discussion was that the property was zoned for Light Industry
but actual ag preserve zonings have not yet been determined. That property is in the
five-year capital improvement to have sanitary sewer, etc., but that will be discussed
again next time.
It was agreed to have thi's·item the first item on the agenda at the special meeting of
December 3. The intent will be to finalize the ordinance and create the zoning districts
for those that have applied and qualify for that rezoning.
JUNKYARD LICENSE RENEWAL FEES
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council change their renewal and
lnvestigator fees on junkyards to $150 effective January 1, 19S2. Motion carried on
a 4-yes, 1-absent (Jacobson) vote.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT
Chairman Bill LeFebvre reported that the bituminous and sod are completed at the Boat
Landing. He also noted that there is some opposition being generated against the
proposed Kelsey Park project. Council stated that the Commission should use their best
judgement in determining what they wish to do on the matter.
Chairman LeFebvre also reported that there has been vandalism of equipment in many of
the parks around the City but that nothing will be able to be done about it until spring.
He also questioned whether any contouring, etc., in the parks done by the City should be
done to the Park Board or Public Works specifications. Council directed Mr. LeFebvre to
discuss any problems they may be having in that area with the staff engineer, Jim Schrantz;
but in general it was felt that the Park Board wishes should be abided by.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Discussion on the Springsted bill for services for development of the sanitary sewer trunk
policy was on the feeling that the per-hour charge was very high. There was also some
feeling that the fiscal agent and/or engineers should be absorbing some of the costs
since the original decisions were based upon their recommendations. It was suggested the
City consider interviewing other fiscal agent firms; but it was also agreed to pay the
claim at this time.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, approval of Checks 4396 through 4506, with the
exception of 4504 in the amount of $25, for total amount of $41,143.
VOTE ON MOTI ON: YES-Lachinski, Orttel, Windschit1; PRESENT-Peach; ABSENT-Jacobson
Motion carried.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to approve Check 4504 in the amount of $25.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1; ABSENT-Jacobson
Motion carried.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to approve Checks 526 through 530 in the amount
of $74,483.87. Motion carried on a 4-yes, 1-absent(Jacobson) vote.
MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-yes, 1-absent
(Jacobson) vote.
Meeting adjOUrne~
~-
~~~~(~ f(~
Marce 11 a A. Peach .
Recording Secretary