Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP December 3, 1981 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEF.TING - DECEMBER 3. 1981 MINUTES A Special Meetinq of the Andover ~ity Council was called to order by Mayor Jerrv Windschit1 on December 3, 1981. 7:38 p.m., at the Andover City Hall. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, for the purpose of discussing the Aqricu1tura1 Preserve Ordinance and the 1982 Budqet. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE OROINANCE Attorney Hawkins provided a list of the procedure for establishing the ag preserve district, noting the first step is to determine which areas of the City is desired to be set aside for agricultural preserve, which is basically the map presented by the by the Planning Commission. Then the Comprehensive Plan is to be amended. Skipping that portion because the Plan has not yet been approved by the Metro Council and assuming there would be no problem with such an amendment, the Council is to pass an ordinance and a resolution certifying the specific parcels that will be eligible for AgP. Mr. Hawkins also explained that the State Statute requires the AgP to have a maximum density of one residential unit per 40 acres. Apparently the Metro Council has interpreted the Statute to mean one farm dwelling and one non-farm dwelling according to the model ordinance they have proposed. So any existing parcels seeking qualifications for AgP cannot have over one farm dwelling and one non-farm dwelling per 40 acres, and he didn't believe those that exceed that density can be grand fathered in. He stated that according to the State Statute, the density can be averaged; for example, a farmer with 160 acres could have 4 units on one 40-acre piece. He felt that the housing for migrant workers, temporary employees, or seasonal employees could be put in as a permitted accessory use; however, limitations would have to be placed on it so that individuals living there are working solely on the farm during the time period that they are actively planting or harvesting and it is not a permanent situation. In further discussion, the Attorney stated that the acreages must be at least 40 acres in size. Also, if the property is rezoned to AgP, it doesn't necessarily lock it" into the eight-year convenant. The property owner must apply for that convenant. Walter Vosika - if a person has an old house and wanted to build a new one on the property, would he have to destroy the old house and move the new one closer to the road? Mr. Hawkins stated tworesiaencescapab1e of being occupied are not allowed on one 40- acre parcel; but he saw no problem with living in the old house until the new one is constructed, then moving the old house out or converting it to a barn, etc. Dave Peterson, Anoka Grain and Feed - has the 400 acres of the turkey farm. As he interpreted what was said, one farm house would be allowed, then divide the remaining 360 acres by 40 and they would be allowed 9 more dwellings within one 40-acre parcel. They now have one farm house and two/three houses for full-time help all on one 40. Mayor Windschit1 stated as the ordinance is proposed, it would be one non-farm dwelling on each 40-acre piece. Ken Slyzuk - stated the way it was originally explained to them was that all non-farm dwelllngs allowed could be on one 40-acre piece. Attorney Hawkins stated that the Council can change the proposed ordinance to allow that. The Mayor stated if the houses were allowed all on one 40-acre parcel but a portion of the farmland is sold, it would then put the density above the maximum and the AgP would be lost at that time. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City would have to enforce the restrictive convenant against ~~, Special City Counci 1 Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 (Agricultural Preserve Ordinance, Continued) that type of density until the property is out of the eight-year program. The convenant is on the land, not with the owner. It means if the land is sold, it still could not be developed for the eight years. Mr. Hawkins also explained that the farmer makes application for the convenant to the City. The City doesn't sign it, but the City would be the entity that would enforce any violations. The AgP deals only with the land and not with the buildings for tax purposes. The farm buildings would be taxed as they are now. Council agreed to resolve the density question later. Discussion was on the definitions in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Hawkins stated that the definitions are the same as was provided in the model ordinance. He wou 1d add a special section at the end stating in the event of any conflict between the definitions in this ordinance and Ordinance 8, the definitions in Ordinance 8 will govern. Discussion was under Special Uses, Page 4, which requires a special use permit for a roadside stand for the sale of agricultural produce grown on site. It was felt by some that that was being unnecessarily restrictive for those who want to set up a small stand to sell produce. The Attorney felt that was to cover the larger-type operations where there may be some traffic problems, etc. The Attorney was asked to wr ite the necessary language to require a special use permit only if a permanent structure is constructed for the use. Council then went through the proposed ordinance page by page with the following discussion and suggestions: Page 1, Section 1, change last sentence of first paragraph to: "The governing body further finds that the development and urbanization of high-quality agricultural land is detrimental to the long-range developmental planning of the City of Andover." It was also agreed that a statement should be made alluding to the State Statute. Mr. Hawkins suggested adding the following statement at the end of the paragraph: ".. .and feels it is in the best interests of the City to provide a program pursuant to Minnesota Statute 473H." Page 1, Section 2, Definitions, d, (1) last line to read: "sorguhm, sunflowers, and vegetab 1es." Page 1, Section 2, Definitions, d. (2), delete the word "dogs". Discussion was on whether some reference should be made that a certain percentage of one's income must be derived from the land. The concern was that this provision not get abused by having only very minimal arnountof production and/or income from the land. Mr. Hawkins stated the State Statute specifically requires there be some active agriculture on the land. He also stated the Statute requires the convenant agreement, which is signed by the land owner and covets that the land shall be kept in agricultural use. No decision was made on this item. Page 2, i, Farm: There was some concern that non-contiguous acres of 10-acre parcels can also be included in determining the size of the farm. There was also some question on the interpretation if the farm must be owned and operated by the farm entity, which would prohibit the owner from leasing the land for ag purposes. Mr. Hawkins felt that statement "and operated" could be interpreted both ways. If a farmer leases a piece of property and wants to include that in the convenant, he could not. No decision was made on this item. Page 2, q. Outdoor Recreation Area: Since the use was eliminated as a special use, it was felt the entire definition could be taken out of the ordinance. No final decision was made on this item. Page 3, u, Relative: add the word "spouse." -~--, Special City Council Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Ag Preserve Ordinance, Continued) Page 3, 4., B., (g) There was a lengthy discussion as to the interpretation of this section and how it would be applied. As written, it means one non-farm unit is allowed on each separate 40 provided it is on one acre which is separately owned and with 300 feet of frontage. There was some question as to why it would even be included if it is on a separately owned parcel. It was also noted that other City ordinances do not allow building permits unless it is on a separate parcel. Mr. Hawkins explained the State Statute, Subdivision 1, states when a separate parcel is created for a residential structure which is permitted, that area comes out of ag preserve but it is still considered for the density provision. So if a farmer would want to create four 2~-acre parcels out of 160 acres of land, it can be done; but they come out of ag preserve and are still calculated for the total density allowed on that 160 acres. Council questioned whether that wouldn't be a recordkeeping nightmare. Mr. Slyzuk - stated the first time representatives from the Metro Council were out, they stated all dwellings allowed could be placed on one 40. He stated most of them cannot build a house on 40 acres when there is peat because they have to stay on the high ground. Mr. Hawkins stated if an owner wanted to create a 5-acre piece to build a house for his son, that would be taken out of ag preserve f,or tax purposes, but it still is taken into account under the Statute as far as the total density. But they are only allowed to do that on the one-per-40 basis. If someone has more than one residential unit on the homestead at this time, he wouldn't have to include that portion of it under the ag preserve convenant. Councilman Orttel noted that usually the buildings are on the road and would be the area that would be most directly affected by improvements that may be put in. Discussion was on the permitted uses and special uses. It was felt that the special uses allowed for agricultural service establishments were for custom work, which is a commercial business. It would not require a farmer to obtain a special use permit to hire a contractor to do anything necessary to conduct his' agricultural uses. Counc il- man Orttel was also concerned with feedlots being a permitted use, as that is specifically governed under Ordinance 8. Ordinance 8 does not allow feedlots unless certain conditions are met; but it would seem that this ordinance simply allows it. Page 4, Item c under special uses and Item a under standards for granting special use permits: It was noted that there is a contradiction in that there are standards for granting non-farm structures but they are not mentioned as being allowed as a special use. Council generally had no problem with buildings for migratory workers and agreed that non-farm residences should be allowed on no less than 2~ acres. Page 4, D, Special Uses, (d): It was agreed to delete "boarding and training of horses; commercial hunting and trapping; the operation of game reservations;" and change the last line to: "and roadside stands for the sale of agricultural produce grown on the site utilizing permanent structures." Page 3, 4, B, (b) feedlots and poultry facilities: Discussion returned as to whether or not feedlots should be a permitted use of a special use and questioning the definition of feedlot. It was suggested that the definition of feedlot (Page 2, k) be changed to that in Ordinance No.8, although that brought up some of the problems with the Ordinance 8 definition as well. It was suggested the following changes be made: 1) Page 3, 4, B, (b) delete feedlots and poultry facilities as a permitted use; 2) Page 4, D, (a) add feedlots and poultry facilities as a special use. Discussion was to grandfather in existing facilities. 3) Page 2, k~ Feedlot: The definition is to conform with Qrdinance 8 realizing that that definition is subject to change once the ordinances are revised. Walter Vosika noted that outside of pollution or contamination of creeks or lakes, there is little or no controls on feedlots by other regulating agencies. The Attorney and Clerk were directed to conform all definitions in this proposed ordinance to those of Ordinance No.8. -~--. -- . ~_. Special City Council Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Ag Preserve Ordinance, Continued) Pages 3 and 4, 4, B, (g): Mr. Hawkins again noted that any area designated ag preserve cannot have more than one dwelling unit density per 40 acres and additional existing dwellings cannot be grandfathered in. The State law allows those dwellings to be stacked all on one 40. He also stated the State Statute does not make any distinctions between farm dwellings and non-farm dwellings but simply says residential. Those are the Metro Council's definitions'<fSpresented in the model ordinance. Council discussion was on whether or not stacking of non-farm dwellings should be allowed and on the possibility of making a distinction between farm dwellings and farm-employee dwellings. Council then suggested no distinction be made between farm and non-farm dwellings. When discussing structures for migrant workers, the Attorney stated the construction of the structure may be regulated by the State Building Codes, but this ordinance deals with the allowed use of those structures; and he felt it could be allowed as an accessory use under Section C on Page 4. He felt this could be done with the idea of aiding the farmer, not for the idea of adding more to the density. The Clerk noted that Ordinance 8 does not require separate parcels for employee structures. Recess at 9:20; reconvene at 9:33 p.m. Attorney Hawkins recommended the following changes: Pages 3 and 4, B, (f) delete one farm dwelling per farm. (g), change to permanent dwelling units which do not exceed a density of one per each quarter quarter section. g (1) change to the dwelling unit shall be located on a separate parcel which shall be at least 2~ acres in size. Council agreed to allow the stacking of dwellings on a single 40 as long as the total does not exceed the average density of one per 40 acres. Mr. Hawkins felt that if existing permanent dwellings are not on separate parcels at this time but the total dens ity does not exceed one per 40, that it wou ld be grandfathered in. The requirement of locating dwellings on separate parcels would be effective for all new dwellings. Mr. Hawkins also stated that in Mr. Peterson's case where the land is owned by a corporation, if Mr. Peterson wanted to build a house for himself, he could divide off 2~ or 5 acres of land and do so as long as it doesn't exceed the density requirement. The convenant runs with the land, not with the property owner. Council also noted that to divide the property for additional dwelling units, it could be done either under a lot split or under the platting procedure. Page 4, C, Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures; (a), add (4) "temporarily occupi ed dwelling units for seasonal workers who are employed on the agricultural property. Such residences shall not be occupied during the time that the property is not actively farmed." Mr. Slyzuk stated the use of migrant workers by the farmers varies. He has a family that comes in June and leaves in November. Some have families that are there year round. He stated there are no farmers that have enough frontage to put up enough houses for permanent employees. Attorney Hawkins stated the intent is to allow for the housing of migrant workers by allowing only temporary occupancy of the dwelling but not have it violate the density factor. Another suggestion was that the farmer not include the area with the buildings for temporary workers in the ag preserve district, as the State Statutes do not require. placing all property owner into AgP. Mr. Hawkins argued that the Metropolitan Council is saying they are trying to promote agriculture. The City is not allowing for seasonal workers in an attempt to get higher density. The Statute didn't contemplate the migrant worker question, and the City is trying to remedy a deficiency in the Statute. He felt the object is to further agriculture and that the City could put up a good intent argument to allow the dwellings as a permitted accessory use. Mayor Windschitl stated he had no problem with doing this if it can be done so they will not be counted toward the density factor; but he feared that they would be. .. ~- . .- Special City Council Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Ag Preserve Ordinance, Continued) Discussion noted that if this is not a permitted use, the farmer can still delete that area with the employee housing from the AgP designation. It was not known if anyone in the City is close to the one per 40 density that this would apply to. Mr. Hawkins also stated that the City is the enforcing agency. Council agreed to the addition of C. (a) 4). Page 4, D. Special Uses, (c) De 1ete the entire provi si on. Page 4, D. Special Uses, (b) Delete the entire provision. Page 4, E. (a), Delete the entire provision. Page 5, d: It was agreed to leave as is. Page 5, f, change to read: Public utility and service structures shall be located and constructed at such places and in, sfChf a manner that they wi 11 minimize segmenting land of anyone farm and will minimizeln er erencE¡.¡ith the conduct of agriculture. Page 5, G, change to read: Shall be as set forth in the R_1 District in the Andover zoning ordinances. Page 5, H, 1. should read: A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the City Clerk a "Request for Variance" form together with a fee as defined by Resolution if the variance request involves single family residential. A 11 other requests shall have a fee also defined by Resolution. Discussion was then on the individual properties that have made application for the convenant under the State Agricultural Preserve Act, beginning with those properties in the urban service area. The three properties within that area that have applied to date are owned by Ado1fson, Vosika, and Slyzuk. A previous Council motion was to not allow the AgP convenant on land within the urban service district, but discussions were now on whether that should be changed and what criteria would be used for con- sidering those parcels. MOTION by Peach to change the previous motion to read that each petitioner will be individually considered;'che criteria to be land is not e1egib1e for ag preserve if it is land which has been area assessed for sewer and/or water already or land which fronts on existing or planned sewer or water trunk lines. Motion dies for lack of a Second. DISCUSSION: Some felt that eliminates the Ado1fson and Slyzuk parcels, although it was suggested the triangular portion of the Slyzuk property which contains the homestead could easily be removed from consideration. Councilman Lachinski felt by considering the feasibility of assessing the properties, the Slyzuk property could be permitted the AgP designation because the property is low and un- developable at this time and that agriculture is probably the best use of that land. Discussion also noted that in the five-year capital improvements program the trunk line is being proposed to go past the Vosika property. A suggestion was that the Council may wish to consider only property currently zoned R-1 for AgP purposes. Mr. Hawkins advised that each piece be considered individually on its own merits. He felt that Mr. Slyzuk's property could be considered because the City doesn't project any potential development, there is no potential utility assessment, and it is actively farmed. Mr. Vosika's property can very easily be developed, it is in the City's five-year plan for sewer trunk extension, and the City anticipates and desires development in that area. The reason for not granting the convenant would be based on the sewer trunk extension plan, the transportation plan, capital improvement plan, etc. Councilman Peach also argued that when the City rezoned the Vosika porperty some time ago, it was the City's plan to have industrial in that area and that it was planned the R-1 zones would be for low residential and agricultural uses. - ,,~. .- Special City Council Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 (Ag Preserve Ordinance, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that land within the Urban Service Area be con- sidered for inclusion in the ag preserve district if it meets the following criteria: 1) the land has not presently been area assessed for sewer or water; 2) the land does not presently front on existing or planned sewer or water trunk lines; and 3) the land is presently zoned R-1. DISCUSS ION: The Clerk noted that the residence of Mr. Slyzuk is zoned R-4. Several Councilmen felt that it would be better to wait until there is an established capital improvements plan before considering the properties in the urban service area. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Peach; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl Motion failed. Council then reviewed the properties in the rural service area. There was a question as to how this zoning would impact the Scenic River Ordinance on the Peterson property. Council generally had no problem with the property being included in the AgP assuming it does not interfere with the Scenic River Ordinance. There were also no objections to any of the other properties as a general overview; however, it was noted that that portion of the Eveland property within the urban service district would not be eligible at this time. Mr. Hawkins stated the Council must determine which properties it wants to be eligible for the program. A resolution is then passed specifying those properties. It is published, and the property owner can then make application for the AgP land convenant. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City Clerk be directed to prepare a Resolution approving all the properties requested on this map (and this map will be a part of the Resolution) outside of the Urban Service Area for inclusion with publication of the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Janet Eveland - stated the property within the urban service area is very low and undevelopable. Attorney Hawkins advised that those properties on the map would then be eligible to ask for a rezoning to AgP and fill out the forms for the restrictive convenant. The properties still have to be rezoned to AgP once it is determined they meet the criteria of the ordinance. Council also noted that properties within the urban service area will be considered once a definite plan is established that preclude City services to certain areas of the urban service area. 1982 BUDGET DISCUSSION Members of the Fire Department present: Chief Bob Palmer, Tom May and Bill Bush. They presented copies comparing salaries paid firefighters in many of the surrouncing cities. Discussion was also on their revised budget for salaries for November, 1981, through October, 1982, in which the total amount for firefighters would amount to $18,013 plus $4,000 for the rescue vehicle. The Mayor stated it would also be helpful to know what the cities contribute toward the Relief Association. There was a lengthy discussion as to how to balance the budget, noting with the Fire Department's latest proposal on salaries and with the cuts made at the previous budget meeting, expenditures exceed revenues by approximately $33,000. The Clerk also noted that the City will not be receiving approximately $70,000 in homestead and local government aid for November and December, although it should have no impact on this budget. She is hoping to break even on the 1981 budget because of the surplus carried over from the 1980 budget. I Though no firm decisions were made, several suggestions were made as to where cuts could be made in expenditures, including cutting 5 percent out ~f each Department, reducing employee salary increases from 10 percent to 9 percent, reducing the summer school - ~ , ., \ Special City Council Meeting December 3, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 (1982 Budget Discussion, Continued) program by $1,500, reducing sealcoating and/or gravel improvements, etc. It was agreed each Councilman will review the proposed budget and make recommendations for the next budget meeting. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Andover City Council schedule a special Council meeting for the purpose of resolving the 1982 Budget on December 22 at 7:30 p.m. at the Andover City Hall. Motion carried unanimously. 1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS ~OTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into the 1982 Community Development Block Grant joint cooperation agreement with Anoka County. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~L-- ~I~ C? \ ~~ '" íut-. _u Ma 11a A. Peach Recordlng Secretary - - .. ~-.-. , --