Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 22, 1981 o Call to order Approval of minutes 1. Corom. #9-81-1 2. Corom. #6-81-1 o o o 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 7:30 P.M. Vacation of Easement Public Hearing (163rd Avenue N.W .) Review of Neighborhood Business Zones, Cont. o o 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER o o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair- person d'Arcy Bosell at 7:33 P.M., Tuesday, September 22, 1981 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Anoka, Minnesota. ~ Commissioners Present: ALnobstbett, Apel, Johnson, Kishel, SCherer~1. .A~ /u/;t/d. Commissioners Absent: ~~ I y~ Also Present: Interested residents Approval of Minutes September 8, 1981 MOTION by Scherer, seconded by Kishel to approve the minutes of September 8, 1981 as written. Motion carried on a 5 yes, 1 present (Anstett) vote. September 10, 1981 Page 1, Winslow Holasek's comments, change anything to any time. MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Scherer to approve the minutes of September 10, 1981 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. Vacation of Easement Public Hearing [163rd Avenue N.W.](Comm. #9-81-1) Chairperson Bosell opened the public hearing. Fred Hamacher, 4755 - l62nd Lane N.W. - stated that he and 4 other property owners all own back lots that border 163rd Avenue. None of them plan to use those lots for anything. He noted that they have already started action to have their lots combined. As soon as that is accomplished, they cannot sell those lots or obtain building permits for them. Commissioner Kishel asked if the other property owners were in favor of this vacation. Mr. Hamacher noted that there are only five properties along 163rd. Chairperson Bosell noted that Mr. Erickson owns four of the lots. Dan Girard - presented a petition opposing the vacation which was signed by Lowell Putman, Nicholas Jaworsky, Jerry Ostapiuk, Gladys Ransom, Ralph Schafer, James Jirasek and Art Stenquist. He then read the following letter from Richard Beens of Steffen, Munstenteiger, Bearse, Beens, Parta & Peterson, Attorneys at Law: "Please be advised that Olir law fil'm represents Ralph Schafer with respect to a lot owned by him in the Stenquist Addition to Andover. The purpose of this letter, however, is to express his opposition to the proposed vacation of 163rd Avenue N.W. It is my understanding that you will hold an initial hearing on the proposed vacation Tuesday, September 22. As you know, Minnesota Statutes 9 412.851 controls the City's power with respect to vacating a street. Having this statute in mind, we wish to make the following points in opposition: 1) A petition brought by private parties must be signed by a majority of the owners of land abutting the street easement. It is not clear whether or not this requirement has been met in the present action. 2) If the vacation is done on the motion of the City Council, it must be adopted by a vote of 4/5 OOf all members of the Council. 3) The applicable statute requires that "no such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so...". We do not feel that vacation of 163rd Avenue is in the public interest for the following' reasons: a) Vacation of the street would landlock Mr. Schafer's lot, render it valueless, and give rise to . / . / ,_.1 '-- j Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 Vacation of Easement, Cont. a potential action against the City for inverse condemnation; b) Quite obviously, the City will need the presently dedicated easements at some time in the future. Castner's Addition is presently undeveloped. Until the ultimate plans for that addition are known, it would seem foolhardy for the City to vacate an easement potentially serving that area in addition to my client's property; c) While I understand that the City has decided not to involve 163rd at this point in time because of costs involved, I do not believe that all possible alternatives for access to my client's property have yet been explored. Most, if not all of these potential alternatives would involve use of at least a portion of the dedicated easement at l63rd. Having all of the foregoing reasons in mind, I respectfully request that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the petition to vacate 163rd Avenue N.W. at this time. Sincerely, Richard Beens." Chairperson Bosell stated that with the combination of the properties being done, the improvement of l63rd would be borne by the benefitted property owners only. She also noted that the City Council did terminate the Potawatomi Street extension. Commissioner Scherer asked what the reason is for the request to vacate the easement. Ralph Schafer stated that the reason is because his son wanted to build a house back there and that is why they want it vacated. Fred Hamacher - explained that because Mr. Schafer's son reason for the request. The cost of building Potawatomi foot and they don't want to pay for someone else's road. for bringing a road in there. wants to build a house is not the was estimated to be $43.00 per He felt there were better alternatives Robert Fodness, 4613 - l62nd Lane N.W. - stated that they are not looking forward to a $9-10,000 assessment for a road for someone else. He felt that the people knew there would be a problem building this road when they bought their lots. Chairperson Bosell asked if the people in Castner's Addition have considered other alternatives. Dan Girard stated that they are exploring all avenues in that direction. They just don't want that street vacated. Chairperson Bosell asked if they plan to replat Castner's Addition. Mr. Girard noted that it is a future possibility. Chairperson Bosell then asked if Ron Smith had talked to them about going through his Registered Lane Survey #72 with a road that would serve them. Mr. Girard said yes. Commissioner Anstett asked if any consideration had been given to vacating only the western half of l63rd. Commissioner Kishel noted that the petition is requesting the whole street to be vacated. Art Stenquist - stated that the easement has been dedicated to the city and if it is vacated and the people then want the street put in, the city would have to buy the property back from the people. He didn't see any reason to vacate the easement. Chairperson Bosell noted that the request is for only the southern 33 feet; the northern 33 feet is not included in the request. She stated that the Commission would be vacating a half street, which is not allowed. ~lary Jaworsky, 305 - 97th Avenue N.W., Coon Rapids - stated that they are planning to do something in the future with Castner's Addition; they feel it's important to keep that ease- ment. She noted that she had a marketability study done and the lots in that area could sell for $15,000 - $20,000 if they are on a paved street. She felt that it would be foolish to combine the lots when the owners could get that much money for them. Planning and Zonin~ lommis~ .n Meeting September 22, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 '_.1 , ./ Vacation of Easement, Cont. Ms. Jaworsky - asked if they have to go through Planning and Zoning in order to combine the lots. Chairperson Bosell stated they do not; all they have to do is have an attorney write a new legal description. Ms. Jaworsky submitted the marketability study to the Commission and said study is made a part of the minutes. Robert Fodness stated that he lived on a small lot in Coon Rapids; he wants to have the peace he has on a three acre lot. That is why he is combining his lots. Mike Schafer - asked if the people combining their lots could come in for lot splits in the future. Commissioner Kishel said they could. Chairperson Bosell stated that the City Council gave them direction that in order to split them, they would have to have a variance because they are not 2t acre lots. Commissioner Kishel said that the question was 'Can they split their lots in the future?' and the future is a long way off. Chairperson Bosell noted that if they combine their lots and l63rd is constructed and it's assessed, they are not assessed. Commissioner Kishel stated that he won't say what this City Council will do. He will never say what they will or won't do. "They screwed me into the ground bad". Ralph Schafer - stated that if they combine their lots and they want to split them and the people opposing the vacation have the road constructed, the other people will be getting the road for nothing. Mike Schafer - asked if the city can control the lot splits. Chairperson Bosell noted they can; right now the lots are non-conforming. If 163rd is constructed, the people opposing the vacation will probably bear the cost of the assessments. Mr. Hamacher - stated that he will have a legal document prepared saying they won't split their lots as long as Mike Schafer lives there. MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Apel to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the vacation of easement (or if it's in fee title) described as follows: the~outh 33 feet of l63rd Avenue N.W. located in the West half of Section 18, Township 32, Range 24, for the reason that it would not be of benefit to the general public. Furthermore, it would leave 33 foot wide easement along the southern half of Castner Addition which is not good planning. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on October 6, 1981. Chairperson Bosell explained to the petitioners that by combining their properties, they're basically accomplishing what they want. If the road is put in in the future, it would cost the city a great deal of money to buy back that easement. Revi ew of Nei ghborhood Bus i ness Zones, Cont. (Comm. #6-81-1) Commissioner Johnson noted that he is still in the process of contacting the rest of the people owning NB zones who were not at the previous meeting. He noted that he would like to get more information on the Chutich property. He will be preparing a report that will go to the Planning Commission and Commissioner Scherer will prepare a report to go to the City Council. Commissioner Scherer stated that one of the things he is interested in is what is going to happen with the Conroy property. The question still remains about safety in that area. Planning and Zonin~ ~ommiss,vn Meeting September 22, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 ,~ , / NB Zones, Cont. /Commissioner Johnson felt that if some of the Commissioners still have questions regarding this item, it should be pursued. He stated that we have to believe in what the people at the last meeting were saying; they can't do anything now because of the economy. He didn't feel the properties should bejrezoned becaus~pf this reason. ~:ft,;,.~ ~ lo/n/'ll Bob Peach, 15830 University AvenLe - didn't think the Planning Commission should be considering the economics. He stated that if Mr. Conroy makes or loses money is no concern of ours. Commissioner Johnson noted that we will have a neighborhood business by the Speedy Market and up the road will be a mini shopping center (Conroy's property). He asked if that is good planning. Bob Peach stated that he didn't think enough people heard about what Conroy was planning.;).; ,I .I '/ -!$. t2~ tOp11'" Commlssioner Anstett stated that she here to stay in a rural environment. way should have moved 50 miles north is hearing a lot of people saying that they moved out Commissioner Scherer stated that people who think that of here. Commissioner Johnson felt that we should report to the City Council on our entire examination. More discussion should be considered on some of these things. Rather than submit two reports we should only have one. This item will be continued to October 13, 1981. Discussion then centered on whether the people appearing before the Planning Commission really get fair deals because of the feeling of the Commissioners toward the applicants. Commissioner Anstett didn't feel everyone on the Commission was doing the same thing. She asked if it would be possible to get the basic reasons for the requests that come to us. Chairperson Bosell stated that we could have the form changed so the applicant would have to write out what they want. Bob Peach asked if the applications could be assigned to the Commissioners on a rotating basis. Commissioner Apel felt that the Commissioners should try to split the workload more. Each Commissioner could become familiar with one item, like lot splits. Commissioner Scherer noted that the trouble he has is that the language in the ordinances is written for lawyers. Marge Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street N.W. - stated that in observing the Planning Commission, one of the things that bothered her is that she would have more confidence in decisions made if there was more rationale for some items. In any planning decision that is made, the decision should be based on information received and not on gut reactions. She stated that she would like to see how the items fit into the overall plan of staged development. At the time, Chairperson Bosell asked the Commissioners to look at the Lakeside Estates Preliminary Plat. She stated that when the sketch plan was before the Commission, the developer was requested to extend 153rd Avenue south to meet 152nd Lane. This is not done on the preliminary plat. She asked if that was the concensus of the Commission. They all agreed that the road should be extended. 'The secretary will contact Ray Prasch of Lot Surveys Company and tell him that the' Commission would like to see that street extended. . ~~:U_4_~._(A.) d!~/ ~ cL~____ ~ ~ -z'L /!d~/7 , ~ ~,,/-1 ~~-v.-d, ~ 2f -ZL- ~ ~~. ~----' r~ ~~~~~:~;;<-,~~.74~~~~-Z:J1 , ) Planning and Zoning Commisslon Meeting September 22, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 , / , / r~OTION by Anstett, seconded by Kishel to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting /adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,fL" ic0 Vicki Volk, Commission Secretary r L