HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 14, 1976
')
,
: ) ( )
(fry of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - June 14, 1976
AGENDA
Comm. #5-76-5 Interim Moratorium O~dinance
Public Hearing
)
/
, )
\
'.
\ )
/ '. \
, , )
'~IYV of ANDOVEDt
/- -,\
,~
SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
June 14, 1976
MINUTES
The Special Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Ken Orttel on June 14, 1976,
at the Andover Community Center, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NH, Anoka,
Minnesota 55303.
Commissioners Present: Dave Jack, Ted Lachinski, and Larry Retzlaff
Commissioners Absent: Don Jacobson, Art Jaworski, and Ralph Kishel
Also Present: Mayor Richard Schneider and Mr. & Mrs. Stan Carlson
Interim Moratorium Ordinance (Comm. #5-76-5)
\
/
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Orttel who briefed
the Commission members on his talk today with Hilliam G. Hawkins, City
Attorney. There has been a opinion given to the City of Maple Grove
recently by the Attorney General's office on the metes and bounds requirements
that Cities have and the Attorney General has found that if the zoning
Ordinance calls for a lot size less than 5 acres, then 5 acres metes
and bounds lots are legal lots regardless of what the City ordinances
state.
Mayor Schneider read a portion of a letter from Attorney Hawkins which
stated, "The Attorney General has ruled that municipalities are not
free to make a restriction in excess of those imposed by State Statute,
which is 5 acres". He said that Jim Barton, of Metro Council, advised
him that the guidelines requested would be ready by September or October.
The Commission discussed Sections 4 and 6 of the proposed Ordinance and
the following are some of the significant comments or changes:
Section 4 - Scope of Control Discussed the time period.
After again reviewing the materials from other Cities, it was
agreed that "during a period not to exceed 12 months following
the effective date of this Ordinance" states what they had
intended to say and is virtually the same as the statement
in the other municipalities' ordinances.
Discussed the rezoning which will be done by the City during
the moratorium in amending Ordinance 8 to comply with the
Community Development Plan. In order for this to be done,
the Commission added "unless initiated by the Planning and
Zoning Commission or the City Council" so the sentence would
now read "Neither the Planning Commission or the City Council
shall grant any preliminary or final approval to a subdivision
plat, site plan, rezoning, or other development map or application,
unless initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
City Council, or unless such subdivision plat, site plan, rezoning
has been filed with the Clerk's office prior to the adoption
of this ordinance.
~)
r ')
'- /
r '\
f, )
--/
~
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - June 14, 1976
Page 2
Discussed the unintentional previous exclusion of the unsewered
Urban area. In the last sentence the Commission removed the
words "rural service area" and added "remainder of the City".
Section 6 - Penalties It was agreed to strike "shall construct,
erect, enlarge or alter structurally any building or structure
or undertake any other development activity in violation of
the provisions" and change the sentence to read "Any person,
firm, entity, or corporation who violates any provision of this
ordinance shall be subject to the penalties and enforcement
provisions set forth in Section 18 of Ordinance No. 10 of the
City.
The Ordinance is on the City Council Agenda tomorrow night, June 15.
Attorney Hawkins had stated that he would like to have another look
at the Ordinance before the City Council acts on it and also get a copy
of the Attorney General's opinion previously discussed.
"
)
Motion by Commissioner Jack, seconded by Commissioner Retzlaff, to continue
the Public Hearing for the purpose of creating a Moratorium Ordinance
until June 22. Motion carried unanimously.
Ad;ourrnnent
Motion by Commissioner Lachinski, seconded by Commissioner Jack, to adjourn.
Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M.
~o~'~J .~
Deloris J. Ha on
Commission Clerk
\
J
~
/
')
/
'\
I
-- J
\
I
/
I \
,
'\
1
/
\
I
\ /
BABCOCK. LOCHER. NEILSON & MANNELLA
\
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NORTHTOWN CENTER
117 NORTHTOWN DRIVE
EDMUND P. BABCOCK
LANDOL J. LOCHER
JA.M:ES M. NEILSON
FELIX ~ MANNELLA
JOHN R. SPEARMAN
RICHARD BEENS
ROBERT F. MANNELLA
JOHN M. BURKE
BLAINE, MINNESOTA !515434
TEL.l (612) "186-02!50
ANOKA OFFICE
118 EAST MAIN STREET
ANOKA. MINNESOTA SS803
TEL. (612) 421.8161
WILLIAM O. HAVi'KINS
RONALD B. PETERSON
LA'\\-"RENCE R. JOHNSON
June 16, 1976
Kenneth Orttel, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Dear Mr. Orttel:
I have reviewed the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission
to the interim ordinance at their June 14th meeting. I find nothing
objectionable with the changes. I would like to bring to your
attention that under the revisions in Section 4, any subdivision
of land that is not required to be brought before the Planning
Commission or the City Council by either a site plan, rezoning,
preliminary plat, or otherwise, could be conveyed and a home
constructed on same. In other words, in view of the recent Attorney
General's Opinion, an individual in the rural area could convey,
by metes and bounds, a five acre parcel and be given a building
permit. There are no restrictions on the issuance of a building
permit on this lot. In addition, there is no need to bring this
conveyance before any city commission for their approval. I merely
bring this to your attention for possible discussion at the next
meeting, if this has not been brought up previously.
In regard to the Ronald Rydh variance, the provisions in Ordinance
No. 10 clearly state that any conveyance of a separate parcel of
this size is in violation of that ordinance and state law. The
only exception that may be granted is if the platting restriction
would create an unnecessary hardship, and the failure to comply does
not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations.
In the application I see nothing that indicates an unnecessary
hardship in this instance. Absent this showing, the provisions of
the platting ordinance would apply to this conveyance.
If you have any questions regarding these two matters, please feel
free to contact me.
l~1~vJj.#Ld~YJ
William G. Hawkins
/jj