HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 6, 1975
(j
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
(J F.
G.
()
o
o
u
o
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
7:30 PM, Thursday, February 6, 1975
Andover City Hall
Planning Commission
~
) I1?Le5
Public Hearing Process ~
What ;, a Comp,ehen,'ve Plan~ ~
)1/f};eV {'t/?r5 ;{~-1.
Call to Order
9C~
Planning in Andover
Community Development Plan - Background
~1J
j)./Y!/v\- ,J of-1/"'-7 ,~
;'j
Community Development Plan - Goals and Policies U 1~
Community Development Plan - Effectuation
Proponents Statements q-- 6Pf0~. ( I f I, ~ If./. /
(j;cal Cf iV./1A/"(U1"'- Mt't,{-071kt~!J I &I.- ~VL-
Opponents Statements ~ I, ,nJ
Q11Ut-J) r - r:/{cp>---
Questions and Comments from Audience
K. Planning Commission Discussion
L. Closing
HANDOUT TO INCLUDE:
- Major goals and policies
- Population projection chart
- Development plan map
'.
'_ J
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
') 1.
'_/ J.
K.
('
\. )
, ) ~ )
CITY 01 ANDOVER
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
CONIviUNITY DEVELOPHENT PLAN
February 6, 1975 - 7:30 P.M.
Call to Order
Public Hearing Process
What is a Comprehensive Plan?
Planning in Andover
Community Development Plan - Background
Community Development Plan - Goals and Policies
Community Development Plan - Effectuation
Questions and Comments from Audience
Proponents and Opponents Statements
Planning Commission Discussion
Closing
HANDOUT TO INCLUDE:
,
,
, )
- Major goals and policies
- Population projection chart
- Development plan map
( \
'- j
\
"
\ )
'\
)
) C)
CITY 01 ANDOVER
)
"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN. that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Andover, Minnesota will meet at the Andover Community Center. 1685
Crosstown Boulevard N.W., on Thursday, the 6th day of February, 1975, at 7:30 p.m.,
for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive
Development Plan.
All proponents and opponents will be heard at the above stated time and
place.
Marilyn Kappelhoff
Deputy Clerk, City of Andover
Published in Anoka Co. Union
Jsnuary 31, 1975
, \
\ J
"
\
/
\
.I
CITY 01 ANDOVER
) Minutes of the Community Development Plan PUBLIC HEARING of the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission held, Thursday. February 6, 1975 at the Andover Community
Center.
Chairman Miles called the Community Development Plan Public Hearing to order at
7:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Planning and Zoning Commission members, Dean Johnson, Ken Heil,
Dave Jack, Art Jaworski, former Town Board Supervisor Marvin
Christenson, Planning Engineer Wes Hendrickson, Consulting Engineer
Dewey Kasma. Deputy Clerk Marilyn Kappelhoff.
Chairman Miles
audience:
introduced the following persons who were in attendance in the
Mayor Schneider, Councilpersons Mary VanderLaan, "Skip" Rither,
Winslow Holasek, Gerald Windschitl. Lary Carlson ( 1973 Grow
Town Board Chairman ), Metro Council representative Jim Barton.
Chairman Miles read the Public Hearing Notice which was published in the Anoka
Shopper newspaper, January 29, 1975 and the Anoka County Union newspaper, January
31, 1975. (A copy of the Public Hearing Notice is attached and will be a part
of this set of minutes. )
Chairman Miles explained the procedure for discussion from the floor and requested
that audience questions and statements be held until the Planning and Zoning
Commission has presented the entire report.
J Chairman Miles stated that the Community Development Plan is a four part Plan
for the Government to grow in planned order. The four parts are:
1. Community Development Plan
2. Zoning Ordinance
3. Capital Improvement Plan
4. Administration of the three parts
Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is required by State
Law ( MS 462.35 ) to develop a Community Development Plan. Chairman Miles explained
after the Public Hearing is held on the Plan. it is given to the Metropolitan Council
to review, (within ninety days) and then returned back to the Andover City Council to
adopt, reject or table.
Former Grow Town Board Supervisor Marvin Christenson presented a chronological review
of planning in the City of Andover. ( formerly Grow Township) Refer to pages 6 to 8
in the Community. Development Plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission members presented readings from the Presentation
Outline Booklet. ( a copy' of the Presentation Outline Booklet is on file in the
Clerks' Office.) Slides were shown to assist in illustrating each Commission members
presentation.
\
)
( \ \
, ) ,/
Public Hearing - Commun~ty Development Plan
February 6, 1975
Page 2
\
/
/ \
)
) Commission members presentations were given in the following order:
Dean Johnson - Community Development Plan - Background
Art Jaworski - Community Development Plan - Goals and Policies
Allan Miles - Goals and Policies of the Urban and Rural Planning Districts
David Jack - Goals and Policies - Transportation System
Ken Heil - Community Development Plan - Effectuation
Chairman Miles opened the Public Hearing to questions from the floor.
RICHARD SCHNEIDER - 1343 Andover Blvd. N.W. (Question) - What is Rural-Urban
District Legislation and is it available now?
CP~IRMAN MILES - Stated, it is legislation that has been proposed by the Metro
Council, through the League of Municipal Voters and is not available yet.
ROBERT NEHRING - 14122 Prairie Road (Question) - Why did the Planning Commission
go to the twenty acres for the Rural District?
COMMISSIONER JACK - Twenty acres is more feasible for future subdivision of large
tracts and to encourage prospective home site purchasers to locate in an economic area
of lesser size, rather than twenty acres in the country.
,
\
~
WINSLOW HOLASEK - 1159 Andover Blvd. N.W. (Question)- Our present Platting
Ordinance (Ordinance 110) requires that every developer to show future sub-division
of their plat and asked if the Planning Commission was not observing the Platting
Ordinance?
COMMISSIONER JACK- Stated that based on future sub-division, the City of Andovers'
present Platting and Zoning Ordinance does not bave provisions for future feasibility,
which the Comprehensive Plan and the twenty acre restriction will provide for feasibility
beyond ten (10) or twenty (20) acres.
TED CHESTROM- No address Riven (Question)- If the Plan is adopted, where would
you begin?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated revision of our existing Zoning Ordinances, development
of new Ordinances and implement a Capital Improvement Program.
JOHN RUSSELL - No address Aiven - (Question) Do tbe people have an opportunity
to vote on the Plan, or is the decision entirely up to the City Council and the Planning
Commission?
CHAIRMAN MILES - No, the citizens of Andover do not vote on the Plan. The
Planning Commission will consider the comments made by the citizens of this Public
Hearing, before submitting the Plan to the Metro Council, after the Metro Council
reviews the Plan, they will return the Plan back to the Andover City Council for change,
or adoption. Chairman Miles also explained that if the City Council makes a change in
the Plan, it will be returned to the Planning Commission for future hearing and study.
Chairman Miles stated that the City Council could table the Plan and the Plan could die.
ROBERT NEHRING -(Question) What is the timing on the Plan, could the Hearing be
continued?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated the Public Hearing could be continued, but if the Planning
Commission feels they have enough citizen input from this Public Hearing, the Hearing
would be closed and a date set for final revisions of the Community Development Plan.
, .)
.'
Public Heari~.,)-
February 6, 1975
Page 3
, '\
I
COIIlIIIL....:ty Development Plan
.. )
\
I
/
)
ED LINDBERG - No address ~iven - (Question) - Why is the Community Center in
the Urban Area. rather than the Rural Area?
CHAIRMAN MILES- The land was purchased before the COIIlIIIunity Development Plan was
developed, the Community Center will be in the center of our City in the future.
TED CHESTROM - (Question) If the COIIlIIIunity Develppment Plan is adopted by the
City Council, will it be adopted in entireity and also questioned what developes if
the projected growth is not what is projected?
CHAIRMAN MILES - When the Plan is adopted by the City Council. Ordinances must
be developed to implement the Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission will require
annual review of the goals and policies to be sure they are relating to the Community.
TED LACHINSKI - 13545 Jonquil NW - (Question) Are there any provisions to take
care of the problem of city facilities in the Rural Area?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, no.
HELEN FRANZ - 16663 Ward Lake Drive ( Question) If the Plan is adopted, is it
subject to revision? Would any consideration be given to revision of a specific section,
before the Plan is presented to the Metro Council?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated the Planning Commission does not adopt the Plan, the City
Council adopts the Plan and reiterated that the Planning Commission recommends the
Plan as a Planning Commission, before submitting the Plan to the Metro Council. Citizens
input from this Hearing will be taken into consideration.
, )
ED LINDBERG - (Question) - What are the mechanics to enforcing the one acre
building code?
~RMAN MILES - Stated, recording of plats and restriction on land sales, at
this time, you cannot sell less than twenty acres without platting.
ROSELLA SONSTEBY - 4100 Seventh Avenue N (Question)- Does the Planning Commission
have the right to scrap all the old zoning?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, the old zoning is incorporated into the new zoning.
JOHN RUSSELL - (Question)- Has the Planning Commission investigated the legality
of the constitutionality of approaching restrictions on what people can or cannot do
with their land? Mr. Russell felt land value will drop to zero, if a home cannot be
built on less than twenty acres and also stated it was discrimination.
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated- The Planning COIIlIIIission is directed by State Law to
have a COIIlIIIunity Development Plan, legislation directs the Planning Commission to have
planned growth.
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated- Planning is legal and is upheld by the Supreme Court.
MRS. ADA ORR - No address ~iven (Question) - Stated her land was worth more if
sold in smaller lots and felt the Plan was dictating to the citizens of Andover. what
the price of their land should be.
ALLAN MILES - Stated, what you have just stated is you are justified to reap
every benefit as present landowners, but "hang" your neighbors and future residents
of the landowners.
Audience disagreed with Chairman Miles statement.
)
\ ~
, J
Public Hear1"6 - Conm.....ity Development Plan
February 6, 1975
Page 4
\
J
\
)
'.
\.. ,I
CECIL HEIDELBERGER - 2052 Bunker Lake Blvd. NW - (Question) - How much money
has been spent for the Community Development Plan and who authorized the spending?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, in a two to three year period, $31,000 has been paid
out for the Community Development Plan, which was authorized by the Grow Town Board.
LESTER PALMER - 15943 NiRhtinRale NW - (Question) - What are we to do with
our farms when we cannot sell because of the twenty acre restriction?
COMMISSIONER JAWORSKI - Stated, the answer could be, we do not need twenty acres
restrictions, we need control. Jaworski also stated if the twenty acre restriction
was dropped and smaller lots were allowed, could you afford a sewer line, if your
land needed sewer? (no response from Mr. Palmer)
COMMISSIONER JACK - Explained to Mr. Palmer that his land could be sold as
agricultural, which the City of Andover is promoting.
WINSLOW HOLASEK - (Question)- Two-thirds of the agricultural zoned area is not
productive agricultural and asked the Planning Commisssion if the agricultural area
is going to get the Green Acres Law? (Requested each Planning member to respond)
CHAIRMAN MILES - stated that agricultural is a terminology of twenty acre lot
sizes, the Planning Commission could determine agricultural as Rural Residential,
( twenty acre minimum ).
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated the agricultural aspect of the land itself could be
changed, the Green Acres Law provides that the income be derived from the land and
the income could be something other than plowing the fields.
COMMISSIONER JAWORSKI - Stated, the agricultural land may not be productive now,
but may be in the future.
WINSLOW HOLASEK - Stated that any land could be agricultural, but would not
\ be practical.
)
ROSELLA SONSTEBY - (Stated ) To qualify for the Green Acres Law, a landowner
must have production income of $300, plus $10 per acre.
JOHN RUSSELL - (Question) Why the residential area could not be specified for
sanitary sewer and water and future residents of Andover wanting city facilities. build
in the residential area and allow residents in the Urban area to sell their land on
five acre lots?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated that this is what the Planning Commission is trying to
do.
TED CHESTROM - (Questioned) How much money has the City of Andover received in
a year?
COMMISSION - (No response) Councilperson Windschitl stated around $350,000 in
1974.
ROBERT WAGNER - 43910 NiRhtinRale St. NW - (Question) Asked if the entire
Planning Commission was "pro" sewer and water for the entire Urban Area?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, the question was irrelevent to the Community Development
Public Hearing and also stated that the progression of services is determined by the
City Council and the affected residents in the serviced area.
COMMISSIONER JAWORSKI - Stated. if sewer and water are to be implemented into the
community. the Urban area is where it should be, rather than running lines across
open country where the cost would affect everyone.
\
, )
\
I
" J
Public Hearing - Community Development Plan
February 6, 1975
Page 5
: )
\,
/
,
)
,
,
/
PAUL OLSON - 24100 l39th Avenue - (Question) The Community Development Plan is
a direction to guide the City Council. If the projected growth of Andover in the
year 1980 is 17,000, the Urban area will ~ncrease, does this mean the Council will be
directed to extend sewer into the Urban Area?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, the sewer capability is in the Urban Area today, the
Coon Rapids interceptor will serve 31,000 people.
TED LACHINSKI - (Question) asked if an analysis was made to determine how
the Community Development Plan will impact the community? What are the pro's and
con's of the individual property owners, what are the pro's and con's of the people
in the Rural Area?
CHAIRMAN MILES - Stated, yes, a "Position Paper" was performed to give the
Planning Commission a comparison of alternatives of 2 1/2 acres, 10 acres, and
20 acres.
TED LACHINSKI - ( Question) - If sewer is put in the isolated Rural Area, what
will it cost the farmer in these areas; what is it costing these farmers now. if
they cannot sell their property?
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated. if they do not sell. there is no cost.
\,
j
KEN OLSON - 15410 Nightingale - (Question) Has there been sewer failures on
2 1/2 acres. if so, where?
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated, A survey was taken by the City Building Inspector
and his report indicated that approximately half of the sewer failures in 1973 were
outside the Urban Area and in the Rural Area.
KEN OLSON- (Question ) - Were these sewer failures because of poor sewer systems
or were the sewers built to the present building code7
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated, that was not addressed in the Building Inspectors'
report.
KEN OLSON - (Question)- Addressed his question to Chairman Miles and asked, if
the twenty acres restriction would affect the value of large acreages?
CHAIRMAN MILES -Stated, when the Community Development Plan is adopted, the land
value will go down, but will come right back up again. (Audience disagreed)
Chairman Miles also stated that other communities have adopted the ten and twenty
acre building sites, outside the serviced areas without determined affects.
ROSELLA SONSTEBY - Stated. the people should study who they vote for in the
next election. as she felt the Legislators' who have been elected, have taken the
people's rights' away.
"
,
/
,RICHARD SCTINEIDER - (Question)- (Requested to have a map of the Northern
Communities shown and proceeded to point out the acreage requirements of the
follawing communities:
1. Ham Lake - 1 acre
2. Ramsey - 2 1/2 acres
3. Oak Grove - 2 1/2 acres
Mr. Schneider asked, if a prospective buyer would like to purchase 2 1/2 acres in the
Rural Area of Andover, and is refused because of the twenty acre restriction, what
is planned to attract this buyer to purchase property in Andovers' Urban Area, when
this buyer can go to our neighboring communities and purchase 2 1/2 acres7
COMMISSIONER JACK - Stated, the Community Development Plan does not contain
any information forcing people to locate in specific areas, the proposed implementation
of the Plan is that the smaller lot with city services, is less expensive than a
twenty acre lot.
, '\
\. .J
Public Hearing -
February 6, 1975
Page 6
/ \
\. /
Community Development Plan
,- '\
,
''"-._I'
/- \
)
COMMISSIONER JAWORSKI - Stated, our neighboring communities are responsible in
controlli~their own developments and Andover is concerned with citizens who live
here now. Future residents of Andover can purchase any size lot they wish in the
Rural Area, without city services.
TED CHESTROM - (Question) Asked Commissioner Jaworski if we are making a City,
don't you want people to move in?
COMMISSIONER JAWORSKI - Stated not necessarily, would like to see the population
of Andover around 10,000, because communities that have devloped on the inner ring
of suburbs and encouraged industry, raised growth patterns, taxes did not go down, they
went up in all cases.
HELEN FRANZ - (Question) - The Planning Commission answers have all related to
the prospective buyer and asked what about the individual in the Rural Area who would
like to sell an acre of land? Stated that people in the Rural Area are relegated to
the "second class" citizen.
CHAIRMAN HILES - Stated, People in the Rural Area probably would be classified
as "first class" citizens, as only the wealthy would be able to afford the property.
MRS. LYMAN ORR- (Question) Why the City ,Building Inspector could not enforce
contractors to put in sewer and water properly on 2 1/2 acre?
CHAIRMAN HILES- Stated, not the main concern of the Community Development Plan.
The main concern of the Community Development Plan is to allow the community to grow
in an orderly, planned fashion.
\
) WINSLOW HOLASEK - (Question) Referred to page 155, secondary policy, of the
Community Development Plan, pertaining to minimum allowable floor area being deleted.
Hr. Holasek requested an explanation from the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HILES - Stated, removing the restrictions in our present Ordinance
which requires 1200 square feet per dwelling and adopting house size according to the
State Building Code.
WINSLOW HOLASEK - (Question) Referred to page 154, primary policy and read in full.
Hr. Holasek asked the Commission if this primary polcy meant spreading low income housing
into th Urban Area, and not in the Rural Area?
CHAIRMAN HILES - Stated, the City should,be in proper balance, do not want a
"knob hill" and a slum in anYp'part of the city.
WINSLOW HOLASEK - (Question) Going to 20 acres in the Rural Area would encourage
a higher quality of housing in Andover, that is unconstitutional to the low income
housing?
CHAIRMAN HILES - Stated, the housing goals are directed primarily to the Urban
Area where Andover can provide services and not the Rural Area.
Chairman Hiles asked for more questions, there being none, statements were requested
at this time.
\
Hr. Lachinski stated that the subdivision of the Rural and Urban Areas creates some
inequities, such as: 1) Urban area will be getting into City costs; 2) Urban area
will attract the cheaper type homes; 3) Urban area will have more housing than wanted;
4) more facilities will need to be provided for the Urban Area. Hr. Lachinski stated
that he felt these reasons -should be enough not to send people from the Rural Area,
into the Urban Area. Chairman Hiles interrupted Hr. Lachinskis' statement at this time,
and stated that at the present, Andover has 800 platted lots, ( available for construction
now) and 309 are in the Rural Planning District and 394 are in the Urban Planning
District, which means this will give the City of Andover a growth of 3,000 and more
than half will be in the Urban Planning District, if developed at this time.
~ )
Public Hearing -
February 6, 1975
Page 7
\
!
Comm~nity Development Plan
'.
:J
~. Mr. Lachinski proceeded with his statement and suggested that the City of Andover
allow construction on every third lot, which would give approximately 2 1/2 acres
per building, it would not create sewer problems and when sewer is extended. the
other lots could be sold. Mr. Lachinski stated that this could be done throughout
the entire City of Andover.
Mr. Lary Carlson appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated that
he has requested to be heard as an opponent to certain sections of the Community
Development Plan and was concerned that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not
find one discrepency in the Plan. Mr. Carlson explained that the Community Development
Plan is basically put out in the Metropolitan Guide. (available in the Clerks' Office)
by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Carlson stated that the City of Andover has expended
approximately $30,000 for the Plan. He explained that the Plan is a Governmental
experiment, which affects the residents of Andover financially and it will have a
greater affect on their private lives, i.e., where their children will live and the
farmer who may wish to build a home on his land. Mr. Carlson stated that the landowners
options are taken away and he was concerned with the twenty acrecrestriction creating
a constitutional problem, as State Law requires five acres. He pointed out the errors
in the presentation; 1) Green Acres Law, and 2) Road system. Mr. Carlson was granted
permission and read a letter, which was addressed to Mr. John Boland, from the City of
Ramsey. (letter is attached to this set of minutes) Mr. Carlson stated that the
residents of Andover are not requesting city services, the services are being pushed
onto the residents. Mr. Carlson stated that the City of Andover should be kept rural,
without city services and requested a show of hands of those who were in agreement with
him. The majority of the audience was in agreement with Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Gerald Windschitl appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated
that he resides in the Urban Area and therefore. would be addressing the Urban Area.
Mr. Windschitl pointed out that the twenty acre restriction ~n the Rural Area, would
be forcing high density into the Urban Area. He stated that the elimination of the
old zoning boundaries. to free zoning would be placing the development of a piece of
property into the political world and explained that the placement of a high rise
apartment. etc., would be based on the votes of three members on the Council. Mr.
Windschitl read the Secondary Policy #7, on page 145 of the Community Development Plan
and stated that this policy would prohibit a landowner of 500 acres to prepare a
preliminary plan because of the cost involved on that amount of property. He questioned
the logic in the School Board reviewing the City of Andovers' plats and asked if the
School Board would be serving as another approval agency? Chairman Miles explained
that the School Board should be informed of the large developments in Andover. Mr.
Windschitl read the Primary Policy, page 157. of the Community Development Plan and
stated that this policy would restrict this type of land for farming. He suggested
the Planning Commission consider establishing a "Greenway Pro~ram" and exclude the
rest of the land for development. Chairman Miles stated that the Policy addresses
the Open Spaces. which should be preserved. Mr. Windsch~tl stated that he would
question banning the 2 1/2 acre lot sizes because he felt the City of Andover has
been very successful with this size lot. Mr. Windschitl requested a map of the sewer
districts be shown and pointed out the area in Andover which will not be sewered. He
asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine a Plan. from an engineering
standpoint. of what the optimum lot sizes should be. on a permanent development basis.
Chairman Miles stated that the boundary changes from week to week and a Plan of this
area would only be valid for approximately two weeks.
Cecil Heidelberger asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the twenty acre tract,
one in favor. majority against.
" -
)
\
/
'.
, J
)
'\
'\
, J
Public Hearing - Community Development Plan
February 6, 1975
Page 8
- 'j
/
Chairman Miles called on Mr. Jim Barton, representing the Metropolitan Council,
for his comments. Mr. Barton stated that in order for the City of Andover to
support the type of growth anticipated, which will not create an impact on the
community, and the reasonable systems, (transportation system and sewer systems)
it must be determined where to make the investments, in terms of reasonable dollars.
He pointed out Andover's proposed sewer area and explained that Development
Framework can support the Urban type services for this area, but the area beyond
(Rural Area) that will have to remain rural, because the Urban type services
cannot be provided. Mr. Barton explained that Development Framework is now in
the process of revising the policies for the Rural Area, based on the input taken
from various Public Hearings. Chairman Miles asked Mr. Barton, if Development
Framework has removed their acreage restrictions and gone to basic PCA requirements.
Mr. Barton explained, Development Framework had been proponents of a five acre
minimum lot size, based on potential pollution problems, but because this created
various opinions from communities with lot sizes less than five acres, without
pollution problems, Development Framework has addressed the acreage requirement to
the PCA. Mr. Barton stated that the PCA is in the process of developing minimum
standards, based on; amount of filter bed for a given size dwelling; distance
from the well to the filter bed. Mr. Barton stated that Development Framework will
follow whatever the PCA conducts.
Lyle Bradley, 15202 Seventh Avenue North, appeared before the Planning and Zoning
Commission and stated that based on the residents comments, a Community Development
Plan creates a problem, because the Plan must satisfy three groups of people; the
economical motivated; the ecological motivated; the expedient motivated. He
pointed out that no Plan is set in concrete, this Plan has many flaws, one of which
he felt was the school site development and stated this policy was too antiquated
for modern day standards. Mr. Bradley stated that if Andover is interested in
preserving the agricultural amenities, he proposes that the Planning and Zoning
Commission look into the Agricultural Districts Law of New York, which has been a
success, and consider thinking of incorporating this into the Community Development
Plan.
Mr. Robert Nehring appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated that
he would now want to see a basically good Plan die, because of a few obvious, unfair
or unpopular features; twenty acres versus two and one half acres. He pointed out
that this does not take into careful consideration, the fair representation of the
largest geographic area of Andover and the resident's who live on more than a lot.
He stated that adequate control could be maintained with the current minimum, and
those resident's who would be involved with legitimate reimbursement of taxes and
compensation, should settle this first with the State Legislators and then the
Planning and Zoning Commission can make changes accordingly and adopt the Plan.
Mr. Harold Langseth appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated
that Andover does not need twenty acres to take care of the sewer failures; the
refinements on the sewer systems are greater, than in the past; the systems are
inspected , thus they must be put in properly.
Mr. Winslow Holasek appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and stated
that he was not in disagreement with the general concept of the Plan, but is in
disagreement with some of the provisions in the Plan; Land Development, Secondary
Policy, page 153 - Mr. Holasek stated that he disagrees 1007. with this concept and
pointed out that Government should not be involved in private enterprise, as this
was socialistic. He also stated that private enterprise is what built this country.
(~ ( -\
Public He... /lg - C,_, jJnity Development Plan
February 6. 1975
Page 9
, \
\ )
\
)
~
/
Mr. Holasek stated that by establishing an Urban and Rural District would be
creating the following hardships:
1. Less services for the Rural residents
2. Rural residents will be forced to buy in the Urban area, because of
economics.
3. Fewer roads in the Rural area.
4. Less police protection for the Rural area.
Mr. Holasek stated that the twenty acre lot size is the least feasible, because
it is too large for the individual homeowner to maintain efficiently, and too small
to farm economically, which will result in the largest "weed patch" in the City of
Andover. Mr. Holasek stated that he would like to clarify another subject, that
being , fertilizer causing pollution in our lakes and streams and explained that
he has attended several meetings in regards to this and it has been determined that
it is not the fertilizer that pollutes, but the decaying leaves lying in the gutters.
,)
Allen Palo, 16608 Ward Lake Drive appeared before the ?lanning and Zoning Commission
and stated that he would like to commend the Planning and Zoning Commission for the
work they have done to improve the quality of life for the City of Andover. He
pointed out that the reason he moved into Andover, was because of the Rural character
and his property would have very little value, if a housing development was built
next to his property. (has forty acres). Mr. Palo stated that the Plan may be
a governmental experiment, but the quality of life and the future generations will
benefit from the Rural character of Andover. He stated that the Urban Area will
not be the only area contained and explained that the population will increase,
therefore the services will expand. He felt the main objections to the Plan were
selfish in nature, and was for the twenty acre lot size for the Rural Area.
Lyle Bradley directed his question to Mr. Jim Barton and asked if Scott County had
a forty acre minimum building site and how large of an area does this cover? Mr.
Barton sta~ed it was Carver County that has a forty acre minimum building site.
which allows one acre for each building. Chairman Miles explained; a forty acre
minimum; one house per forty acres. but the house can be on a one acre lot size.
Larry Carlson, ____yellow Pine, asked if there would be another Public Hearing on
the Plan, or will the Plan be adopted after this Public Hearing? Chairman Miles
explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission, plans to review the testimony
and comments, depending upon whether or not the rest of the Planning Commission
would like to-eontinue or close this Public Hearing, and make final recommendations
as to what should be in the Community Development Plan.
Discussion was held on how few residents of Andover have attended the past Community
Development Plan meetings.
~,)
Mayor Schneider stated that he has received a letter from Mr. Lary Carlson, requesting
to discuss the Community Development Plan with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council. Larry Carlson explained that he has requested this meeting. to
possibly bring out the detrimental parts of the Plan. Commissioner Johnson stated
that during the formulation of the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission held
over twenty meetings, and at that time, the resident's were invited for their input.
Mr. Richard Schneider stated that he objected to Commissioner Johnson's comment.
because he attended the previous Community Development Plan meeting and was told
by the Planning and Zoning Commission to. "sit down, they had work to do".
\
,
;'
.)
,
)
\ )
Public Hean.ng -
February 6, 1975
Page 10
'\
J
,
\
)
'I
, I
COlw.Uunity Development Plan
Mr. Winslow Holasek stated that he attended seven (7) Planning and Zoning meetings
on the Community Development, to express input, but was told by the Planning and
Zoning Commission their minds would not be changed. Commissioner Jaworksi asked
Mr. Holasek if the.entire Planning and Zoning Commission stated they would not
change their minds. Mr. Holasek said, no.
Sylvia Britton requested that the City of Andover not spend anymore of the taxpayers
money on slides that are too small to be viewed by everyone in the room.
Lyle Bradley commended the Planning and Zoning Commission for the work they have
put into the Community Development Plan and suggested that the City of Andover
expend some money to purchase a larger sized screen. Mr. Bradley also stated that
997. of the Plan was good and would suggest that the Planning and Zoning Commission
continue the Public Hearing on the Community Development Plan.
Mrs. Franz stated, tear out page 153 and throw it away:
Commissioner Jack moved to continue the Public Hearing of the Community Development
Plan, to February 11, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., at the Andover Community Center. Motion
dies because of a lack of a second.
Motion by Commissioner Jack, second by Commissioner Heil to continue the Community
Development Plan Public Hearing on, February 19, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., at the Andover
Community Center. Motion carried.
This Community Development Plan Public Hearing to be continued on February 19, 1975,
at 7:30 p.m., at the Andover Community Center.
Marilyn Kappelhoff, Deputy Clerk, City of Andover
Attest:
Allan R. Miles, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
\ )
,.' \
, ,
I '\
, /t
\
jI(....~ '.... , . ,d."", ~
i>JO:ICE TO TIrE A:mOVER CITY COUNCIL
.. ,~ .
. WE, THE lFmERSIGNED, ARE OPPOSED TO TIlE T,IE:JTY-ACRE BUILDING SITES;.
, , ,
';);7~~~IV~-&.,~ '
j~~OO' .J~3 ~ Cj ~.4 N ~v, ovr~d!.~~ ~~ ?hoJ1e.L:J3'/511..<
li}f~~O?~':', C:<;,'et.//l '} / : .
d~ / 'O~j;&~..I.('i~:~4:O' () enu! (-tt-Vl c;/t. "J"'<-L~ /.:}..-;-Z- ~l';: CL 1,
/hA../.j n,A..f) dO(hCL Sp>2-fICCr $Jon .lU' 4-nc1(')uFT 4~ 7/ -,0 \
"fJ5s- ,f.~ /C<JeU.. <>i ,J?A/~1. ..,~dk /y<JJf ~)eP. h0. i/,ff/-",. tf/,7
f~O~ j~. ~j ~ '
f~1~~;,~ ~ ~ /#/22 {l?~ tEe! ?F.7r/3
f~L . i 1'I~/d.. ~ {!....I.. {'.f!J c.J~"'J' I'
41' r, {J1/s Ii/CLl1 R7tJ~ /Z/-?fC's h',.{/dM ~;:~~Z 7-~33 J'
P ~ 1 ~ .
';~Cjl/Pflk.-..j. 1hw. ''1 ~ C{. Cl&ul/}<-(.~' Ii,
f",J'/f 1~/;).3 rf),~ ~( 11. Q) . 7 57-- ;) c 7'7 I
, . 1 fJ.... ~ ' At'/! /2") ,
) ~...&-t~~tit :~~~ f-, -\Q~rLc~-t-i'C1 L-c7~ 43 t/ - 3f6 ~
': ,.ll LC'\"Ll,Lt--t---i,'\. 6.Q.1.r--l-~ ('~ t Tf~J ~a/''''/.L. ..:<./1,.0
!(!Q~-Gw !~, /~ 4j4-(,:~~21;LO \
l!37 tI;~ ~, tMl,jQ,7) tV--' i
X - ffJtrl:2J f~l~;,zI;>"O '
~.~ ~ /37 ~-<<.J~' 4c34-~7~71
f~#~a~ 1~ ~ ~~~~~f)~~tJ~;;f;
(;?~{ (~-v---: ) Lf. Lf:P ~~~~ ,j7\'J/ ,) .,Lyrh
0j t ~J(~, tI'f (/~'i'l'':'- 4-~"/?);-'"- I '-t ~/ I {. J-1<:-<-(.,-""->' h C( (' ~ "/ ~ ;j' >:.;
u ~q,}\,<D ../ /,"V}/v- _' ,. ;'
tI 0 .,,/.... i
.t, ") ./
0';/"
,
, )
'I (J (
\ -1~O \.0 i
l\! } I
- v n
".,/
u /) {; ,-.11
n ..' )Jv UJ-.l./ .
J~i(\ -'
, . I
,
./"~I
. '
, "
I '
. .
I
, )
~)
,- )
~ e tttj
( )
0, 7< amd-etj
14100 ST. FRANCIS BLVD. N. W.
ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303
(, )
427-1410
January 21, 1975
Nr.John Boland, Chairman ,!--
Metropolitan Council' ~
Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. Boland,
The purpose of this letter is to set forth a statement of issues
and concerns relating to the proposed Development Framework Chapter
of the Metropolitan Development Guide on behalf of the City-of
Ramsey.
Due to the diversity of interests and concerns of various individuals
and groups liithin the City of Ramsey, the City Council does not
either endorse or oppose the proposed Development Framework in
total. The concerns and issues expressed here are the result of
staff and City Council discussion of the proposed Guide Chapter.
\ )
The issues and concerns noted here are arranged in th~ following
order:
1. Specific concerns or questions regarding policies;
2. Specific concerns or questions regarding methods or procedures;
3. Specific concerns or questions regarding objectives.
CONCERNS REGARDING SPECIFIC POLICIES
Policy No. I states that the area should consist of an urban service
area and a rural service area. It further states that metropolitan
systems and urban services will be provided only ~ithin the urban
service area. This statement and a definition of what is meant by
it is of concern to the City of Ramsey. While the text material and
part of the Development Framework Chapter indicates a transitional
dynamic situation particularly in areas such as Ramsey, this policy
would lead one to believe that we are establishing a zone at the
metropolitan level with a precise line separating urban from rural.
At no point in the mapping or the appendix material is the line
clearly defined within the City of Ramsey. Such definition is
necessary if we are to react to the policy.
, )
L
o
\. )
()
C)
Nr. John 'Boland
January 21, 1975
Page Tl....o
In the paragraph of text material surrounding this policy it is
stated that the urban service area ,.fill have' metropolitan systems
"such as sewers, highliays, and transit..." there is no indication
that the tax base for urban services ,viII be constrained to the
urban service area, nor does this kind of statement recognize the
dynamics of high'....ay construction particularly lihich reach far beyond
the s~ven county area. The question might well be asked, "Does
,this policy prevent the future creation of anew Highway 47 through
the City of Ramsey which may well be needed in the near future to
provide egress from the core of the metropolitan area to the northern.
recreational areas of the State of Minnesota?",
'U .
P / While the policy in question ~ppears to discuss all metropolitan'
~. systems, its actual operation would appear to be concerned primarily
I' with the extension of sewer facilities. If that is what is really
meant by policy, then it should be stated in that form.
Policy No. 13 and its subsections is the only statement of policy
regarding the rural service area in which the City of Ramsey is
apparently located.J:While it is sensible to agree that commercial
agriculture should malntained as a primary use of land in those
areas where the quality of land will support commercial agricultural
enterprise, the blanket statement that commercial agriculture should
be the primary use of land in an area such as Ramsey is totally
unrealistic. To say that non-agricultural land uses such as hobby
farms, residential subdivisions, recreation areas and commercial
facilities_shall be regarded as secondary land uses is also un-
realistic. ' The policy as it is currently worded then continues to
~ay that those secondary uses should not be permitted in commercial
agricultural zones:-?We agree with the latter part of the major
statement of Po~No. 13 that housing sites in the rural service
areas should be platted in such a liay that the property can be
subdivided at a future time lihen utilities become available.
~
, The supporting subpolicies under Policy No. 13 concern us in Ramsey
at least as follows:
r--For the area of Ramsey at least, and probably many others in the
~hern section of the transitional area, fiscal incentives and
tax practices that would insure economic stability for the owners
of land who are not going to be allolied to develop property because
of these policies should be,vieKed with as much import~nce as
~ incentives for maintenance of commercial agriculture.~If the "hole
j\ metropolitan area is interested in the open space of Ramsey, t~en]
it should help support the maintenance of that area as open snace.
There are some very basic land ownership economics involved in thlS
question that are not fully covered in the Development Guide Chapter.
~
o
,.J
r "
'--~
o
.. )
:)
'-'
o
Mr~ John Boland
January 21, 1975
Page Three
While it may be reasonable to limit the extension of metropolitan
sewer to the areas which are phased into and staged into the urban
service area, it is unrealistic tri view the transportation network
that must radiate from the Twin Cities area to the rest of the State
as being limited by the determination of urban versus rural service
area. We should not control egress from the land in this area to
such a degree that development occurs by leapfrogging to the next . .
county. '. .
Sub-Item C of Policy No. 13 contains statements regarding regulations
for on-site disposal systems for non-farm development l~ith which we -
agree. Hmvever, the second sentence of that sub-item -"Pollution
problems resulting from failure to enforce adequate health and safety
standards should be solved by local facilities built at local rather
than at metropolitan expense" - leaves a great deal of room-for
interpretation that should be defined very early in the process.
In this day of change in technology, standards are being amended with
regularity regarding lvhat is "adequate" at the Federal level in terms
of drinking lvater quality standards, public lvater quality standards,
etc. The State PCA is constantly upgrading, as is the Health Depart-
ment in determining "what is adequate." In this context, it is
' patently unfair to make the statement contained on Page 45 of the
Framework Chapter, to-ldt: ' "The policy plans and development programs
lvill specify priorities and staging of metropolitan systems and
investments and municipalities l,hich either knowingly or inadvertently
violate these policies and programs can expect to pay the costs of
changing or providing the metropol.i tan sys'tems." (Emphasis added.)
The situation in Ramsey which is of major current concern regarding
the tonnage of metropolitan area solid wastes which are being dumped
into a landfill operated by and regulated by agencies outside of the
City itself, including the disposal of high volumes of liquid selvage
sludge.containing industrial wastes, is a case in point in the type
of situation which can arise - in this case controlled by Metropolitan'
agencies. This activity is more apt to create "inadvertent" pollution
of the ground water supplies in our city than is likely to occur as a
result of on-site disposal systems.
~- ,
1 Lest these comments be misinterpreted, we are in favor of good enforce-
I ment of on-site sewage system standards. If these standards and
their enforcement raise the cost of building individual homes on
large lots as is apparently to be our destiny in this City, so be it.
But we do not want to be governed by a development framework which
says that inadvertent violation of policies and programs which are
ever changing can result in local payment for urban services when we
are contributing regularly to the financial base which supports
metropolitan level services. (
~
r .
, \
"- )
~)
, ~
\ _/,
"
\.. I
r 'j
\ - /
~-)
'.
Hr. John Boland
January 21, 1975
Page Four
J
CONCERNS ABOUT METHODS AND PROCEDURES
It is very difficult for the City of Ramsey to either agree or
disagree with the projections of population, household forecasts,
and employment forecasts 1'lhich are contained in the appendix materials
because we quite simply cannot know how succ~ssful the policies
upon which those forecasts are based will be!
Obviously the economics of the housing market have a major bearing on
whether or not the population growth in the City of Ramsey will be
greater than is indicated in those figures. The consequences of
having an estimate which is too low to be realistic are major.
-The development policies as stated in the Framework Chapter indicate
that development on large lots with high quality on-site sewage.
,. disposal systems should be a permitted use within the City-of Ramsey
- if the soils involved will support the on- si te sewage system. Given
the current standards and our best understanding of the standards
1'lhich are being projected, we believe that there is sufficient
platted land with the proper soil conditions currently existing in
this city to double our population from its current level of approxi-
mately 7,000..
Looking at the simple economics of the housing market today and the
current apparent effort being made to inject additional financing
money into the housing market, we believe that the population
projection indicated for the City of Ramsey is significantly low.
The consequences of that low estimate in regard to the timing of
extension of the sewer system at least into the southern part of the
-community should be reviewed. The consequences of that underestimation
with respect to the energy crisis and the need to create community
facilities including shopping, churches and potentially schools should
be apparent. '
It seems to us that it would be more realistic to utilize the old
Metropoli tan Se\'ler Board Sewer District line for the area at least
as it relates to Ramsey City as the outer limits of the urban service
area than the one that is currently proposed. Obviously the staging
of sewer service to that line is a matter of program and it may not
occur significantly before 1985. However, when we view the lead time
that is necessary for the planning, financing and installation of
metropolitan sewers, of supporting transportation facilities, of
schools and other public investments we feel that it would be more
realistic to plan ~gainst the Sewer District line. We cannot assume
tha t none of the transition to\';ards "urban services" will occur
before 1985 in a setting in which the platted area already exists
upon which to locate the homes that will ultimately result in a
population at least 50% higher than that projected.
(J
I ,
,,-J
CJ
(J
Mr. John Boland
January 21, 1975
Page Five
'\
,
'- /
The energy cn.sl.s aspect of this matter is a relatively neli
consideration; certainly it has arisen since people began the work
on the Development Framework. Should we not plan for some local
retail, some park-and-ride type extensions of transit in the community
planning process at this time? If we should, then the terminology
in the Guide Framel.,or'k that says transition areas in the rural
service district should not receive metropolitan services prior to
1990 is unrealistic.
'~J
CONCERNS AND ISSUES REGARDING OBJECTIVES
, n,- ' lIt' appears that the purpose of the Development Framework is to adopt
, ., ' some new rules to the game as an experiment in economic savings as
. ;. they relate to providing sewer services_ This objective is:not
stated in this form, but it is'the general reaction that lie get
reading the total Development Framework materials. Ostensibly,
this objective involves the saving of approximately tl.,O billion
dollars for the total metropolitan area.' We cannot disagree uith
the objective of conserving in the area of public expenditure.
Obviously we should object if that conser~ation is at our expense as .
a part of the area an, d particularly if the nature of the saving ,cannotj'
b, ,e viewed as offsetting the "cost" involved in that saving.,' .
:~, ,
While the Development Framework indicates at least lip service toward
the idea of free choice of life style, which includes free choice of
housing form, a total reading of the document indicates that we are
attempting to dictate that a greater percentage of the people shall
live in apartment or multiple housing than has chosen to do so in
the past and lie are dictating that they should choose to live in the
existing built up areas rather than in the more rural areas. It is
not in the best interests of this city, its tax base, its land
economics, etc., to see that objective pushed beyond its reasonable
limits. There are many people living in the City of Ramsey today lvho
were able to become homeowners because they could buy a relatively
inexpensive home in a setting in which urban services were expected
to be developed later and at which time they expected to be able to
pay for those services. This natural growth process is in keeping
with the credit system that is in vogue in this country today and
which we are going to have to inject with additional capital in order
to keep the economic system moving. It is an economic cycle that has
as its basis the economics of e~ployment, land economics, transfers
of goods and services from onc to another that depends upon transactions.
In the City of Ramsey those transactions involve additional people.
There does not seem to be sufficient recognition of the day-to-day
problems with which municipal councils must deal in controlling
development that relate to the very fundamental ele~ents of our
property ownership system and its legal protections of the individual
, '\
,,_I
~J
~J
~.....
(J
" '~
'.J
(J
(J
1.Ir. John Boland
January 21, 1975
Page Six
property Olmer. This City has relatively sound guidelines for
subdivision and zoning. The utilization of those regulations is
governed by legal restrictions against taking of property without
compensation, against arbitrary enforcement of rules, etc. Regardless
of our personal attitudes about the philosophy of controlling
development, about the advantages of rural versus urban life style,
and particularly about our concern for the greater good of the greater
number versus the rights of individuals, there is a practical problem
relating to whether or not it is politically advisable or legally.
possible to stop development for an indeterminate time on the basis
of a metropolitan plan which in effect says that the development
rights which have been.previously assumed available throughout the.
area 1'1ill now be available only 1vi thin the urban service district,
based upon the accidental or political capability to get a metropolitan
sewer line into your area. _
The City of Ramsey is committed to attempting to make on-site sewer
systems work for as long as possible. The City Council of Ramsey
is also ,committed to providing as much public service for its
residents as they want to pay for and that should include the right
to availability of metropolitan services for which they are being
taxed.
As a City Council we are committed to preventing pollution and if
there have been deficiencies in our capability to do this in the
past, we will attempt to rectify them as they have been rectified
by other suburban communi ties in the past 1vhen the difficulty occurs.
As a City Coun'cil we are committed to building a community of services
1vhich involves building the basic land wealth of the area. The
Development Framework can assist us in this regard by producing the
incentives that take the place of the old competitive systems, however,
the development of those incentives appears to be more of an after-
thought than a basic objective. The basic control that is indicated
that concerns us the most is the one which says that our own residents
will pay if ~e haven't met Metropolitan standards that are not yet
formulated.
We would prefer to see assistance and financial incentives to help
make our own decisions rather than the threat of economic reprisal if
poll ution occurs and somehow 1"e can be blamed for letting it occur.
We believe that it is important that some basic legislative criteria
be written into the Development Framework process because it would
appear to us that there are some basic legal questions under which
it is highly unlikely that we have the legal autllority to do what
the Metropolitan Development Framework says we must do to avoid
economic reprisal. That is a most uncomfortable position.
( ~
\ J
~ )
(J
(- ']
, /
Mr. John Boland
January 21, 1975
\ Page Seven
, )
'~
All of this has been to a major degree critical and we hope it will
betaken in the light of constructive criticism. We .should be
working ,.ith our neighbors; there should be a community of interest
'in the Twin City metropolitan seven county area. We do need to
compete "ith other metropolitan areas in an economic setting as
well as for a quality of life. Notwithstanding. this Council has
the responsibility to concern itself ,.ith the community of economic
and social interests of the people it represents who happen to be
in a very significant minority status with respect to the transition
area versus the rest of the area. We are compelled to express those
concerns.
Si/?rely, . ..... ...'. .. /)
Ch~~?~ (%
Arnold' Cox. Mayor
City of Ramsey
,
\.
j
5mb
cc:
Charles Weaver
Edward Fields, Anoka County' Commissioner
Ramsey City Council
/ \
"-)
. .
)
')
j
\
I
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
7:30 PM, Thursday, February 6, 1975
Andove r City Ha 11
Planning Commission
A. Call to Order
B. Public Hearing Procedure
C. What is a Comprehcnsivc Plan?
D. Planning in Andover
,
E.
Community Development Plan - Background
\
./
F. Community Development Plan - Goals and Policies
G. Community Development Plan - Effectuation
H. Questions from Audience
I. Statements for or Against Plan
J. Planning Commission Discussions
K. Closing
, )
/
,
1
\ )
\
/
r ~\
, I
,_/
)
URBAN PLANNING DISTRICT
Policies
,;, Development shall be allowed to occur on lots of less than 20 acres
if the proposed development is a part of the Five Year Capital Improve-
ment Program which will guarantee es sential urban services.
,;, Essential urban services to be provided include, but are not limited to,
sanitary sewer, central water, paved roads, controlled storm drainage,
police and fire protection and parks and open space.
'" A variety of urban development should be encouraged at varying
densities including zero lot line, planned unit developments, con-
ventional plats, townhouses, multi-family housing, retail service
center and minor industrial operations, provided they comply with
specified standard s.
,',
','
Density compensation should be available to those land owners who
because of wetlands, natural areas or poor soil conditions have donated
these areas to permanent open space.
J
,-, RURAL PLANNING DISTRICT
Policies
~:~ Residential Development in this district should not be allowed on any
lot of under 20 acres.
~:~ Residential, agricultural and recreational uses will be the only land
uses allowed in the Rural Planning District.
>:~ To help maintain the open nature of the Rural Planning District, those
residing there should be informed of and encouraged to use the tax
benefits available through the Green Acres Law and the Rural-Urban
Servic e Distric t legis lation.
-'
::::: Early acquisition of important open space areas should begin.
::::: Development should be allowed to expand into the Rural Planning District
only when that development is contiguous to development in the Urban
Planning District and it is apparent that the Urban Planning District
can no longer accommodate such growth.
,',
'"
Subdivision platting will not be allowed in this district.
\J
\
)
" \
" )
\
)
LAND USE
'_. i G I
- ./ loa
Establish a pattern of compatible land use.
Primary Po licie s
':' Present land uses should be expanded with regard to t,raffic generation,
land requirements, service areas and operating characteristics.
~:~ Contemporary subdivision design standards should be employed to
insure sound platting and development.
,;, Planned unit development, cluster housing, industrial/commercial
parks and other contemporary planning concepts should be encouraged
to create a variable and functional use of the land.
~:~ Implementation of ordinances sllch as the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances should provide for periodic updating and re-cvaluation to
accommodate changing development and use practices.
-'-
',-
Cooperation with adjoining communities, the school district, County
and Metropolitan agencies is essential if uses within the community
are to be compatible with those of neighboring communities.
, ./
TRANSPORTA nON
Goal
Efficient, safe and economical transportation system.
Primary Policies
,;, All streets and roads should be located in accordance with good design
principles at the time of land subdivision.
~:~ "Strip" commercial development or extension of such existing develop-
ment should be prohibited along major thoroughfare routes.
':' A metropolitan interest should be emphasized when designing and building
local streets and highways.
,;, Major circulation routes should form the boundaries of neighborhoods
while collector streets and local streets will provide for basic interior
circulation.
, .J
-'.
','
Standards should be established for construction of private drives, e. g. ,
planned unit developments and mobile home parks.
, J
\
/
-,
)
'- )
r '\
'- )
F \
\ )
\
j
\
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Goal
Prevcnt Premature land development
Primary Policies
~:~ Development should only occur in areas where essential public
services such as police, fire, streets, schools, sewer, etc. can
be economically provided.
~:~ Leap-frog Development should be prohibited.
Secondary Policies
~:~ A Rural and an Urban Planning District will be established.
~:~ New residential development will be allowed in the Urban Planning
Dis trict on lots of les s than 20 ac re s if such deve 10 pment is pa rt of
the Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
,',
','
Industrial and commercial developmcnt will not bc allowed in the
Urban Planning District unless essential services can be provided
as a part of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
':' Residential development without essential public services will not
be allowed in the Rural Service District on lots of less than 20 acres.
':' Industrial and Commercial uses should not be allowed in the Rural
Service District unless such uses are agriculturally oriented.
)
\
)
,- \
)
\
J
HOUSING
Goal
Provide a wide range of housing choices.
Primary Policies
':< All types of residential projects should be developed according to well
conceived plans that will unify and relate to existing development.
':< Housing for low and moderate income familities should be distributed
thrclllghont the urban area instead of concentrating it in a few areas.
;:: Open housing t;hould become a reality by encouraging developers to
provide a wide choice of housing types throughout the urban area.
,~ Vigorous code enforcement aimed at conserving and establishing high
quality residential neighborhoods will be encouraged.
,',
',-
There should be a general policy of pericrlic review and reconsideration
of the housing density requirements prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance.
As appropriate, these requirements should be revised to reflect changing
times and conditions.
'\
)
OPEN SPACE
Goal
Appropriate IItili7.ation and/or preservation of open space.
Primary Policies
:::~ Dedication of drainage ways will be required.
':' Draining, excavation and filling of marsh and wetlands will be prohibited.
':< Urban development on unstable soils will be prohibited.
':< Flood plains and shorelands should be protected from improper develop-
ment by adopting a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance or by reference to the
Anoka County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.
,',
'"
Land for public facilities such as parks, playgrounds and open space
should be purchased or acquired before such areas are usurped by
private developments or high land prices make acquisition unfeasible.
/
"
)
'\
J
, )
"-
)
J
./
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
Goal
Provide a full range of municipal facilities and services.
Primary Policies
~:' A property tax structure that will recognize the difference in the level
of municipal services being provided should be encouraged.
~:~ Development of cultural, health and safety facilities should be coordinated
to avoid unwarranted duplication.
COMMERCIA L
Goal
Quality commercial development.
Primary Policies
'\
J
.,.
.,.
Convenience type retail establishments that serve approximately one
square mile should be encouraged.
~:.:: Spot commercial development and strip cammer,cial development should
be discouraged.
':' No commercial development will be allowed in the Rural Planning
District. Commercial development will be allowed in the Urban Planning
District only if such area is a part of the Five Year Capital Improvement
Program.
INDUSTRIAL
Goal
Quality industrial development that causes no adverse environmental effects.
Primary Policie s
~:.:: Industrial types and locations that will provide varied employment
opportunities should be encouraged.
,'.
','
Clean industrial activities which will not destroy the environmental
quality of the area should be encouraged.
,
)
. .
, )
'\
J
POPULATION
I "
\~)
PROJECTION
~ )
45
1
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
,.
.
I
.
5 .'
f
. .
f ."
J' .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
0 .
.
f .
.
.
. .
.
I .
.'
. .' 27,5011
I .
1* .
.
. .
.
I .
5 .
" .
.
. .
f ....
. .
.
.
, .
. .'
f ....
. .'
0 II .' ;,,'
.'
J ..' ;"
.' ..,;"
. .
I ..' 17,500 ;" 17,500
" .' 2* ;"
I .' ~;"
.'
.
5 . "
I ........ ;";"
.
I ;"
.' ;"
I .' ;,,' 12,500
.
. ;";"
. .'
I .'
0 ..' I;
.' ."
j .' ",. ",.
~ '",.
5 /
If
~
~
60 19JO 1980 1985 1990 1995 200
o
, J
40
3
3
2
VI
C
Z
<l:
\ VI
I :)
'j 0
:J:
.... 2
z
1
, )
19
* COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CJ
\
J
\ -I
/
, I
'-~
'\
)
\
J
(~~~.~~
(~')
~-~,
Pl
,~.'!::f"J~t\)_
{."".,.p:fJ~"':-nC'I.)'lJ J:l ~~
";:!,:.<,~1i.C ,~i%\ ~...
'7' ~-:.~~~( ~~:/
r~ ,) ~ r.
(~"y t .trr~,~. ' t.-i
\.1,.. ~~ ,:';:--o!t
'.'~(j'" ". h
.?!;~~~;,;;
'\--::?
--t:
1
'- /
,
.
.,.... '0\)
/iA
~
'J'
RURAL PLANNING DISTRICT
URBAN PLANNING DISTRICT
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE (Grcup 2)
LDCAl THOROUGHFARE (G,~ 3)
P.ti.RKWAYS
COLLECTOR (Gro~ 4)
~
c:=:=J
-
(~l'l!.~~)~~
TOWN CENTER
~
..
p
NEIGHBORI--COD CENTER
CONSER\lATION AREA
,
I
\. /
(Paren)h:hcates~Cou-IcilClassdlGlt.lOIl
NASON
WEHRMAN
CHAPMAN
ASSOCIATES
IHC.
TO\-"I',1SHIP OF GRO"""
DE~E:LOPMENT
PLAN
mpls. rnlnn.
M
N
N
E
"
o
T
A
~