Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 19, 1975 ( \ \ ) ~) (J CITY 01 ANDOVER \ " J "- , ~~ Minutes of a CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING of the Andover Community Development Plan, of the Planning and Zoning Commission held, Wednesday, February 19, 1975 at the Andover Community Center. Planning and Zoning Commission members present: Chairman Allan Miles, Dean Johnson, Ken Heil, Art Jaworski, Dave Jack and Deputy Clerk Marilyn Kappelhoff. Attending in the audience: Mayor Schneider, Councilpersons Gerald Windschitl, "Skip" Rither, Winslow Holasek and resident's of the City of Andover. Chairman Miles called the Community Development Plan Public Hearing to order at 7:40 p.m., and read the opening paragraph of the Municipal Planning Legislation. (a copy is attached to this set of minutes) Chairman Miles opened the Continued Community Development Plan Public Hearing to comments and questions from the floor. Mrs. Lyman Orr, 1814 l8lst Avenue Northwest - asked how the Planning and Zoning Commission members were chosen? Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission members were appointed by the City Council. Mayor Schneider explained the procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission members appointments, and stated that Andover resident's who are interested in serving on the Planning Commission, should submit their resumes to the Clerk. Mrs. Orr also asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission members were voicing their own opinions, or the people's opinions? Chairman Miles stated tha he was voicing his own opinions. Mrs. Orr stated that was not Government of the people, or by the people. " ) Mrs. Helen Frantz, 16663 Ward Lake Drive -- asked if the Plan is adopted, will a resident who owns land in the Rural Area, twenty acre restriction, be allowed to sell existing property. Chairman Miles said that the Plan addresses the future subdivision of large tracts and also stated that if the lot is a lot of record, it can be sold, or built on. Mrs. Frantz questioned if it was mandatory that the Plan be adopted in it's entireity, or is the Plan subject to revision? Chairman Miles stated that the input of the resident's will be taken into consideration. Mayor Schneider asked why the twenty acre lot size was chosen for the Rural Area? Chairman Miles stated that most tracts are on the road, logical road extension, two tear taxing structure. Mrs. Sylvia Britton requested that Chairman Miles read the "position paper", that was prepared by Andover's Engineering Firm of Toltz, King, Duvall and Anderson, to give the resident's the compared advantages and disadvantages of community development under three different minimum lot size requirements in the Rural Planning District. Chairman Miles read the advantages and disadvantages of the 2 1/2 acre lot size, the 10 acre lot size and the 20 acre lot size for the Rural District. Mrs. Britton pointed out that the "position paper" lists five (5) advantages and twelve (12) disadvantages for the 2 1/2 acre lot size, and eleven (11) advantages and three (3) disadvantages for the 20 acre lot size. Mrs. Britton stated this comparison was bias. , ) \ ": ) \ J / ,~ Continued Community Development Plan Public Hearing February 19, 1975 Page 2 -) Mr. Lary Carlson requested permission to read a letter he had written, January 7. 1975 which was addressed to the City Engineer, three Councilmembers and the Planning and Zoning Commission. in regards to the "position paper". Mr. Carlson read his letter in full and stated that the entire "position paper" is meaningless because it does not give a fair comparison to the 2 1/2 acres. Councilperson Holasek stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was granted permission by the Town Board to have the "position paper" drafted and $344 was expended for this report, why wasn't the "position paper" not presented as part of the Community Development Plan Public Hearing? Chairman Miles stated that in his opinion, the "position paper" was a means to help the Town Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission identify the difference between the 20 acre and 2 1/2 acre lot size. Chairman Miles also said that the "position paper" is public information, but was not intended to be a part of the Community Development Plan Public Hearing. Mrs. Lyman Orr asked why landowner's of Andover are not informed of what is planned for their property? Chairman Miles explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has had several meetings on the Community Development Plan, which were open to the public, and very few resident's attended. Mrs. Orr stated that she did not attend, because she was not aware of what the meetings were about and pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission should publicize what will be discussed. Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has publicized and addressed the twenty acres. He also said that Mayor Schneider mentioned the Community Develop. ment Plan in two of his campaigns. " Mrs. Sikora asked how many year's has the City Newsletter been available to the resident's of Andover? Commissioner Jaworski stated the Newsletter has been sent out quarterly since the late 1960's. He also stated that resident's who have not received a copy of the Newsletter, should leave their name and address with the Clerk. j Mr. Lindberg asked if the primary goal to get the cost per unit down in the Urban District is to allow development in the Urban Area only? Chairman Miles stated that the primary goal is to encourage development in the area where services can be provided. Mr. Lindberg asked excluding sewer and water. could a 2 1/2 acre planned unit development in the Rural Area be achieved by the developer? Chairman Miles stated yes, providing that the development in the Rural Area does not force premature service requirements, i. e., roads, fire protection, police protection or sewer and water. Commissioner Jaworski stated that a 2 1/2 acre development outside the Urban Area would create a problem and explained if sewer and water would have to be expanded to the Rural Area, the cost would be double and therefore, too expensive for the individual homeowner. Mr. Lary Carlson stated that the community should encourage and assist the 2 1/2 acre limitation. by allowing the developer and landowner to recognize the value of cluster housing. i.e., allow cluster development on 40 acres, put in central sewage disposal system and central water. Mr. Carlson stated that this could be done and would be less expensive than what it would cost the individual landowner to build his house and put in his own separate system. , J 1 \. ./ Continued Community Development February 19, 1975 Page 3 \ , ./ \ ) \ ) Plan Public Hearing , \ / Chairman Miles pointed out that Mr. Carlson is addressing Planned Unit Development, which is one alternative to the 20 acres, and also said that this alternative means that when it comes time to resubdivide, the developer and/or the landowner puts in the roads, central sewar system and the central water system. Commissioner Jack stated that he agreed with Planned Unit Development, but the present platting ordinance of Andover will not allow this to be accomplished, and explained that Planned Unit Development can be considered, if the following is done firs t : 1. Adopt the Community Development Plan 2. Re-write the present ordinances of Andover Commissioner Jack asked the audience to state what goals, other than the twenty acres, they are not in favor of. / Councilman Holasek stated that a Planned Unit Development could be incorporated into Andover's present platting ordinance, under "special use". He pointed out that to his knowledge, the Urban District and Rural District are not taxed differently and requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission obtain a legal opinion on this matter. Councilman Holasek explained that at the February 10, 1975, Sewer and Water Public Hearing, it was brought out that a multiple dwelling unit in the Urban Area should be sewered because of potential pollution problems. This caused concern of some members on the City Council, because the pipe would have to run past undeveloped property, therefore, would encourage development in this undeveloped area. Councilman Holasek stated that this presents a contradiction and explained that the Community Development Plan addresses encouraging development in the Urban Area. Councilman Rither stated that the area Councilman Holasek is referring to, is Bunker Lake Estates and pointed out that the reason for concern was, by putting trunk mains in Bunker Lake Estates, it would be encouragi~further development in the undeveloped area, when a pObC.ntial pollution problem is in the Red Oaks, Green Acres and Northwoods Additions. Mrs. Sikora referred to page 143, line 12, of the Community Development Plan and asked the Planning Commission to explain the meaning of this policy. Commissioner Jack stated that this policy addresses the areas in Andover that are an asset to our community and should be studied through the Park/Advisory Board and City Council as to how these areas will be developed, i.e., parks, left in their natural state, part of a development, etc. Mrs. Helen Frantz addressed the secondary policy, line 4, of the Community Development Plan and stated that she disagrees with municipal government engaging in the Real Estate business. " ,) Councilman Windschitl stated he was not in favor of the free zoning policy and asked the Planning Commission with the elimination of the old zoning boundaries, what protection does the Urban Area have against the placement of a development becoming a political process? Cpuncilman Rither stated that under our present ordinance, the same insecurities exist and explained that the Community Development Plan is breaking away from the traditional process and will set up criteria, that must be met, to determine where a particular type zoning district will be located. Chariman Miles stated the free zoning policy encourages freedom for the developer. :-) \ \. / ,- \ , ./ ) Continued Community Development Plan Public Hearing February 19, 1975 Page 4 " J Councilman Windschitl stated that the Community Development Plan should have a buffer process or a gradual progression for the residential area. Commissioner Jack stated that he agreed with Councilman Windschitl and addressed page 176, paragraph 3, of the Community Development Plan. He stated that in order for the City of Andover to arrive at the goals and policies of the Community Development Plan, the third stage,( rewriting of the ordinances) must be implemented. Councilman Holasek addressed page 143, paragraph 3, of the Community Development Plan and stated that he agreed with this policy, but the rest of the page should be deleted from the Plan. He addressed page 153, paragraph 2, of the Plan and stated, unless this policy has a specific purpose, i.e., fire barn, police station, this should be deleted also. Councilman Holasek stated the twenty acre requirement should be deleted and any other references to the twenty acre lot size. Chairman Miles said the Plan needs an alternative to page 143, and asked Councilman Holasek if he agreed with the concept of a Rural versus an Urban Planning District? Councilman Holasek stated, yes, if the developer can show a good development for the Urban District, such as; town houses; planned unit developments, etc. He also stated that the ideal lot size for the Rural District has not been proven, therefore felt the 2 1/2 acre lot size should be considered at the present time for the Rural District. Mr. Ken Olson asked if the Community Development Plan was adopted in it's present form, what would the procedure be to change the Plan? Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission can change the Plan through a public hearing, and explained the procedures as follows: ) 1. Make the revision 2. Hold a public hearing on the revision 3. Submit the revision to the Metropolitan Council 4. Submit the revision to the City Council, for approval or disapproval Mr. Olson asked if the resident's could petition a change? Chairman Miles stated the petition would have to go through the City Council. Ted Lachinski stated that he moved from a city, to Andover to get out of the city, but if the Plan is adopted, he will be in the Urban Planning District. Councilman Rither explained that people who move from the city, bring the city along. A gentleman in the audience asked the Planing Commission what their opinions were to the Plan. Commissioner Heil stated he was for the 2 1/2 acre lot size. Commissioner Jaworski stated he was in favor of the general concept of the Plan and was in agreement of the Urban and Rural Districts. Chairman Miles stated that the Planning Commission needs an alternative to the acreage requirement. '\ , ,_ .J Commissioner Jack stated that the "position paper" was generated to give alternatives to the acreage requirement, but lacked supportive data in the form of figures, (dollar valuation. projected growth, etc.) therefore, leaves some credence to the advantages. Commissioner Jack stated that he would like to review his notes and the minutes, before expressing his comments. He also stated that before the Plan is submitted to the Metropolitan Council, he was sure there would be some changes. \ J Continued Community February 19, 1975 Page 5 / ~, j \ ) , / Development Plan Public Hearing , \ ,/ Mr. Chapman asked if the Planning Commission has utilized what our neighboring communities have done with development? Chairman Miles stated that Andover cannot look to other communities for assistance, because they are in worse shape than our community. He also stated that Andover does not have to go through the pitfalls of other communities. Ted Lachinski stated that the Planning Commission should let the Metropolitan Council arrive at an alternative to the acreage requirement. Chairman Miles asked what would happen if the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council propose a moritorium on platting, until the Metro Council arrived at a solution? Ted Lachinski stated that a moritorium was not necessary and explained that Andover could aontinue as it is now, until the Metro Council has a solution. Councilman Holasek asked Commissioner Johnson what his opinions were to the Community Development Plan? Commissioner Johnson stated he was in favor of the basic concept of the Plan and the 20 acres. Mr. Lindberg suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the Community Development Plan, allowing 2 1/2 acres in the Rural Area, until the Planing and Zoning Commission develops a tax incentive program for large acreage. Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has stated that 2 1/2 acres is not a viable alternative for the Rural Area. Fay Barnes asked if the main objection to the 2 1/2 acres for the Rural Areas was the future need for sewer and water? Chairman Miles stated that 2 1/2 acres is an ~J Urban density. Mr. Lindberg asked if the soil in Andover causes seepage into the ground too quickly, the Planning and Zoning Commission should draft an ordinance dealing with the problem, rather than the acreage restriction. Chairman Miles stated that the developers would have to be willing to escrow a certain amount of money in case the 2 1/2 acres did not work. Mr. Lindberg stated that if the Plan wants to stop leap- frog development, it would be more logical to put strigent requirements on the developer, rather than the landowner. Commissioner Jaworski stated that in essence, you are saying the same as the Plan, only changing the words from "landowner", to "developer". Robert Nehring asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered setting aside land in open acreage? Chairman Miles stated that Andover's existing platting ordinance requires the developer to set aside land for open space, or money in lieu of land. Ken Olson asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission could declare a moritorium on platting? Chairman Miles stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has discussed a moritorium and explained that to prevent an overflow of unecessary platting, this should be done at the time the Plan is finished and submitted to the Metro Council, with the understanding that when the Plan is revisited, the moritorium is dropped. '. J \ \ ~ Continued Community February 19, 1975 Page 6 \ ~ / Development Plan Public Hearing / , ) J Robert Nehring stated that a lot of the criticism of the Plan is the twenty acre -restriction and asked if the Planning Commission would consider working out a compromise that would be reasonably satisfactory to the resident's who own large amounts of acreage? He also asked if the twenty acre restriction was slowing down the implementation of the rest of the Plan? Commissioner Jack stated, no, unless the Planning Commission reached a barrier point where there is no compromise left. Chairman Miles stated that when the Plan is reviewed by the City Council and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission refused to take any action on the Plan, then the Plan could die. Mr. Lindberg asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to get a legal opinion on the constitutionality of land restriction. Chairman Miles stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would ask the City Council to obtain a legal opinion or request this service from the City Attorney. Chairman Miles stated that the Attorney's opinion is not binding. Oscar Carlson appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he is presently a resident of New Brighton, and hopefully a resident of Andover in the near future. He asked why the Community Development Plan was not available to more people? Chairman Miles stated that because of limited quantities, the resident's of Andover had priority, but is available, on a check out basis, to anyone who request's a copy. \ Mr. Lary Carlson commended the Planning and Zoning Commission on the excellent way they conducted the Community Development Plan Public Hearings. -) Chairman Miles asked if there were more questions or comments from the floor, there were none. It was moved by Commissioner Jack, seconded by Commissioner Johnson that the Community Development Plan Public Hearings be closed at this time and further deliberation to take place with this item to be considered at the next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 25, 1975. Upon roll call vote, all voted yes; motion carried. Community Development Plan Public Hearing adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Allan R. Miles, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission ~ ~ _I Marilyn Kappelhoff, Deputy Clerk , , ) \ I \ , I / , ) TKDA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED , -' M E M 0 RAN 0 U M To: i1.x. Andover City Council Cop i es To: :ftt. Andover Planning Commission From: Mr. Dpwpy K:. "ITl:' Oat e : T:'1111:.ry 1 'I . 197 5 Reference: Andovp.r City Engineering COMMISSION NO. 6223-75 J Attached to this memorandum is a copy of a letter received from Mr. Lawrence Carlson. The letter was addressed to three members of the City Council and myself and is in regard to the position paper which was prepared by our firm for the City of Andover relating to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I am sending a copy to each City Council member and Planning Commission member to provide information to everyone who is directly related to the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I do not agree with Mr. Carlsonts position of sending letters to selected individuals of the City Council and not the entire City Council. For that reason, I have made copies and am distributing them directly to each Council member and Planning and Zoning Commission member. DRK:dh Attachment I . , ) .' , ) , ) . . MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS LAWRENCE B. CARLSON CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT ANOKA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 403 JACKSON STREET ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 427-7500 \ , ) January 7, 1975 T oltz. King, Duval:. ,~.r.1"'s,,,~ and Associal~s.lllco;j)(Jl;rto.\l RECEIVED Mr. Richard J. Schneider, Mayor City of Andover Mr. Winslow Holasek, Councilman City of Andover Mr. Gerald Windschitl, Councilman City of Andover Mr. Dewey Kasma, Engineer Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates g ;"(fj / MR. Duvr.Ll_J/" ,jV MR. Ol~ON_ ._ '~P:.)-/ MR. RYDER MR. THO'M. MR. LUNDHOLM_L_:..._ MR. MALONLY-L- MR. SPERLING Gentlemen: , I j This is the first time that I have expressed myself in writing although some of my views are known to you. In your deliberations on this matter I hope you will take this statement into account. My opinions are definitely not only directed toward my business activities, but also involve what I feel is best for my family and what I sincerely feel is best for our community. I firmly believe the following comments should be entitled to your assumption that my opinions are unbiased to the same extent that you have given this consideration to others. First, a brief background on my past activities which presumably indicate my qualifications to stand up and be heard: 1. I have been active for many years in conservation work. This has been at local, state and national levels. I fought long and hard against the north airport site because its environmental impact was devastating and I knew it would jeopardize the way of life which is enjoyed by the vast majority of our residents. I took this position regardless of the fact that from an economic standpoint other major landowners generally supported the airport. 2. In my role as a member of the Citizens' Advisory Council on Environmental Matters to the Governor dnd as a member of the Advisory Council to the Ol!part.m"nt of N,ltural R~'sources, I assisted in the development of the river , , / , ) , ) / , ) , ) \ , ) Richard J. Schneider, et al January 7, 1975 Page Two and lake shore zoning which protects these remaining areas from over- extensive development. I did this in spite of the fact that, again, from an economic viewpoint it was foolish, because I own substantial shoreline. , 3. I have served on the Board of Supervisors for Grow Township and am proud of what was accomplished during that period of time. Certainly this was not just by my doing, but overall the Board did show progress on a number of major issues. During this tenure, I believe that ~x. Holasek would support the fact that at no time did I show unwarranted consideration for any developer and, on the contrary, was in a position to know when specific matters would be unsatisfactory to us as a Township. 4. I worked long, hard and successfully in conjunction with others to see that our Township became a city. To me, this was extremely important in order to assist us with proper future development, but certainly did not mean that we must now push full steam ahead with every conceivable city service to all citizens - particularly when they don't want them and ) they do nothing more than increase our community costs. The above items are stated only because I do not know of any other way of expressing my opinion, which is as concerned about our'community as any other, without having someone becoming doubtful because of a so-called "conflict of interest." My principal income is not derived from land development and I feel I have kept an open mind on the issues involved as much as anyone else. There are a number of questions which will be raised regarding the "position Paper" prepared by TKDA for the City of Andover. However, before listing thosp questions, I feel it is necessary to ask for your consideration reqarding the following comments: 1. Dewey Kasma is currently our city's engineer and his firm - Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & A~;sociates, Inc. - is also serving as our planner. In view of his involvement with our community I was shocked and deeply disuppointcd over specific rem.lrks which \~ere m.Jdc .It thF' m,~etillq 011 ) December 30. I would like to mention three itcm~; specificully: '. '\ \.- ./ \ / '\ ) '- / \ '- -,,/ Richard J. Schneider, et 0.1 January 7, 1975 Page Three a) As accurately as I can quote Dewey's remarks regarding our roads currently put in by "developers", they were "They,take a grader and scratch around on the ground a little bit, throw on a little gravel and that's \~hat you get." Having just completed two substantial roads in 1974, I know this is not true. I believe that it is only right to ask Dewey to explain those remarks because they can be very detrimental to both a businessman such as me and to the public, if the public believes he is stating a fact. b) Dewey Kasma stated something to the effect that the "developers" such as I, were hurrying to complete more development in order to get away from the cost of installing public services and the like. This could not be farther from the truth since in most instances these "benefits" are not scheduled in any form at the present time. \ ~/ It is true that development may be temporarily accelerating because of the 20 acre scare. What else can you expect people to do when they believe this may become a reality thereby substantially reducing the value of the land or terminating the use for which it was purchased which would create tremendous hardships. c) Al Miles, Chairman of Zoning & Planning, stated that the "position Paper" submitted by TKDA was completely independent and unbiased. This obviously was not true and someone from TKDA had a.responsibility to stand up and clarify that statement. I know this is not a fact and that it can be clearly shown that TKDA has generally reflected only the feelings of those '"ho are supporting the current proposed comprehensive plan and it cl!rtainly docs not reflect many reasonabl(' alternatives. / , \~ -.-J 2. It is my recollection that the engineer stated that his firm cannot proceed to the final stages of the sewer installation until the community has d final comprehensive plan. I don't believe this is true. It is my under- standing that public hearings should be held on the sew<,~r drea and insti1l1ation matters. These areas could be developed in conjunction with the proposed pl"n since there is no disagreement on tlli1t point; finali%iltion of the s,,\~cr \ ) I / ,- \ ) \ ) , / Richard J. Schneider, et al January 7, 1975 Page Four problems could then be realized even though the comprehensive plan may not be completed until a later date. 3. Why don't we see more discussion regarding cluster development? For example, a cluster of homes, apartment houses, condominiums, or whatever, with proper installation of water and sewage facilities would probably leave 75% to 90% of "developed" areas in open space and to be used for enjoyment by everyone. Certainly this has many advantages, one of which would be ease of future overall development. 4. Somehow those of us who live in a country atmosphere cannot convince those who do not that the vast majority are not looking toward such things as hard surface roads and city services. Why is it necessary to continually demand that we be "given" asphalt roads when we only want high quality gravel roads; that we have city water and sewer on 2-1/2 acre lots when it has not been shown necessary and we are not endangering our citizens' health; that we have curbs and gutters when there cannot be shown a need for it. , _/ I would ask how many and where are 2-1/2 acre areas developed with all of the services. Further, I would like to ask that each of you consider the senselessness of this type of argument if someone' says that the people are demanding these services. They are not and I am not. Simply stated, we prefer the rural type atmosphere and there simply is no need for those services through a vast area of the City of Andover. \ " ) 5. I must call your attention to the fact that every assumption made throughout the "position Paper" is an assumption that degrades the 2-1/2 acre alternative and upgrades the 10 acre of 20 acre plan. You will see specifics on this point in the questions I have posed directly on the position Paper. 6. I have dealt with Dewey Kasma on two developments. My impression was very favorable since he treated both developments very fairly and was helpful with his advice. Even though I have taken exception to his remarks as indicated above, I would certainly favor his firm and him preparing a type of "fact sheet" for distribution to our residents. However, I would respect- fully request that lw dot's t.:lk" into <\t:e:Olllll: thaL <lilY ,nH;llml.'L Lon,'; "houlel be! clearly defined as such and that cle.:lrly there arc two sides to the isslH. and not just one. ,i:;. , ) , \ '. / , ) , , / Richard J. Schneider, et al \. / January 7, 1975 Page Five REMARKS PERTAINING TO "TKDA - POSITION PAPER" Page 2 - Alternative A Item Advantages Low priced residential lots. Remarks 2. 3. Limited community improvement. What does this mean? Did someone explain that this means 2-1/2 acres would be sold for less than 10 acres? If so, this is an insult to our intelligence, but certainly does not answer the implication which is left by this statement. It should be noted that this is true since that is all that is required by the community. Bear in mind that it is an absolute waste of , , / our money and resources if community improve- ments are put in prematurely. In fact, Item 5 answers this in stating that there is little expenditures required by local government. Disadvantages 1. Potential water and land pollution. Using the assumption that this is true, it is certainly true also on 10 and 20 acre tracts. Now, if we use the assumption that the pollution is so minute that it will not have an effect on our water supply, then it is not a disadvantage at all, even on 2-1/2 acre sites. Incidentally, I do not know of any study that ,indicates this is a problem in our area on a 2-1/2 acre site, or much less, for that" matter. 2. USP of the worel "un()e:~t:hctic:." Why is this un<.:ompl.im(~ntary word u~';ed onl.y .In A 1 ('prlla 1'1 ve 1\": ) \ \, ) '1 '. j \ \ ) Richard J. Schneider, et al January 7, 1975 Page Six Alternative A - continued Item Disadvantages 3. Unplanned and scattered development costly to service. ) 4. Low quality development. 5. Existing residents are not protected environmentally. 7. Federal grants jeopardized. ) ll. Prodll<:l tVI' i)(lri<:l.Iltur~l. life prematurely ended. , ~ ... ,,/ '\ , J Remarks I believe this needs further explanation. In the first place, why must a 2-1/2 acre subdivision be unplanned if one acre, 1/2 acre, 1/3 acre or whatever is planned? What is the break between a planned and unplanned development. Furtber, when reference is made that this development is costly to service, I think it should be clearly stated which services are being referred to. It would also be helpful to get an estimate of the cost. I believe this is totally erroneous. I don't know what this means. As an environmentalist, I believe that environmen- tally I can live with nature far better on a 2-1/2 acre lot than I could in town on a 1/4 acre lot. This is a one-sided assumption at best and probably stems from the current position being taken by the Metropolitan Council. I believe it is important to note that the Metropolitan Council has been prone to change various positions from time to time and I don't feel that our community should be planned around their ever changing likes and dislikes. It is important that the planner understands that a substantial amount of lond in the city is not and nC'ver will be conducive to ) '1 / , / Richard J. Schneider, et al January 7, 1975 Page Seven Alternative A - continued Item Disadvantages 9. Present values suffer. 10. Potential for long range planning is lost. 11. 400 lots in the RPD. , ) 13. Immediate loss of land values resulting in extreme hardships for many current landO\o/llers. Alterno.tive B Item Advantages ---- L High quality developm2nt 3. IJundo\oJncrs ga in i.nr-.:rea::;t!c] land vallie. / \ ) ./ Remarks agricultural use. I don't understand this statement. To the contrary, planning Cl large scale community development on 2-1/2 acre sites could certainly be long range planning with several primary objectives such as providing and maintaining a rural living atmosphere, not requiring nor demanding city water, city seIVer, hard surface roads, etc. I do not believe this is a true statement. Cap this figure be confirmed by identifi- cation of areas involved and lots within each subdivision? Whereas loss of value is not identified as a disadvantage, it certainly should be. Particularly so when they bring back the galn as an advantage under Alternative B, Item 3. Remarks \'Ihat the planner should be so.ying is there IVill be virtually no development. It is then up to the community to decide, if this is an advantage or a disadvantage. Simply stated, the gain is there because it was t;tKen away throll'1h accept.ance, of the Comprcl!('n,;ivl, P1-1n. III .111 fairnesc> to the n,;"l"r of this n,porl., t.l!i~; should b', noted. , ) '1 " J Richard J. Schneider, et al January 7, 1975 ) Page Eight Item Alternative B - continued 4. 5. 6. Advantages Productive agricultural uses can continue in the RPD. Protected environmentally Less pollution of land and water. 8. People attracted to a planned growth and development area. " . / 9. 4. 5. , ) Use of public services. Disadvantages Immediate action and expencliturcs Loss of land valu<-~. ) I Remarks If this is an advantage under Alternative B, why is it not also an advantage under Alternative A, since the Green Acres law applies in each case? What does this mean? An unfair, one-sided statement since it does not take into account whether or not a 2-1/2 acre development has any truly detrimental effects upon the land and water. In other words, the assumption is that we cannot have a planned growth and development area with 2-1/2 acre zoning. I do not believe this is true. This statement is true except if you consider the fact that these services lnay not be necessary at all except on a very reduced basis in lower density population areas, i.e., 2-1/2 acre development. I do not understand what immediate expenditures are necessary under Alternative B. In areas ,,,here we currently need city sewer as an example, this is necessary regardless of whether or not we have a comprehensive plan. This disadvantage should bl' explained. Whereas this disadvantage is not listed, it is certainly one of the primary disadvantages and should not he overlookC'd. i \ I \_) '~ \. J ) ) Richard J. Schneider, et al \ January 7, 1975 "-~ Page Nine Alternative C The above remarks relative to Alternative B can generally be applied to the advantages and disadvantages as noted under Alternative C. Finally, I will again state that my position has been in favor of a comprehensive plan and that I have certainly been in agrf'ement with and have supported most segments of the plan. However, I strenuously object to the combined efforts of the Zoning d.l1d Planning Commission and the planner to leave the impression with our residents that you cannot have "a planned community" if the 2-1/2 acre zoning stands. This is not true. I object, along with the majority in the northern 1/2 to 2/3 of the City, to having hard surface roads and many other city services presumably crammed down our throats when we are simply asking "please don't force upon us services which \ve are not requesting nor need." This point could certainly be borne out if the planner resubmitted a report using the assumption that very limited public ) services would be provided on 2-1/2 acre lots and then we could have a look at the results of the cost study. In view of the above co~ments, I would respectfully request that the City Council meet with the planner and carefully and objectively review with them the assumptions which have been made in writing the "position Paper." I believe it will become clear that the assumptions have generally been very one-sided in an effort to prove that their recommendations should be accepted, which recommendations have actually been formulated in great part through discussions with Zoning and Planning membf'rs in an effort to satisfy their personal goals. For example, if we assume that 2-1/2 acre planned development is allmved through the northern 2/3 of the community, and if we assume that this type of developmen.t is desired by the people who live in the areas because they can still afford to own their own homes, larger than average lots, and will not. lose their homes due to excessive tax assessments, and if we assume th,>t. w" provide wi thin the planned corrununi t.y adequa t.e space for corrunercial developm(,nt., cluster d'ovclopment., parks, etc., then Ylhat would the cost studies, statistic!; and the" 1 ikc ,;how in compi1ci.son wi th those already in the report? , .J '\ , J \ , \ i / \ / ) " , " Richard J. Schneider, et al Janu3.ry 7, 1975 Page Ten Finally, it is obvious that if either a 10 acre or 20 acre limitation is imposed, that limitation alone virtually eliminates any further options that may be available to the landowner. Please bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of landowners affected are not developers and speculators, so this type of decisionhasa most serious effect on many, not just a few of the residents of the community. My sincere apologies if I have unfairly criticized someone. That is not my intent. My purpose is simply to spcdk up for what I feel IS r; 'lilt for my community. To date, residents in this community whu share my point of view have been totally ignored. This letter has been addressed only to the Council me~bers who indicated on December 30 their willingness to listen, as did our engineer/planner. You will recall that Councilman Rither and Councilwoman VanderLaan stated quite emphatically that they are in agreement at this time with the Comprehensive , ) Plan. Certainly I am not one who can change their minds. Thank you for your consideration in the above matter. YOurS~UlY, //) /~ &:/~ Lawrence B. Carlson 5mb \ ) r'-, o~) (J 0 MUNICIPAL PLANNING LEGISLA liON O Minnesota cities had for some time been carrying out planning and related powers under a patchwork of enabling legislation. In 1965, however, the legislature passed a condification of the municipal planning laws and made some significant changes. For the first time all municipal planning and planning related laws (except for Onf~ or two minor exceptions) are found in one location. Beyond this condification Duluth and other cities retain special powers as per section 462.364. The authority to regulate building construction is possessed by cities through their home rule charter or act of incorporation. Villages have this power as a result of section 412.221, subdivision 28. LEGISLATION COMMENTS o 462.351 l\IUNICIPAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT; STATEl\IENT OF POLICY. The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commer. cial, industrial and public activities and to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expendi- tures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly. and will achieve a more secure tax basI'. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single . body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and imple- menting municipal planning. 462.352 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision I. For the purposes of sections 462.351 to r-) 462.364 the terms defined in this section havc the meanings given them. \. Subd. 2. "Municipality" means any city, including a city operating under a home rule charter, and any village or borough and any town having the powers of villages pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 368.01. Subd. 3. "Planning agency" means the planning commission or the planning department of a municipality. Subd. 4. "Platting authority" means the governing body or other agency re- sponsible under statute or charter for the approval of plats of land within the municipality or within its area of platting control. Subd. 5. "Comprehensive municipal plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development, both private and public, of the municipality and its environs and may include, but is not limited to, the following: statements of policies, goals, standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transportation plan, and recommenda- tions for plan execution. A comprehensive plan represents the planning agency's recommendations for the future development of the community. Subd. 6. "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future development of private and public property, The term includes a plan designating types of uses for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or specific types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, public or semi-public uses or any combination of such uses. Subd. 7. "Transportation plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future development of the various modes of transportation of the municipality and its environs such as streets and highways, mass transit, railroads, air transportation, trucking and water transportation, and includes a major thoroughfare plan. Subd. 8. "Community facilities plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future development of the public or semi.public facilities of the municipality such as recreational, edu- cational and cultural facilities. Subd. 9. "Capital improvement program" means an itemized program setting forth the schedule and details of specific contemplated public improvements by Need for, and purpose of municipal planning. L fl1.u ~ The units of local government to which this act applies. Section 368.01 designates "Urban Towns". It is printed on page 9. Comprehensive plan defined. - I - f \ \~ / '\ ) \ LEGISLATION fiscal year, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each improve- ment, the impact that such improvements will have on the current operating ex. pense of the municipality, and such other information on capital improvements as may be pertinent. Subd. 10. "Official map" means a map adopted in accordance with section 9 of this act showing existing streets, proposed future streets and the area needed for widening of existing streets of the municipality. An official map may also show the location of existing and future public land and facilities within the municipality. Subd. 11. "Governing body" in the case of cities or villages means the council by whatever name known, and in the case of a town, means the town board. 462.353 AUTHORITY TO PLAN. Subdivision I. General authority. A municipality may carryon comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the municipality and may prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such plan by ordinance and other official actions in accordance with the provisions of sections 462.35 I to 462.364. Subd. 2. Studies and reports. In exercising its powers under subdivision 1, a municipality may collect and analyze data, prepare maps, charts, tables, and other illustrations and displays, and conduct necessary studies. A municipality may publicize its purposes, suggestions, and findings on planning matters, may distribute reports thereon, and may advise the public on the planning matters within the scope of its duties and objectives. Subd. 3. Appropriation and contracts. A municipality may appropriate monies from any fund not dedicated to other purposes in order to finance its planning activities. A municipality may receive and expend grants and gifts for planning purposes and may enter into contracts with the federal and state governments or with other public or private agencies in furtherance of the planning activities authorized by sections 462.351 to 462.364. 462.354 ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING. Subdivision I. Planning agency. A municipality may by charter or ordinance create a planning agency. A planning agency created by ordinance may be abolished by two-thirds vote of all the members of the governing body. The planning agency shall be advisory, except as other powers and duties are imposed on it by sections 462.351 to 462.364, by statute, by charter, or by ordinance consistent with the municipal charter. The planning agency may take the following alternative forms: (1) It may consist of a planning commission, which mayor may not include municipal officials among its members, The planning commission may be provided with staff which may be a division of the administrative structure of the municipal government. The commission shall be advisory directly to the governing body. (2) It may consist of a planning department with a planning commission ad- visory to it and shall function as a department advisory to the governing body and the municipal administration. The planning department may be provided with an executive director and other staff as in the case'of other municipal departments. Subd. 2. Board of adjustments and appeals. The governing body of any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments. The board shall have the the powers set forth in section 462.357, subdivision 6, and section 462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may pro, vide alternatively that there be a separate board of appeals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee of the planning commission serve as the board of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board. The board may be given such other duties as the governing body may direct. In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the govern- ing body may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the board on matters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to appeal to the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council. Hearings by the board of appeals and adjustments shall be held within such time and upon such notice to interested parties as is provided in the ordinance establishing the board. The board shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall serve a copy of such order upon the ap' pellant or petitioner by mail. Any party may appear at the hearing In person or by agent or attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the governing body, the board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The board shall provide for a record of its pro- ceedings which shall include the minutes of Its meetings, its findings, and the action - 2- :" ) / ' \..) COMMENTS Municipality may pre par amend, and imple comprehensive plan. Money from any non.dedic may be used to finance activities. Method of creating planning agency. Alternative forms of a agency. Board of adjustment must if municipality has a zoning or official map in effect. Powers specified. Alternate forms of a adjustment.