Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 25, 2000 o r---., u o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY25, 2000 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on January 25, 2000, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, Mark Hedin, and Jay Squires. Bev Jovanovich City Planner, John Hinzman Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 11,2000 Motion by Dalien, seconded by Falk, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA-00I-01) - RE-GUIDE LAND FROM RM, TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO RU, RESIDENTIAL URBAN SINGLE FAMILY - GREY OAKS, SECTION 23 - CITY OF ANDOVER. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (REZ 00-01) - REZONE LAND FROM M-2, MULTIPLE DWELLING TO R-4,SINGLE FAMILY URBAN - GREY OAKS, SECTION 23, Mr. Hinzman requested Items 3 and 4, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, be combined for consideration, as these items are interrelated. He advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make two separate motions on these items. Mr. Hinzman stated the City of Andover is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 60 acres of property located just north of the Fox Hollows Subdivision, between Nightingale Street and Hanson Boulevard NW, and is owned by Grey Oaks, Inc. He stated the proposal before the Commission is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the RM, Residential Medium Density Land Use District to the RU, Residential Urban Single-Family District, and concurrently with this is the Rezoning from M-2, Residential Multiple Dwelling, to R-4, Single Family Urban. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 2 o Mr. Hinzman stated the applicable ordinances that regulate the Comprehensive Plan Amendment are Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 473.858, which states that a Comprehensive Municipal Plan is in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance or any other official controls, those official controls must be changed to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hinzman stated the ordinances applicable to the Rezoning portion of this request are Ordinance 8, Section 5.02, which establishes the procedure for changing zoning district boundaries, and Section 5.03 B, which establishes criteria. He provided a brief outline of the criteria presented, which is applicable for both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning. Mr. Hinzman advised that the Comprehensive Plan is a long-range document, which contemplates future land use, and the zoning is the legal definition for land use on the property. Mr. Hinzman stated the adjacent land use to the north and west of the proposed site is a rural residential scenario, with the Wittington Ridge development to the west of Nightingale Street, and unplatted property to the north. The surrounding areas to the east and south are in the MUSA, and include the Fox Hollows Subdivision to the south, and Cambridge Estates to the east, across Hanson Boulevard. (j Mr. Hinzman stated the Comprehensive Plan includes a number of items that relate to residential development, and specifies criteria for residential development in the future. He provided a summary of these criteria, which indicate that as residential development occurs, the City is concerned with the controlled extension of services, providing appropriate buffers for new residential development, and providing for adequate public facilities, i.e., schools, parks, and fire protection. Mr. Hinzman stated the criteria also identify the policies related to housing and residential land use, and indicates that the City should include a variety of housing types, including Multiple Family, and that platting and development of residential neighborhoods as units should be encouraged. He advised that there should also be a continuity of street patterns, protection against adverse environmental impacts, protection against encroachment and intrusion of incompatible land uses, and strong encouragement of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Mr. Hinzman stated this particular item has come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council several times in the past. He advised that at the January 4, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for this area. He explained that this action was not brought forward by the developer, but rather, was initiated by the City. Mr. Hinzman stated the proposed change is more consistent with the surrounding land uses. He explained there is Single Family development abutting the site to the south and east. The existing Multiple Family designation creates an abrupt change in density from adjacent rural properties which o Regular Andover Planning Qzoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 3 ,~ U o abut the property to the north and west, and urban expansion is not planned to the west of this property. Mr. Hinzman advised that the December 4, 1999 Grey Oaks submittal exceeds the 6 units per gross acre maximum density requirement of the RM, Residential Medium Density District, with a proposed density of 8.6 units per acre. Mr. Hinzman noted this area is currently within the MUSA. He indicated that staff is currently examining options for transferring the Multiple Family designation to other properties in the City. He explained that Multiple Family development will become additionally necessary in the future, and staff does not desire to see this type of development eliminated in the City as a whole. Staff is examining other areas in the City with the same number of buildable acres, where the same number of units could be transferred to, and would be bringing this forward in the near future as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Hinzman outlined the Commission's options for action. He stated staff recommends approval of both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning of the property. Commissioner Hedin inquired how this proposed Rezoning would affect the original Grey Oaks Preliminary Plat approval. r' U Mr. Hinzman explained that the Council would have two items before them for consideration, a Preliminary Plat that has been conditionally approved, and the Rezoning of the property and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that eventually, the City Council would have to determine which use and which type of development they see appropriate for this property. He advised that the Council would sort through this at their first meeting in March, which is the expiration date of the one-year sunset clause on the Preliminary Plat, and at that time, would either extend the time period for review, or accept the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning. Mr. Hinzman explained that at this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to review the compatibility of the single-family residential land use district for this area. He stated staff would bring the Commission's recommendation forward to the City Council, to assist them in making a decision on the future of this property. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the Rezoning would have a negative effect of the original Preliminary Plat. Mr. Hinzman stated the developer would not be able to proceed with the original plat if the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment are approved, as the proposed density would exceed the requirements for the Single Family Residential zone. o C) () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 4 f\ U Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearings for Items 3 and 4, at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Joseph Finley, representative of Grey Oaks, Inc. stated the action that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to approve is very unorthodox. He advised that the Preliminary Plat was approved on March 2, 1999, and under State Law, the City is absolutely prohibited from rezoning or amending the Comprehensive Plan or density controls for a one-year period from the date of a Preliminary Plat approval. He stated this action would appear to violate State Statute 462.358, which places a one-year moratorium on cities' ability to change a Comprehensive Plan or any official control after Preliminary Plat approval. Mr. Finley stated he believed this action was premature regardless of this statute, as that date, the developer had submitted a complete packet to the City for final plat approval. He explained that they were not required to submit until March 2, however, they had done so that date, because of the dependency of this action. o Mr. Finley stated this plat was nothing like the December 6 submittal, which the developer has pulled off of the table, due to the negative public response it had engendered. He stated the final plat approval is simply the Preliminary Plat with very simple modifications, made only to meet the conditions placed upon it by the City Council. He advised that it is black-letter law in the State of Minnesota, that when a Preliminary Plat has been approved, the developer is entitled to final plat approval if it is submitted within a one-year period, and meets the conditions that the Council has imposed. He stated for this reason alone, it was premature to act upon this matter at this time. Mr. Finley stated a third factor for consideration is that in reliance on that Preliminary Plat, Grey Oaks, Inc. has already spent over $600,000 creating that land, installing utilities, and excavating building basements. He stated these were dollars that could only be spent for the project that was approved in the original plan. He reiterated that it would be very unorthodox for the City to rezone the property during a one-year period in which they are prohibited from rezoning, when the developer has already spent $600,000 to satisfy the conditions it placed upon him in the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Finely stated there was likely a very good reason why this action was being considered, although not entirely apparent to him. He stated that typically, when property is rezoned, especially property which affects only one owner, there is often a study done, because there is a presumption that the zoning which is in place is valid zoning. He stated that typically, when zoning is changed, a study is performed, and that change would be given the same dignity as the original zoning in the City, when that zoning was enacted. Mr. Finley stated the materials he has seen provide no indication that any study has been done. He stated this is simply the rezoning of one person's property without studies, during a period in which o rezoning is prohibited, and after the developer has spent $600,000 on a Preliminary Plat, which ,- '\ : , U () o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 5 would be rendered nugatory by this rezoning. He advised that for these reasons, the Planning and Zoning Commission should table this item, or set it over until a more appropriate time. Chair Squires requested clarification regarding the modifications made to the Preliminary Plat that were submitted that date. Mr. Finley explained that as this was not a hearing on the final plat, he had not come prepared to . inform the Commission regarding each modification, however, it is very similar to the original plat. He stated the location of one roadway has been slightly shifted, in response to the City's request for additional parking, more impervious surface, and less green space than the original plan provided. He explained that addressing this request involves the relocation of several roadways and structures, and as these are conditions imposed upon the developer by the City, they must be changed. Mr. Finley stated the current submittal bears no relation to the December 6 proposal that many people found to be unacceptable. He advised that the proposal is almost identical to the Preliminary Plat, with the exception of an additional townhouse in a comer of the site, which was added when something else was subtracted from another area of the site, during the relocation of a road. He reiterated that all of the changes were very minor, and to the untrained eye, the final plat would appear to be identical to the original plat. Mr. Finely explained that they had also submitted a packet containing all of the Association documents that date. Chair Squires stated his question in this regard was due to the suggestion that the Planning and Zoning Commission was prohibited from acting upon this matter at this time, because the developer had submitted that information. Mr. Finley explained that Statute 462.358, Procedure for Plan Effectuation, Subdivision Regulation, Section 3C, Effective Subdivision Approval, indicates "For one year following preliminary approval, and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree otherwise, no amendment to a Comprehensive Plan or official control shall apply to or effect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application." He stated this is State Law, and is a safe harbor, to provide that the City can not pull the rug out from under a developer who has proceeded with a project based upon the Preliminary Plan approval. Mr. Finely stated this Statute goes on to indicate that later in that time period, any change must be considered very carefully, if an investment has occurred in reasonable reliance upon the approved application, and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. He explained that this provision is in the Statute because there is a long history of subdividers, who after having obtained approval, and spending much o money attempting to comply with the City's conditions, are preempted very quickly after approval. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 6 , _ A '--' He stated he was not suggesting that the City was attempting to do this, however, he would suggest that what is being considered violates this Statute on all fours. Chair Squires inquired if this Statute also contemplates that the final plat approval submittal be consistent with what was approved at the Preliminary Plat stage. Mr. Finley stated this particular Statute does not, however, it does contemplate that final plat approval uses the Preliminary Plat as a base line, and addresses the concerns of the conditions placed by the Council and results in a plan which reflects this. He stated that this is what they have done, and they have prepared a very different final submittal than that brought forward on December 6. He indicated that the Case Law is very clear, in that the subdivider is entitled to final plat approval if the conditions placed by the Council on the Preliminary Plat are satisfied. Chair Squires stated one of the requirements imposed by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development approvals relates to the senior housing issue. He inquired if this issue is addressed in the final submittal. , \j Mr. Finley stated they have addressed this to the extent they can legally do so. He explained that there is also Case Law, which states that if the conditions of subdivision approval are not legal, the subdivider can disregard the illegal condition. He indicated that in the Multiple Famiiy portion of this proposal, the developer has reserved the right to develop "over 55" housing, to the extent that it is rental, and not sold. He noted that the developer reserves this right, however, must comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act, as well as Minnesota State Law. He explained that to the extent that this is the requirement, it is included, and to the extent that the requirement is more than that, it is illegal, and also violates the anti-coercion laws of HUD and FHA, funds of which, the City is a recipient. Commissioner Falk inquired if the developer has met the conditions set forth by the City Council. Mr. Finley stated there were two approvals, one for the Planned Unit Development, and one for the Subdivision: He noted there were approximately 22 to 23 conditions for approval in the Subdivision, and they believe they have satisfied all of these conditions. He explained that there were approximately 7 conditions set forth in the Planned Unit Development, and one of these was a vaguely worded condition regarding housing for the elderly. He stated they believe they have clearly satisfied all of the conditions, with the exception of that related to elderly housing, and have satisfied this condition, to the extent that law permits. Chair Squires inquired if, regardless of whether or not they believe that the law permits the City to impose a condition involving senior housing, this condition has not been met. r' I ) ..## r\ U o (-, u n 0 Regular Andover Planning cilt~oning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Finley stated they believe they have met this condition, however, it is very vaguely worded. He pointed out that the current consideration is not a hearing on the final plat, but rather upon the proposal to rezone the property. Chair Squires advised that he was aware of this, however, Mr. Finely was making the issue of the final plat gennane for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Finley stated they have submitted a final plat for review by the City. Mr. Hinzman indicated that staff has received the revised Preliminary Plat, however, he has not seen the covenant documents, and therefore, is uncertain whether or not they have been submitted at this time. He noted that the newly submitted Preliminary Plat closely resembles the original submittal. He stated the City Council has not had the opportunity to review the revised preliminary plat, and may not be aware that it has been submitted at this time. Mr. Hinzman advised that the current consideration is the Single Family Residential District Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property. He explained that when this matter goes before the City Council, in conjunction with the documentation submitted by the developer, the Council would render their decision. He stated however, at this time, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with providing a recommendation related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning of this property, in order to assist the Council in making a decision regarding the future of land in this area. Chair Squires stated he understood this, however, Mr. Finley has asserted that based upon the current submittal, and the approvals that have been given, there may be some question regarding whether it is even appropriate to consider a land use change. He explained that the Commission should consider this, and ultimately, the Council would consider this as well. Commissioner Apel pointed out that this decision was not within the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but rather the City Council. Chair Squires stated this was correct, however, by holding the public hearing on this matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission was developing a record for review, as well. Commissioner Daninger inquired if Mr. Finley's suggestion that a change could not be made within a year would also apply to a recommendation. Mr. Finley stated the Statute indicates a change could not be made. Commissioner Apel advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission's action on these items would not constitute a change. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and L-oning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 8 o Mr. Hinzman pointed out that the Preliminary Plat was conditionally approved, and it is uncertain if the one-year time period is applicable if the conditions of the Preliminary Plat have not been accepted by the Council, however, this would be an issue for the City Attorney to determine. Chair Squires stated the plan that was presented by the developer at the last meeting appeared to be completely inconsistent with the preliminary plan that was approved. He inquired why the developer had done this. Mr. Finley explained that after reviewing the conditions, Mr. Winshital had interpreted that the City desired something slightly different than the preliminary plat, and therefore, proceeded with the preliminary plat as a base line, making only the minimum changes necessary to meet the conditions of approval imposed by the City. He stated he could not speak for Mr. Winshital, however, he believed he was doing something that the City would find acceptable. He pointed out that once he learned that the City was not pleased, he attempted to go back within the period of the Preliminary . Plat approval, and do only what the City approved. Chair Squires inquired if the number of proposed units had increased from 350 to 519. Mr. Finley stated this was immaterial as this plan was withdrawn. o Brian Cooth, 15667 Raven Street NW stated he was concerned with regard to the plan for the 500 plus units, which was withdrawn. He commented that this proposal does not fit in with the surrounding area. He inquired regarding the sudden change in the plans, and why such a thing was presented and then withdrawn. He remarked that it seemed a little bit shaky, at best, in terms of what they are attempting to do. Mr. Cooth stated there are many reasons people move to Andover, and this proposal is not one of them. He explained that he attempted to move into an area comprised of some acreage, and in his opinion, this proposal destroys the City. He stated he is completely opposed to the development proposal, and in favor of the rezoning, which is one of the smartest moves the City could make for this area, for several reasons. He pointed out that if there were no guarantee that this development would be senior housing, there would be a problem with regard to the schools, which could not handle the additional population it would draw. He explained that he worked with the schools, and they are already very full. He inquired where they would put all of the children who would come in, adding that if the development is not restricted to seniors, there will be children there. He noted that even if there were only one child per unit, this would result in an enormous amount of attendance. He reiterated that he was in favor ofrezoning the property. Kim Dickeson, 105629 Raven Street, stated she felt the rezoning was very important to the City of Andover at this time. She indicated she has attended the School Board meetings, where they are currently fighting to obtain a school to accommodate the children. She commented that the proposed development, if not restricted to seniors, would result in many problems. She noted many housing o .- o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 10 ~ ' ',_J on the east side of Hanson Boulevard, however, it had been changed on the west side because it was to be senior housing, which is no longer in the equation. Mr. Howard stated the residents of this area were somewhat satisfied with the proposal for senior housing, however, this has changed. He inquired what other changes would occur after this, and how many more times would the residents have to come in and discuss this matter. He stated he would like to have the zoning changed back to R-4, and finalize the matter. He indicated that the developer should attempt to find some other location for this proposal, where the transition makes sense. Mr. Finley explained that there was no Sketch Plan for 512 units, and if this was the basis for opposition, it is completely irrelevant, because what is being proposed is exactly what was approved. Mr. Finley stated he is a city planner, with a degree in planning as well as law. He indicated there is a very interesting transition in this area, and tremendous amounts of open spaces, wetland preservation, and ponds. He explained that that the reason for considering the Planned Unit Developments and increasing density is to preserve the amenities that exist, and the Preliminary Plat indicates the preservation of a tremendous amount of open space. He stated this proposal is acreage development, and the transition is apparent, upon examination of the plat. --' -... ~ ) Mr. Finley stated that in his understanding, they have done everything possible; within the limits of the law, to restrict this development to "over-55" housing. He advised that they will discuss this matter further with the City Attorney to determine what options are available in this regard. He stated the developer has not backed away from the senior housing proposal. He commented that he knew of no other development in the Twin Cities in which a restriction has been imposed by the city, in terms of the age of the residents. Mr. Finley explained that when senior housing development is contemplated, the developer builds a certain product that appeals to that segment of the market, and that is what is being proposed at this site, by and large. He stated this development would appeal to senior citizens, and could be marketed to these individuals, without a restriction from the City. He reiterated he knew of no other cities that impose these restrictions. Mr. Finley stated they were proposing to fit into the over-55 housing category, as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act. He explained that this category limits their ability to place restrictions, and the developer could only require that one member of the household must be over 55 in 80 percent of the housing, and they could not restrict children. He stated the market would provide a large number of senior citizens for this type of development. He indicated that single family homes would certainly bring in more children than this proposal, and would create much more pressure on the schools than they would ever have with this development. He stated their proposal may not have C) C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 11 " u ~) a restriction in the legal sense, but through the marketing of the units, it was likely there would be fewer children than with single family development. There was no other public input. Motion by Apel, seconded by Dalien, to close the public hearings on Items 3 and 4, at 7:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Commissioner Daninger requested clarification regarding the City Council's process for determining this matter. o Mr. Hinzman explained that if a recommendation was made at that time, the Council would have for consideration the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request from the developer with the new Preliminary Plat, and the new covenants that have been submitted. He stated the Council would then proceed to determine whether or not the covenant documents and the Preliminary Plat meet the requirements of the Planned Unit Development and the Preliminary Plat, and if that is the case, would accept those documents and approve them. He indicated that if the Council finds those items do not meet the requirements, they could proceed with the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, assuming that these actions would not be in conflict with State Statutes. He advised that the City Attorney would review the Statutes to insure that the City is in compliance with them. Commissioner Daninger asked what would occur if the items were tabled at this time. Mr. Hinzman indicated if the matter is tabled, and no recommendation is provided prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plat, the Council could not accept those documents, or determine they do not meet the requirements, and thereby rule the matter null and void prior to the March 2 sunset date. He advised that it was the Council's direction to have the option of the single-family scenario before them at the time the Preliminary Plat is considered, in the event that the developer does not meet the requirements of the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Apel stated the Planning and Zoning Commission, as an advisory group, would be acting in the interest of the decision making function to forward the matter with a recommendation of some form, rather than tabling it. He stated he would at this time, argue for a recommendation of approval. Commissioner Falk inquired regarding the implications presented by the Statute cited by Mr. Finley. Commissioner Apel stated this was to be determined by the Attorneys. He pointed out that it would not take effect until March 3, and the Council appears to desire to have this matter in a position to allow them to make a decision. He stated the Council members are the elected officials. He advised o that they are required to hold a public hearing to inform the public, and although he was not certain o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 12 u r-\ U he agreed or disagreed on any of these items, he would be willing to forward a recommendation to the Council, to assist them in the decision making process. Commissioner Hedin explained that the actions of the Planning and Zoning Commission would not have any effect upon the Preliminary Plat or the final approval, because the decision is within the purview of the Council. He noted that if the Commission were to recommend approval of the Rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it would be the responsibility of the Council and their attorneys to determine what legally could be done. Commissioner Daninger pointed out that the Commission could also recommend to deny these items, and the Council would still have the option to move forward with them. Commissioner Hedin stated this was correct, however, the Commission would not take any rights away from this project by recommending approval of the Rezoning, because the developer would still have their right to seek final plat approval Mr. Hinzman reiterated that the Commission's recommendation would be an advisory board decision and would not be a final decision that would invalidate any rights of the applicant. o Commissioner Dalien added that this would simply keep all of the options open to the Council, and that is what the Planning and Zoning Commission should be considering. He stated it was unfortunate that they were once again in this position, however, this was not due to the Councilor the Commission, but rather an unfortunate set of circumstances created by the developer. He advised that it would be in the best interest of the City of Andover to keep this option alive, so that the City Council could proceed in this direction if necessary. He stated he would be in favor in moving forward with a recommendation of approval. Chair Squires stated this was a fairly significant issue for many people, therefore, the Commission should examine it in further detail. He inquired if at the time of the initial application for the senior housing complex, there was a consensus between the developer and the City as to the nature of this Grey Oaks Development. He stated the minutes reflected that it would be a senior housing complex or community, and as the matter went through the process for approval of both the Preliminary Plat and the Planned Unit Development, this condition was imposed on both, memorializing that understanding. o Chair Squires stated he did not recall that Mr. Winshital had ever objected to the agreement between the parties as to what this development would be. He inquired if there was anything in writing that indicated Mr. Winshital objected to this condition, or did not believe it was legal at that time. He noted Mr. Finley's statement that the developer may not have to comply with this condition in entirety, because of State Law, and while this may be the case, it was still a condition the City thought could be imposed, and to his recollection, the developer never objected to it. ~ --" '--J ,r-, u o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 13 Mr. Hinzman advised that when the original land swap between Chesterton Commons and this development occurred, it was noted in the minutes that the developer would offer up the 60 acres north of Fox Hollows for a "senior development with many amenities". He stated during that time, they have discussed the senior aspect of this proposal with the Council and the developer on many different occasions, and the developer's main concern has been how he can legally do this, and this has been reiterated this evening by Mr. Finley. He pointed out that he did not believe the developer has stated, at any time, that he does not wish to proceed with this project as a senior housing development, but rather that there has been discussion regarding the legalities, and what would be acceptable to the City Council. Chair Squires stated the rezoning of this property from Single Family to Multiple Family was based upon a mutual understanding regarding the nature of the project. He explained that if this mutual understanding is unattainable, whether by the voluntary actions of the applicant in submitting an inconsistent plan, or by some operation of law, which makes what was envisioned no longer possible, it would be appropriate to revisit the rezoning, in that the reason for it no longer exists. He stated this is a factor that should be considered. Chair Squires pointed out that when this matter came forward, there were discussions regarding the fact that this Multiple Family piece of property would be entirely surrounded by Single Family residential property, which is sometimes referred to as "spot-zoning." He explained that this area was rezoned to Medium Density, because of the possibility of life cycle housing, which the Metropolitan Council and other organizations encourage. He stated if there was no guarantee that the developer was going to build what was mutually agreed upon, it would be appropriate to go back and revisit the issue of this Medium Density piece, in the middle ofthe Single Family. Commissioner Apel added that the fact that this situation exists, in itself, would appear to be a large enough issue to revisit the decision making, and attempt to reinstate the original zoning. Commissioner Hedin pointed out that if the final plan were approved as presented, this discussion would be moot, because the proposal would have been approved within the one-year period. He added that if it were not approved, the developer would have to submit another Preliminary Plat, and would commence another one-year sunset from the date of its approval. He advised that if approval is not granted until after March 2, the Commission's recommendation to approve the Rezoning to the R-4 designation would give the Council opportunity to do so at the March 3 City Council meeting. Chair Squires stated there appeared to be many issues with the Preliminary _ Plat, which will have to be sorted out by the Council and the City Attorney in terms of whether or not the developer has an absolute right to have a Preliminary Plat. He stated there is an issue of inconsistency, in terms of the simple modifications to the Preliminary Plat that Mr. Finley has referenced, which might be interpreted otherwise. He advised that the Final Plat must be consistent with the Preliminary Plat. He explained that if it is not, and the developer does not provide the covenants for senior housing o that are consistent with what the City has requested, the Council would have to decide if the o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 25,2000 Page 14 r-\ <.J developer has complied with that condition. He stated the decision would initially be made by the City Council regarding whether or not the developer has a right to Final Plat approval, and if it is concluded that they do not, the Council would have to consider whether or not it is appropriate to Rezone. Chair Squires stated there are standards for rezoning, which is a legislative act by the City, and there must be reasons and rationale for rezoning. He stated he agreed with Mr. Finley, in that the City could not rezone property on a whim, however, he does not believe the City must have evidence of a comprehensive study in order to do so. Chair Squires stated the Commission was been involved in the initial decisions made on this proposal, and Commissioner Apel, who participated on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force, has much background on this issue. He stated the residents who live in the surrounding areas have also provided their input. He advised that they were all aware of the nature of the surrounding areas, therefore, there is sufficient information before the Commission to determine whether or not the Rezoning would be appropriate, in the absence of the right of the developer to obtain the Final Plat approval on this proposal. ... -...., \. ~ Commissioner Hedin stated the property was rezoned in order to allow for the Preliminary Plat, therefore, if the Preliminary Plat is not obtained approval, there is sufficient reason to divert back to the R-4 designation, to provide for buffering. He stated he would be in favor of recommending approval of the Rezoning, contingent upon the lack of final approval of the original Preliminary Plat, which is for the Council to determine. Mr. Hinzman advised that in the past, the City has entered into contractual rezonings, with certain conditions placed upon them. He stated generally, rezonings are either an up or down amendment of the ordinance. He explained that in the past they have added some conditions to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, when there was concern that the rezoning only proceed if the City Council were to deny the Preliminary Plat, and this might be an appropriate place to indicate this condition. Commissioner Apel stated he did not believe the Commission should be indicating conditions at this time, because the condition exists, with or without it being specified in the instrument, itself. He stated it was obvious that if the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat as presented, the point is moot. Commissioner Daninger stated he agreed with this. He explained that the goal of a public hearing is to allow the public to speak, as well as to gather information. He stated what they were attempting provide the Council with information to utilize during the decision making process, and much has come forward. He reiterated that the consideration currently before the Commission was to recommend approval or denial of the Rezoning, and as they would all like to proceed with this matter, he would move to recommend approval. C) () () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 15 o Motion by Dalien, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R -00, a resolution amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Andover to change the Land Use District Designation from RM, Residential Medium Density to RU, Residential Urban Single Family on 60 acres located in the NE Y. of Section 22 owned by Grey Oaks, Inc. (PIN 22-32-24-11-0002). Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Chair Squires stated the reason for this action is to provide the Council the opportunity to review the minutes and adopt a specific reason, which in his mind, is the essence and the very reason that the zoning change was made. He added that it also appears that by operation of law or otherwise, the basis for the understanding and meeting of the minds of the City and the developer may no longer exist, based upon the comments made. Motion by Falk, seconded by Apel, to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance No.8 ----" an ordinance amending Ordinance No.8, Section 6.03, Zoning District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, 1-abent vote. commissioner Da1ien stated the reasons for this action are the same as those outlined by Chair Squires in the previous motion. o Mr. Hinzman stated these items would be considered at the March 6, Special City Council Meeting. He indicated that this would occur after the expiration ofthe sunset clause, therefore the City Council may desire to make a motion in this regard, during a regular meeting in February, at a prior to that date. He stated that under the advice of legal counsel, the Council did not desire the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning be brought forward until after the expiration of the one-year sunset clause. DISCUSSION: REVIEW ZONING ORDINANCE - SIGNS IN RESIENTIAL DISTRICTS. Mr. Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission, at the request of the City Council at their January 4,2000 meeting, is asked to review Ordinance No.8 (the Zoning Ordinance), Section 8.07- signs in residential districts. Mr. Hinzman stated this matter stems from earlier discussion regarding a request to allow a 32 square-foot sign to remain at property located on Prairie Road, where it has existed for approximately 16 years. The City Council concurred with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that there was no hardship on the property, and therefore, denied the request for variance, however, directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to re-examine the provision of the sign ordinance that allows signs in residential areas. Mr. Hinzman stated staff has researched the sign provisions of other communities that are similar to Andover, in terms of their location on the rural urban edge of the Twin Cities area. He indicated the o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 16 o o maximum square-footage requirements in these communities range between two square feet and 32 square feet. Mr. Hinzman stated staff has come forward with recommendations for the Commission's consideration. He indicated that the major concern was that they did not wish to allow large signs in dense areas. He explained that a promulgation of large signs in an urban area would detract from the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hinzman stated staff had desired to set up a provision that would allow larger signs in the rural areas. He explained that a number of these signs already exist along Hanson Boulevard, which advertise the sod companies in this location, and there are also signs on Round Lake Boulevard for the agricultural enterprises that have been operating in this area for a long period of time. He indicated staff would like to have a provision in the ordinance which would legally allow these signs to remain, however, set an acreage requirement that would only allow them on larger acreage pieces, and only for permitted uses in the particular zones. () Mr. Hinzman stated one of the options would be to consider a minimum acreage requirement for larger signs. He indicated that a 5-acre minimum requirement would keep the signs out of the urban areas, and most of the platted areas. He noted that the City's agricultural uses require a minimum of 5 acres, as well. He explained one alternative would be to permit a strict 32 square foot size, or 4' by 8', which is a standard sign size for identification purposes. He stated another option would be to stagger the size, based upon acreage, for example, to allow 16 square feet on properties between 5 and 20 acres in size, and 22 square feet on 20 acres or larger. Commissioner Apel inquired if signs are currently prohibited in platted areas. Mr. Hinzman stated the provision currently indicates a maximum of 4 square feet per unit, across the board. Commissioner Apel inquired if a 4-foot sign would also be permitted in an urban area. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. Commissioner Dalien inquired if the signs were permitted to advertise a home business. Mr. Hinzman advised that at this time, the City does not have any provisions regarding the message of the sign. Chair Squires inquired if there were no limitations in terms of commercial or non-commercial slgnage. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He indicated this would be for residential areas only. He stated they would continue to have the 4 square-foot requirement for properties under 5 acres in size, and recommend that size be extended for properties larger than 5 acres. o o o o o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 17 Commissioner Falk inquired regarding the size requirements for business signs. Mr. Hinzman explained that business signs vary by zoning district. He indicated the provisions that regulate the size of these signs are based upon the size of the building, the frontage of the property, and so forth. Commissioner Apel advised that there has not been a problem with regard to the business district, and this matter is a residential concern. Mr. Hinzman indicated that after this issue came forward, he noticed a number of signs in the City that are technically illegal. He stated many of these signs have existed for a long period of time, and some predate the Zoning Ordinance, however, he did not notice that they are presenting an issue, in terms of degrading the community. Chair Squires inquired if staff perceived a problem exists with regard to residential signs in the urban residential area. Mr. Hinzman stated staff did not. He commented that the primary concern in this regard is the number of signs located at intersections, which on occasion, may result in reduced visibility, and have to be removed. Commissioner Apel stated there should be consideration for the larger properties, which sometimes raise horses or have dog kennels. He stated it would be reasonable to allow larger signs on such properties Chair Squires stated it was appropriate to allow larger signs to distinguish between rural and urban areas, and lot size. He stated he accepted staffs rationale for this, and would support this for 2.5- acre properties. He indicated that the larger 5 acre parcels transition into an entirely type of use. Commissioner Apel suggested the requirement be 4 square feet in platted areas, and outside the platted areas, if greater than a certain number of acres, be a certain size. He advised that this should be a single square footage requirement, rather than based upon the size of the lot. He stated 32 square- foot sign on a property of 5 acres or more would not be unreasonable. Commissioner Hedin agreed. Commissioner Dalien noted a provision in staffs recommendation, which indicates "The message content of these signs shall not advertise a home based business (with the exception of permitted agricultural businesses). He inquired if staffs intent was that home based business not be allowed to utilize signage. Mr. Hinzman explained that the intent of this provlSlon was to prevent advertising of illegal businesses. o u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 18 r----"" U Commissioner Apel pointed out that an illegal business would not be permitted to operate. Commissioner Dalien stated he was concerned that a legitimate home-based business, which has been permitted by the City, would not be allowed to advertise. He advised that the message of the sign should not be limited to agricultural businesses. Commissioner Hedin agreed. He stated that outside the platted area, a legal business with a sign up to 32 square feet in size would be acceptable. Chair Squires stated inside the platted area, the maximum size requirement would be 4 square feet. Commissioner Dalien inquired if it would then be possible to have a 4' x 8' sign on an unplatted lot. Commissioner Apel stated this would only apply to properties that are five acres or more in size. He stated he would indicate "greater than 5 acres, and unplatted." Commissioner Daninger stated there was a concern with regard to the potential verbiage of the signs. He noted there was no means to regulate this, however, he would hope the use of signs would be done in good taste. C) Mr. Hinzman advised that there is no provision that regulates message content. Commissioner Hedin stated he would move to indicate that the sign size not exceed 32 square feet, in unplatted areas, greater than 5 acres in size. Mr. Hinzman inquired if the Commission wished to add language regarding message content. Commissioner Apel stated the message content would not be restricted. Commissioner Daninger inquired if there were any provisions relating to the condition of the sign. Mr. Hinzman advised that there is a provision that regulates this in the Sign Ordinance. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Apel, to recommend to the City Council that the maximum square- footage of signs in unplatted areas, greater than 5 acres in size, shall not exceed 32 square feet, and that the message content of signs shall not be restricted. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, 1- absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Hinzman updated the Commission regarding recent Council actions. He indicated that at the January 18 City Council meeting, the Special Use Permit request for the US West Wireless o telecommunications tower on South Coon Creek Drive was denied. He advised that in conjunction (J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 25,2000 Page 19 (J r-, U with this, the Council adopted an ordinance, which places a one-year moratorium on cell towers. He noted this matter may come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission for further discussion in the future. Mr. Hinzman stated the Council adopted the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance, and considered the Zoning Ordinance, however, would hold off on approval of this item, to allow for further review of the Multiple Family Housing Provisions. Mr. Hinzman advised that no items have been scheduled for consideration at February 8 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He indicated that if there were no submittals prior to noon, the following day, this meeting would be cancelled. He noted the possibility of several public hearings at the February 22 meeting. Chair Squires requested an update regarding the plans for the High School. (-, "J Mr. Hinzman stated approximately a week ago, the School Board held a meeting in this regard. He stated they are currently considering three potential sites, which include the 80 acres just south of the landfill, which is owned by the City, the acreage just south of Woodlawn Estates and Crosstown Boulevard, and a site located south of 161 51 Avenue. He noted they are also considering a site in the city of Ramsey. He advised that the School Board is currently reviewing these sites, and conducting feasibility studies. He indicated that they would present their recommendation at a future meeting. Mr. Hinzman stated the School Board is currently leaning toward the 161 51 Avenue site, contingent upon obtaining sewer and water services. He advised that this property is located outside of the MUSA, and there is an issue regarding whether or not a separate line could be placed to serve the school at this location. He indicated there were some soil issue problems with regard to the site located just south of Woodlawn Estates, however, he was uncertain if this would invalidate this site. Commissioner Apel noted that a separate line had been run to service the Elementary School. Mr. Hinzman pointed out that there is a problem with this land, in terms of buildability in between it, which is questionable, and is comprised of peat. He stated they are considering treating it as a service lateral line, at this point. Commissioner Apel inquired if the gravity fed sewer went all the way up to Verdin Street. Mr. Hinzman stated it did not run quite as far to the west, and ended on the eastern border of this site. Commissioner Apel stated the development on 161 51 Avenue and Constance Street, to the west of Nightingale Street, is a fairly dense area, comprised of parcels less than 2.5 acres in size. He indicated this is a septic tank area. Commissioner Hedin inquired if this site would be ruled out if they had to utilize a septic system. o Mr. Hinzman stated he was uncertain, however, the primary goal was to obtain City services. r-\ \..-.' . , ,--) ~\ ( - _,I I, ~j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2000 Page 20 () Commissioner Hedin stated he attended the open School Board meeting that was held at the arena, and the majority of those in attendance were residents of Andover. He stated that everyone he spoke with indicated that if there was any question regarding whether or not the High School would be located in Andover, they would not have voted for the bond issue. He pointed out that many people would be upset if the site in Ramsey were selected. Commissioner Apel commented that the residents of Ramsey do not appear to be very interested in the idea, however, this site is being considered because it has access to water and sewer. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He indicated that this site is also one intact parcel, which is reasonably well priced, however, the point against it is that it is not centrally located. He stated the original goal of the High School was to alleviate overcrowding in the Anoka and Blaine High Schools. He explained that the boundary between those two districts is the Burlington Northern railroad tracks, therefore, a site in Andover would be centrally located to both of those schools, whereas a school in Ramsey would not be. He pointed out that there are means to accommodate this problem, such as bussing, however, the long term costs would determine if this would be worthwhile. Commissioner Hedin inquired if it would be 10 years before another bond issue could be passed. He pointed out that this would mean there would be 10 years in Andover, with 400 permits per year to go in, and no High School to accommodate the children. Chair Squires stated a bond issue could be passed every year, if the citizens would support it. He commented that the Council should be commended for putting the 161'1 Avenue site on the table. He pointed out that this was the planned expansion of the commercial park, and this offering is a sign that the Council is in support of keeping the High School in Andover. There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.