Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 28, 2000 C) o o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 2000 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called . to order by Chair Jay Squires on March 28, 2000, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Mark Hedin, Tim Kirchoff, Dean Daninger, and Chairperson Jay Squires. Maynard Apel, Douglas Falk, and Larry Dalien. Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Planner, John Hinzman Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 14,2000 Commissioner Daninger stated that he was not present at the last meeting and therefore would like to make a change in the minutes that he did not make the motion to approve the minutes from the February 22,1999 meeting. Chair Squires stated that the minutes should read that a general motion was made to approve the minutes from the February 22, 1999 meeting. Motion by Falk, seconded by Daninger, the minutes be approved as ammended. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated that a letter was received from Mary Cook who resides at 15964 Uplander Street NW in regard to a complaint against the City Council meeting on March 21, 2000. The letter was written to all Councilmembers and Planning and Zoning Commission members. Mr. Squires briefly summarized the concerns of the homeowner and explained that the issue is up for further discussion at the next City Council meeting. PRESENTATION: PROPOSED BROOKE CROSSING - 60 LOT, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - PRESENTATION BY LAURENT COMPANIES. o Regular Andover PlanningQ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 2 o Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg called on a representative from Laurent Companies who in turn called on his business partner, Terry Forebord to present the Sketch Plan of the proposed Brooke Crossing Planned Unit Development. Mr. Forebord began his presentation by giving a brief history of the company and explaining that most of their developments have been in the western suburbs and consisted of special projects. He stated that they like to avoid subdividing property, since it typically results in slicing up the land. Mr. Forebord explained that they will go through the neighborhood taking a look at the land and space available to determine the best plan for the City and community. His presentation consisted of numerous drawings and maps to give a detailed picture of what the people could expect of the development. Some of the amenities the development will include are a bridge over a culvert, trails, enhanced street lighting, tot lot, groupings of mailboxes, and a stonewall located at the main entrances. He mentioned that the development would also have an Association where the homeowners would pay a monthly fee to maintain the tot lot and the main entrances to the development. Mr. Forebord explained that it is possible to provide these amenities because the development is a PUD. He also stated that by developing a PUD with the homes closer together it is possible to maintain the rural atmosphere since the homeowners will look out onto wetlands and wildlife, whereas if the land is subdivided these opportunities are not available. (J PUBLIC HEARING: SKETCH PLAN BROOKE CROSSING - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - LAURENT COMPANIES - 60 LOTS ON 138.57 ACRES. Mr. Carlberg provided an overview of the proposed development. He explained that the proposed sketch plan consists of 60 single-family rural residential lots on 138.57 acres. The proposed sketch plan is located in an R-I, single-family rural zoning district. The minimum lot size standard in an R-I district is 2.5 acres. Ordinance No. 112, regulating planned unit developments allows lots below the minimum lot size provided the overall gross density does not exceed the district requirement. Ordinance No. 112 also allows up to a 20% density increase, which was further explained in the staff report. Mr. Carlberg stated that a special use permit will be required in accordance with ordinance No. 112 to develop a PUD. He further mentioned that the property is currently enrolled in the agricultural preserve program. The property will be decertified on September 9, 2000. Mr. Carlberg explained that a comprehensive plan amendment will be required to change the land use designation from A, Agricultural preserve to RR, Rural Residential. Furthermore, all lots shall be required to meet the provisions of ordinance No. 10, section 9.06a(3) that relates to buildablity requirements. o Mr. Carlberg mentioned that the Water Resource Management plan shall be implemented with the development, and the I, 10, and 100-year flood elevations shall be identified on the preliminary plat. In addition drainage and utility easements are required for the 100-year flood o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 3 o elevations. He also explained that the developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits prior to any development Mr. Carlberg stated that the wetlands within the proposed development must be delineated by agencies and indicated on the preliminary plat. The Local Government Unit is the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO). The LRRWMO will verify and approve the wetland delineation. Mr. Carlberg stated that the developer is required to meet a number of City Ordinances in order to be approved for the site. He also explained that the Park and Recreation Commission would be reviewing the sketch plan at their April 6, 2000 meeting. It was mentioned that the Commission would most likely be recommending the acceptance of cash in lieu of land. C) Mr. Carlberg explained that the Andover Review Committee met on March 16, 2000 to discuss the sketch plan. Some of the comments from the meeting are as follows: street names do not match City grid, street right-of-way width in an rural area is 60' not 50' as proposed, connect cul-de-sac street labeled Northcross Way to the west to 180th Avenue NW. Another comment was to eliminate the street connection of Mahoney Brook Drive to Hanson, and instead access to Hanson should be made via 177th Avenue NW. In order to make this connection possible Southcross Way or Oakwood Court would need to extend to 177th Avenue NW. Another comment was that discussion would be needed on the designation of 177th Avenue NW as a Municipal State Aid Road. Some other comments were: to recommend the developer sketch the property to the west of 177th Avenue NW, eliminate bulb or bubble cul-de-sac on Field Cress Pass serving lots 3-4 block 8, trails along 181st Avenue NW and Hanson need to be examined, trails need to be identified as a public or private, setbacks for an R-1 District are not being met and deviations from these setbacks can be granted as a part of the PUD, and buildability of lots will need to be examined. He mentioned that some of the items listed will need to be addressed as a part of the sketch plan review and some of the items will need to be addressed as part of the preliminary plat application and review. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to open the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Richard Jenkins, 177th Lane NW, stated concerns regarding the size of the lots. He believes the PUD development sounds great, however is concerned with the access to Hanson via 177th Lane NW. He mentioned that with all the small children in the neighborhood and with his child having special developmental needs, it becomes a concern for safety. Lauren Homenson, 177th Lane NW, stated the development looks great if you're a developer. She mentioned that her concern is with 177th Lane NW connecting with Hanson Boulevard. Her reasoning for the concern is due to the increase in speed and level of traffic. C) Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 4 o Dave Sa wIers, 18(jh Avenue, questioned as to why the City doesn't stick to the Ordinances that already exist, because when he moved to his current property it was a requirement to have a 2.5- acre lot. He spoke concerns regarding a number of issues such as: increased street lighting, increased housing density, and the future possibility of City water and sewer. Mr. Sawlers expressed that the appearance of a culvert is a rural amenity and the people in our community appreciate the rural appearance. He stated that a development like this affects a lot of people due to the increase in traffic levels, future developments, and future water and sewer. Mr. Sawlers stated that they ended up here by choice buying 2.5 acres lots, and therefore doesn't want the higher density homes adjacent to our homes. He referred to the developer's statement regarding the new PUD development having a wholistic look, however he believes there is nothing more wholistic then the farm adjacent to his property. Lisa Kowalski, 1990 18r Avenue, stated concerns with 180th Lane since it is located in her backyard. Furthermore, she questioned whether or not the tot lot and trails would be available to the children in the adjoining neighborhoods since they are also affected by the development. Also mentioned was that the schools may need to be notified since the increase in homes will increase the future numbers for the School District. o Dave Jazurski, 18(jh Avenue, mentioned concerns regarding the future look of the development. He stated that concerns with neighborhood having a residential look instead of a rural community atmosphere. Furthermore, he questioned why the City of Andover is not complying with the Ordinances that already exist. Lily Grant, , expressed concern about the neighborhood not maintaining the look of a rural community if there is an increase in streetlights. She was also concerned with the preservation of the wetlands and wildlife, which is what so many people enjoy and find relaxing. Furthermore, she mentioned that putting in a drainage system would only destroy these wetlands and take away what most people enjoy most about their property. Other concerns she had been: the grading of roads, the amount of dirt need to develop the road, the septic systems, and the future quality of water. Gary Lunthia, 2125 171h Lane, stated he owns the property to the west of the development and is concerned with the future trails, since their property is adjacent to the trails and people often tend to wander off the trails. He was also concerned with 177th Lane being a through street, since he has a child that would be riding his bike in the area, in addition to the road possibly running through his property. Mr. Lunthia explained that the increase in traffic on 177th Lane would impact their neighborhood greatly due to the large amount of children. His only other concern was with the Association Dues, and how the amount of dues would be established per property owner. () o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 5 o Miles Lubrant, 171h Lane, stated he lives right across the street from Gary Lunthia. He mentioned concerns with 177th Lane possibly being a through street and what the implications it will cause due to an increase in traffic levels. Louie Gray, 171h Lane NW, made comments regarding the decrease in minimum lot size in comparison to when they moved to Andover. He explained that it used to be a requirement to have a 2.5-acre lot in order to build within their community; the large lots were partly the reason they decided to move to Andover. Mr. Gray also mentioned concern with the storm ponds, wells, and septic due to the increase in density of homes being proposed in the development. He stated concern about the engineering plan of the ponds, since the ponds are a critical part of the wildlife habitat and if not developed and preserved correctly we will loose the wildlife. Finally, he questioned as to who would pay for the installation of 177th Lane connecting to Hanson Boulevard, and in turn the increase in speed the road will cause since it would be a through street. (J Bill Wagner, 17750 Swallow Circle, stated there was no notification to the communities in the area. He stated that the development directly involves the communities in the surrounding areas and therefore neighboring developments need to be informed of any public hearings concerning the development. Finally, he explained that there is nothing that will benefit the surrounding communities as a whole since there will be a dramatic increase in traffic in the area and with all the young children it will only pose as a safety hazard. Nancy Lemke, 2135 171h Lane, expressed concern as to how the two lots on 1 77th Lane will be integrated into the plan. Martita Stumrigltt, 171h Lane, expressed concern regarding the size oflots they are proposing when in prior years it was mandatory to have a minimum 2.5-acre lot in order to build. Other concerns were the proposal of 177th Lane being a through street, and the future quality of water in the area since there will be an increase in septic systems in the area due to increased housing density. Rodney Saba, 1640 171h Avenue, stated his concern regarding the proposed lot sizes in the development, and the condition of the road adjacent to a farmer at the end of the street. He mentioned that the road would require a minimum of a ton road since the farmer has large equipment necessary for his lifestyle; furthermore the increase in traffic will be too much for the street to even handle. () Rick Rosar, 1800 Vale Street, explained that he is located beyond the boundaries of the notification area but feels the area concerns a much larger area. He stated concern with the size of lots, since they would be inconsistent with neighboring areas and would decrease the property value for the current property owners. C) o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Carlberg explained that state regulations require everyone within 350 feet of the property line to be informed of any public hearings. However, the City is looking at expanding that notification rule since it is becoming a problem in our rural community. Mr. Sawlers stated that this development is being proposed in a rural area and since it is much more urbanized it doesn't belong in our area. Ms. Kowalski stated her concern with the urbanized development going up in a rural area, in addition to the proposal of 180th Avenue being a through street since it is on two sides of her property. Shar Henski, 18r Street, stated it is important that the board base their decision based on what it is best for the community, the City and the property owners, since all are directly affected. Todd Karalt, 1718 Uplander Street, stated they decided to move to Andover to a 2.5-acre lot since they had children and enjoyed the rural community, however the proposed development is like an urban island trying to fit in a rural area. o Al Mogenson, 177h Lane, stated in the past he had created a petition to convince the City that a speed limit sign was necessary on 177th Lane, however it fell through and all that was offered was a "watch for children sign". He mentioned that the level of speed would only increase on 1 77th Lane if it becomes a through street. Finally, he raised concern on the impact the additional 60 homes will have on the School District in future years. Joe Snaber, 1795 Osage Street, questioned the developer on the prices of the lots, and the type of homes proposed for the development. He also stated concern with the size of lots since it use to be mandatory to build on a 2.5 acre lot, and what the increased density of homes will do to the quality of water in the area. Mary Saxon, , challenged the developer to visit their neighborhood to witness the welcome feel received while the neighbors all converse, and the children play. Linda Gray, , questioned the developer as to how many trees will be taken down in order to create the new development. She explained that the trees are what make a neighborhood and if the oak trees, etc. are taken down in the development the new trees take 15-20 years to fill out, as a result giving the development a "new" look for years. C) Richard , 177h Lane, stated his concern with the route into the neighborhood is via Hanson Boulevard and 181 st, which will directly affect the property owners in the surrounding areas. He stated that the people who already live there like things they way they are; however with the recommendation the City Staff is making will only increase the problem of traffic control. Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 7 r-, ~) Mr. Forebord explained that the area proposed for the development has no interior access from the parcel to the Upland area. He stated that it would not be environmentally sound to do so, however the City does plan to extend the road someday. It was mentioned that the staff report states there would be state aid in the extension of the road, however it is important that the whole area doesn't get developed at one time. Due to the location of those lots the City has not decided those issues and when the lots are developed that is when the decisions will be made. Mr. Forebord responded to the questions and concerns of the audience. He explained that what is more important than the size of lots developed is the feeling one gets when walking through a neighborhood. Also mentioned was that the objective of using a PUD is to have more open space surrounding the development, which gives the area a more open feeling. He stated that by offering a variety of amenities the not only will the development gain but so will the City. Mr. Forebord explained that the price of homes in the development will start at $300,000 and will be single-family homes. () Mr. Forebord stated that they don't believe it is necessary to have lights everywhere, but also feel that there are locations that street lights can be a plus and act as an enhancement. He explained that they are proposing the lighting chosen sheds light downward and not upward, and if the City decides not to have lighting that is also acceptable. Mr. Forebord explained that the septic systems design has evolved immensely in recent years; therefore the systems installed far surpass the quality of any system older than five years. Mr. Forebord explained that a PUD is a perfect solution to protect the wetlands. He explained that by keeping the lots closer together allows the housing to keep further from the wetlands. It was stressed that every commitment is being made to the City to protect the wetlands, sewers, and quality of water. Mr. Forebord stated the rural nature is important to them, and the intent is not to make it urban however if one were to drive two minutes from the site the community looks very rural. He mentioned that it is a possibility to sit down with the City and discuss the possibilities of making the development have a more rural look. He brought up that the community of Andover and the City's Zoning Code allows the changes in Ordinances to take place. Mr. Forebord mentioned that if the City Council, Planning Commission, and Park Board feel it is better not to have a Homeowners Association, we would be willing to discuss other options. It is important to understand the reason for a Homeowners Association is to have the funds to maintain areas of the development the City would not, for example the main entrances and the tot lot. Mr. Forebord stated they are open to discussing whether or not the trails would be public or private. o Regular Andover PlanningQ Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 8 r--, \_j Chair Squires questioned if the association maintains the tot lot and trails would members be the only people allowed utilizing the tot lot and walkways. Mr. Forebord explained if the Association maintains the tot lot and trails, then people from other neighborhoods will not be welcomed and encouraged to utilize these features. Mr. Forebord explained he couldn't respond to any questions regarding the School District, since it does not involve him as a developer. He stated that the amount of grading of roads will be kept to a minimum, but explained that it is impossible at this time to know the extent of grading that will be necessary. Mr. Forebord mentioned the ponds would require a treatment for the amount of storm water. The pond flow and rate will be managed, and the City will mandate those regulations. Their goal is to make the pond an amenity since it is a necessary to have one, but they do not plan to affect the water table in any way. Q Mr. Forebord explained the reason the trails lacked detail in his presentation is because this is only a sketch plan, and as the plans become more detailed so will the trails. He stated that trails can be a benefit if people use them, however they can be a negative if they are too close to property or invade privacy of other property owners. These issues will all be addressed as the plan is perfected. It was also mentioned they plan to preserve as many trees as possible in the development, but don't have the details as to exactly how many trees will need to be taken down in the process of developing. Sharon Hense, , questioned who would be paying the Association for the use of the tot lot and trails. In addition she asked who would be responsible for plowing the streets in the winter. Mr. Forebord explained that the streets are City streets therefore the City would be responsible for plowing. Mr. Jenkins stated he hopes the communication lines to the public continues to improve since it is necessary for surrounding neighborhoods to know when meetings take place. Mr. Carlberg explained the process when a new development is proposed. He stated that the City of Andover involves the residents in a very early stage of the planning process. The City requires input from the public, which is not always common in other cities. He stressed that this is only the beginning of the process and the next step will be discussed at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. Ms. Kowalski questioned if it was necessary to put all this money into the amenities of the development, and suggested instead of putting the money into the School Districts. (' " , I '-j Gary Lemke, 2135 177th Lane, stated his concerns regarding a traffic issue on Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg explained that the City doesn't have engineers currently available to respond to the issue on Round Lake Boulevard. He stated that 177th Lane does show going further west on the map, and that he would take his comments to the City Staff and City Council. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 9 r-~ ! , \",j Mr. Sawlers stated his complaint is with the City since it used to be mandatory to build on a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, and now those ordinances are being ammended. He urged the Commission to recommend to the Council to maintain and enforce the 2.5-acre minimum lot size regulation. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 9:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Commissioner Daninger questioned the proposal of 1 77th Lane being a through street, and when it plans to be addressed to City Council. Mr. Carlberg explained that l77th Lane will need to be address if it will remain as a state aid road and if so the City Council will need to give direction at the next City Council meeting on April 18, 2000. Therefore, any recommendations the Commission has should be forwarded to the next Council meeting. r",\ Commissioner Daninger questioned what the PUD not meeting the Metropolitan Council's '---./ regulations means. Mr. Carlberg explained the regulations of the Metropolitan Council, and stated that this development does not meet the density requirements since they are based on a 1 for 10 rule. However, it is important to understand that 10 years ago Andover wasn't complying with the 1 for 10 rule. Chair Squires questioned if the project requires approval from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Carlberg stated that the project itself doesn't require approval, however, the land change issues will require their approval. Chair Squires questioned if it is necessary the Metropolitan Council be informed. Mr. Carlberg stated that he doesn't feel it is required to inform the Metropolitan Council of the specifics, but states we usually do give them an update. Commissioner Hedin questioned what the 1 for 10 rule represents, if for example 60 units are equivalent to 600 acres and if it is a request of the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Carlberg stated he was correct. () '..J Commissioner Daninger questioned if there is currently a PUD next to a 2.5-acre development within the Andover City limits. Mr. Carlberg mentioned that Timber River Estates is a PUD adjacent to a rural development. r- () Regular Andover Planning~ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 10 -----, . I '-' Commissioner Daninger questioned if the Park Board will review the park related concerns. Mr. Carlberg stated that the Park Board will be involved in the park concerns. Commissioner Daninger questioned why the staff recommended to extend the streets. Mr. Carlberg explained that typically when there is a cul-de-sac created, it is usually with the intent to extend it at some point in the future. Commissioner Daninger suggested another possibility to look at would be to utilize Oakwood Court as an extension through to Hanson Boulevard instead of 1 77th Lane. Commissioner Daninger questioned when it will be available to know whether or not the 150 x150 building pad will be required. Mr. Carlberg stated that the number of lots may go down to 50, but at this time we don't have the details to determine the outcome. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if 1 80th Avenue was not a through street, and then would there be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Carlberg explained that it is whole different issue, however there is not a plan for a cul-de-sac at this time. r -) '-' Commissioner Hedin stated concerns with the development creating a cramped feeling, which is _exactly what the community doesn't want for the City. Furthermore, he was concerned with the septic systems being so close together and will this cause future problems. It was also mentioned the possibilities of conflicts that may arise with 1 77th Lane being a through street. Commissioner Daninger questioned what steps need to be taken. Mr. Carlberg explained that the developers plan need to be recommended to the City Council if the Planning Commission so decides. In addition it is necessary for the Commission to state any concerns or comments regarding the 1 77th Lane connection, therefore the Council will have direction. Chair Squires questioned if the Commission believes the standards and PUD ordinances have been met on the developer's behalf. Chair Squires made a special exception to open the public hearing once again for one specific individual to make a comment. ,-, l \ ,--_/ Mr. Forebord explained that the only alternative to a PUD is a subdivision. The benefit of a PUD is that lot lines can be extended into the area where there aren't any lots, which would allow for larger lots. However, since property owners like to have flexibility in what they do on their property, the City would need to put restrictions on those areas for environmental reasons. This is the key to a PUD, since extending the lots it helps to protect those areas to maintain the wetlands. Mr. Forebord believes that environmentally it is better to have smaller lots. o o Q r\ V Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 11 () Commissioner Daninger stated that he is comfortable with the PUD with the number of lots between 35-60 lots, however he has a number of concerns. Chair Squires stated that to preserve the existing wetlands would be a definite argument to support the project. He explained that if a developer can propose smaller lots in a PUD in order to preserve and maintain the wetlands, they would have a selling point to the public. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that the PUD plan is beautiful, however would be better served in MUSA lots since the reason why people move out of the City is for larger lots. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that something is going to develop out in these areas eventually. It is important to remember that the developer is proposing an agriculture preserve which will maintain a portion of the wetlands. Commissioner Hedin questioned how many buildable lots are possible on this site. He also mentioned if it wouldn't be possible to take the amount of acres available and divide it into as many 2.5-acre lots that there is land available. Chair Squires stated that the developer will not see Commissioner Hedin's suggestion as economically feasible. Commissioner Hedin stated so because it isn't economically feasible lets put in a PUD and increase the density, even though the communities surrounding the site are opposed. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the developer created a plan using 2.5 acres lots, which would give the board something to compare the plan against. Mr. Forebord stated that they did not create a plan using 2.5-acre lots, however he did present proposal using 52 lots instead of 60. It was mentioned that 52 lots would be a minimum number of lots proposed. Commissioner Daninger recommended that 177th Lane needs to be further look at as possible through street. Commissioner Kirchoff explained that something is going to develop there and ultimately 177th Lane will be a through street. He also mentioned that the comments and concerns of the public need to be discussed further and taken into consideration, however he recommended the proposal is brought before the City Council. Commissioner Hedin stated that he is uncomfortable with the increase in density, and therefore was unsure ifthe PUD proposed is the best solution for the site discussed. It was also stated that o o o Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 12 o the PUD may be a good solution if there were some changes in the roads, setbacks, and level of density. Commissioner Daninger stated that it is a beautiful PUD, however, the more he hears and the more it is discussed the more opposed he is becoming. Chair Squires focused his comments on the MSA rule. He stated that he encourages the City Council to look into another east/west through street, also determine if even two streets are necessary and if not then eliminate from the plan. Furthermore, he questioned whether or not now is the appropriate time to put 1 77th through as a street at this time. Mr. Carlberg explained that the City Council needs to consider the need for 177th Lane as a through street, and if so figure out the finances and timeline for the road. Chair Squires summarized that the Planning Commission had no majority recommendation to the Council. He stated that the Commission is divided on whether or not the PUD is a good solution in this situation. He reviewed some of the Commission's main concerns are the size of lots proposed and 177th Lane being recommended by staff as a through street. Mr. Carlberg stated that staff will tie some of the "loose ends" together that were discussed prior to the City Council meeting on April 18, 2000. Mr. Forebord thanked the Commission and the audience for their time. He also asked them to consider the proposal and reminded them the plan is only a sketch plan and revisions are possible. Chair Squires called a recess at 10:25 p.m. Chair Squires reconvened the meeting 10:35 p.m. PRESENTATION: WOODLAND WOODS - 73 LOT, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS - PRESENTATION BY WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT INC. Mr. Carlberg called on Byron Westlund, a representative from Woodland Development Company to present the proposed sketch plan of "Woodland Woods" to the Planning Commission. Mr. Westlund presented a brief overview of the proposed sketch plan for the Woodland Woods development. Chair Squires questioned if the substreet lines up with 159th Avenue, as it exists today. Mr. Carlberg pointed out the location of the site on the map, answering Chair Squires question. Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 13 o Mr. Westlund stated they have received comments from the Andover Review Committee. He pointed out the wetland locations on the site, and explained they hope to preserve them as much as possible. PUBLIC HEARING: SKETCH PLAN - WOODLAND WOODS - 39.84 ACRES - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. Mr. Carlberg presented the staff report. He began by reviewing the proposed sketch plan of Woodland Woods located in Section 14. He stated that the proposed sketch plan consists of 73 single-family urban residential lots on 39.84 acres. The proposed sketch plan is located in R-I, Single Family Rural Zoning District. The property will need to be rezoned to R-4, Single Family Urban. In R-4 district, the minimum lot size is 11,400 square feet. The proposed sketch plan is not consistent with the existing Andover comprehensive plan as the property is designated as RR, Residential Rural and is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). However, the draft comprehensive plan currently before the Metropolitan Council shows the sketch plan to be consistent with the land use plan, RU, Residential Urban Single Family and is located in the MUSA (2000-2005 time frame). o Mr. Carlberg explained that the property will be required to develop in accordance with the development policy guideline. All lots shall be required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) that relates to buildability requirements. In addition, the front 100 feet of each lot must be buildable which is a standard the City uses for lots developed with municipal sewer and water. He also stated that the water resource management plan shall be implemented with the development, and the I, 10, and 100-year flood elevations shall be identified on the preliminary plat. In addition drainage and utility easements are required for the 100-year flood elevations. Mr. Carlberg mentioned that the developer and/or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits prior to any development. The wetlands within the proposed development must be delineated by agencies and indicated on the preliminary plat. The Local Government Unit (LGU) is the Coon Creek Watershed District (CCWD) who will need to verify the wetland delineation. The developer shall contact the CCWD to discuss the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Mr. Carlberg stated that the developer will be required to meet a number of City Ordinances prior to approval of the plan. He mentioned that the Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the sketch plan at their April 6, 2000 meeting. ~ Mr. Carlberg stated that the Andover Review Committee met on Thursday, March 16, 2000 to discuss the sketch plan. The comments from the meeting are as follows: the developer should sketch adjacent lands as provided in Ordinance 10 - Section 6.04, concern with the street f~ \J Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 14 o extension in the center of the plan to the west to Hanson Boulevard, the extension of 1 56th Lane NW out of the Chesterton Commons Third Addition to the south needs to be discussed, the existing house and accessory structures located on lot 7 - block 6 will need to conform to the setbacks for an R-4, single-family urban district along with existing septic and wells will need to be abandoned in compliance with all applicable codes and procedures, the shed on lot 4- block 6 will need to be removed, a Municipal State Aid road designation is being discussed to the east of the plan from 161st Avenue NW to Crosstown Boulevard NW, a trail is planned along 161st Avenue NW, and a neighborhood park may be needed to serve this area. Mr. Carlberg mentioned that some of the items listed will need to be addressed as a part of the sketch plan review and some will need to be addressed as part of the preliminary plat application and review. Commissioner Hedin questioned what road would run through the development. Mr. Carlberg explained that one of these will need to be extended into a through street. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to open the public hearing at 10:51 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. o Lawrence Emmerich, 1341 161st Avenue, stated he is uncomfortable with how they left the cul- de-sac and, therefore, questioned as to whom will be held responsible. He questioned the purpose of running a street through the middle of a wetland when it is only a one-mile stretch. Mr. Emmerich stated that if the roads are connected properly throughout the development there would be plenty of access in an out ofthe area. Mr. Carlberg explained that the City is not neglecting 156th Lane, however, the need for the state aid has nothing to do with those issues rather the importance to coordinate the effective access throughout the development. Mr. Westlund explained that he understands the concern of a state aid road, but noted there is wetlands that do exist that are not pointed out on the map standing before us. Mary McCartney, 10460 Palm Street NW, stated concerns on why 156th Avenue NW would need to be routed on their property. She suggested that 156th Avenue NW remain as a cul-de- sac, which helps to maintain the wetlands by not creating a through street. She questioned what will be the next step in the approval process after tonight. Ms. McCartney also stated that they are opposed to the idea of a state road. Mr. Carlberg explained that the next meeting where the Woodland Woods development will be discussed is at the City Council meeting on April 18, 2000. He mentioned that the reason for possibly extending 156th Avenue NW would not be to gain additional lots, but instead for providing good access into the development for fire and safety reasons. o There was no further public input. C) (J o Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 15 o Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 11 :00 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if I56th Lane was extended, would it interfere with Ms. McCartney's property. Mr. Carlberg explained that it would be on the comer and as a result her lot would end up being a comer lot. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the road would fringe on the wetlands adjacent to her property. Mr. Carlberg explained that there would be some impact on the wetlands next to her property. The developer mentioned that he does not wish to incur any costs as a result of the wetland. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there were standards for a Municipal State Aid road. Mr. Carlberg stated he would have that information available for the upcoming meetings on April 4 and April 18, 2000. Commissioner Hedin stated he doesn't see a need for another road going through that specific area. Mr. Carlberg explained the plan is in the early stages and, therefore, changes may be necessary after it has been thoroughly discussed. Commissioner Daninger stated the Municipal State Aid road will be addressed, but the other issue is the safety concerns that go along with having a long cul-de-sac. Other than the comments the Andover Review Committee has made, these are the only two issues of concern. Commissioner Hedin stated he doesn't feel that a I,500-foot cul-de-sac would be necessary for that development. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what is located at Lot 15 in the Woodland Woods development. A member from the audience explained that Lot 15 consists of wetlands. Commissioner Hedin questioned if is there enough land for a road to cross through that area. Mr. Carlberg is unsure if there is enough land available, however, he will research the possibilities before the next meeting. Chair Squires recommended that staff come up with some more concrete alternatives prior to going before the Council. Mr. Carlberg agreed that more information needs to be gathered prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLITN ARlANCE (LS\V AR 00-05) - 17138 AZTEC STREET - DIVIDE A 1.28 ACRE PARCEL BETWEEN TWO ADJOINING PROPERlTES - ALAN NORTON\LARRY ELFEL T. o o o Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 16 o City Planner John Hinzman presented the request of variance to the mInimum lot size requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 for the remnant parcel. A covenant would be filed to combine the split parcel with the adjacent northern and southern properties owned by Larry Elfelt and Alan Norton, respectively. The property is zoned R-2, single-family estate. The property is at 17138 Aztec Street NW, legally described as Lot 1, Block 3, Valley View Estates 2nd Addition. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the Ordinances that apply to the request stated above. The applicant is requesting to combine the properties for tax purposes, with Lot 1 being vacant and Lot 2 containing the applicant's home. Mr. Norton is proposing to divide Lot 1, retaining the southern half and selling the northern half to adjacent property owned by Larry Elfelt at 17216 Aztec Street. The vacant lot was created during the platting of Valley View Estates 2nd Addition in 1972. Changes in flood plain regulations have rendered the lot unbuildable, with the majority of the lot lying within the 100 year-flood plain. Mr. Hinzman explained that the City has granted variances in the past to mInimum lot requirements in order to rearrange property lines on platted lots with the stipulation that remnant parcels be combined with adjacent property to meet minimum lot requirements. Both lots would exceed the minimum size requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 upon execution of the proposed lot split and combination. He mentioned that the temporary nature of the variance and undue hardship created by replatting to rearrange property lines have been recognized as acceptable hardship criteria in the past. Mr. Hinzman stated staff recommends approval of the lot split variance with certain conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there are 3 lots involved and they are requesting to subdivide one in half. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is land to the west of Aztec Street. Mr. Hinzman stated there is land just to the west of Aztec Street. Larry Elfelt, the applicant, explained that there is some buildable land on site, which is where he plans to build a garage. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 11:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. There was no public input. (~i '--- - ) Regular Andover Planning Q Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 17 o Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 11: 13 p.m. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split and variance with the following conditions: 1. That a covenant be filed to join that part of Lot I, Block 3, VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 2ND ADDITION lying south of the north 110.00 feet with Lot 2, Block 3, VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 2ND ADDITION so that it cannot be sold separately. 2. That a covenant be filed to join the north 110 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 2ND ADDITION with Lot 8, Block 2, VALLEY VIEW ESTATES so that it cannot be sold separately. 3. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. r '\ VARIANCE - CONSTRUCT DECK ENCROACHING INTO SIDEY ARD SETBACK - \.J 3547 133RD LANE NW - CURT HOLTE Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson presented an overview of the variance request of applicant Curt Holte. He explained that Mr. Holte is requesting a variance to allow for the construction and placement of a deck which will encroach into the ten foot sideyard setback from the interior lot line on the property located at 3547 133rd Lane NW, legally described as Lot 23, Block 3, Woodland Terrace Fourth Addition. The property is zoned R-4, Single-Family Urban. Mr. Johnson mentioned the Ordinances that apply to the particular request. He explained that similar variances have been granted in the past for decks that have encroached up to three feet into the ten-foot sideyard setback from the interior lot line. In most cases, the variances that have been granted in the past have allowed more deck space in order for the property owner to functionally utilize their deck. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this was the residence where there was a slab of cement installed recently. Mr. Johnson stated that that was another residence. Mr. Holte stated that to his knowledge there was a deck on the one side of the house at one time, however, he is unsure if it encroached the property line. ~ '-../ Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to recommend approval to the City Council of the variance request of Curt Holte to allow for the construction and placement of a deck which will Regular Andover Planning [)zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 18 o (-- . \.. .J encroach into the ten foot sideyard setback from the interior lot line on the property located at 3547 133rd Lane NW, legally described as Lot 23, Block 3, Woodland Terrace Fourth Addition. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE 57 & 8 - SECTION 4.04 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 28 - DONALD EVELAND Mr. Hinzman presented an overview of the request submitted by the applicant Donald Eveland. The subject property is approximately 64.2 acres and is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. The applicant is requesting to vary from the one unit per quarter section maximum density and 300 foot frontage provision of Ordinance 57, Section 4B, and to vary from the buildable lot provision requiring street frontage of Ordinance 8, Section 4.04. Mr. Hinzman listed the applicable Ordinances pertaining to the applicant's request. Mr. Eveland owns and farms approximately 144 acres west of Crosstown Boulevard in Sections 27 and 28. Independent School District No. 11 has selected the eastern 80 acres owned by the applicant for a High School Site. The School District construction plans would require the removal of two "", homes and accessory buildings owned by the Eveland family. The applicant desires to relocate '--" his operation, by constructing two homes and accessory buildings to the western landlocked 64 acres ofland. Mr. Hinzman reported the staff review regarding agricultural density. First, the City Council has not entertained or granted a variance to Ordinance 57, Agricultural Preserve since its 1982 adoption. Second, the School District intends to condemn the eastern 80 acres for the school. Third, the applicant filed for Agricultural Preserve termination in 1997 for expiration in 2005. Fourth, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion is planned for the western 64 acres during the 2005-2010 time frame. Finally, the condemnation of the Eveland property would create a "practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not created by the property owner" meeting the requirements necessary to grant a variance as defined in Ordinance 57. Mr. Hinzman also reported the minimum street frontage provisions. First, the City of Andover has agreed to construct a roadway between Round Lake Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard as required by the School District. Second, placement of the two homes and accessory buildings could be designed to comply with minimum street frontage and lot requirements of Ordinance 8 and 57 once the roadway is constructed - causing the variances to be temporary in nature. Third, condemnation of the eastern 80 acres eliminates all road frontage to the remaining acreage creating a "practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship not created by the property owner" meeting the requirements necessary to grant a variance as defined in Ordinance 8 and 57. r '. Fourth, the applicant would need to secure a temporary ingress and egress easement across the '.......1 eastern 80 acres until a permanent road is constructed to the property. o o o Regular Andover PlanningQ Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 19 Commissioner Hedin questioned how there can be a setback determined if we don't know how the road will be routed. Mr. Hinzman explained in greater detail the specifics of the two roads, and that it is not being figured from an MSA standpoint. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the School District has decided if they want 80 or 180 acres. Mr. Carlberg explained the School District is unsure at this time as to the amount of acres desired. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the amount of acres the School District desires, will impact the decision made tonight in regard to the variance request. Mr. Hinzman stated that the City of Andover has committed to building a Municipal State Aid road. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the only reason they are moving the building is to build the road. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by the Planning Commission, to recommend approval to the City Council for the following variance requests: 1. Vary from the one unit per quarter section (40 acre) maximum density and 300 foot frontage provision of Ordinance 57, Section 4B(5). 2. Vary from the buildable lot provision requiring street frontage of Ordinance 8, Section 4.04(A). Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. VARIANCE - REAR YARD SETBACK- 143XX BUTTERNUT STREET NW - SEMLER CONSTRUCTION INC. Mr. Johnson presented an overview of the variance request of Semler Construction Inc. The are requesting to allow for the construction and placement of a single family home which will encroach into the rearyard setback on the property located at l43XX Butternut Street NW. The property is zoned R-l, Single Family RuraL Mr. Johnson listed the applicable Ordinances pertaining to the applicant's request. The applicant is requesting to construct a single-family home, which will encroach 34.5 feet into the fifty-foot rearyard setback. The lot currently fronts onto Butternut Street NW, and according to the Comprehensive Sewer Extension Plan will be served 2005-2010. The applicant wants to place o o () Regular Andover PlanningQ Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 20 the new home on the lot in a location that is easily accessible for future urban services when the land is developed. Chair Squires questioned the developer as to why they are selecting to build on this particular lot. Mike Quigley of Semler Construction supported their reasoning for selecting this specific lot. Chair Squires questioned the developer if they were expecting a subdivision to be developed in the future. Mr. Hinzman explained by referring to the map what could be developed in future years. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what will be the width of the proposed lot. The developer stated the width will be 100 feet. Mr. Hinzman stated that under the R-I rule it does not meet the standards, but under the R-4 rule with construction of the road as sketched it would meet the minimum standards. Chair Squires questioned if these standards are in regard to a street. The developer stated that indeed these standard are for a street. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned ifthe street is going to be constructed prior to the house. Mr. Hinzman explained there have been no formal intentions from the developer at this time; also he was unsure of the time frame projected. Mr. Carlberg supported reasoning that would resolve the issue as to whether or not a future road is necessary. Mr. Hinzman explained the location of the road and lot while referring to a City map, per Chair Squires' request. Commissioner Hedin questioned if variance requests have been honored in the past due to hardship. Mr. Hinzman explained that they look at it as a temporary hardship, and we have granted temporary variances in the past. Commissioner Daninger questioned if today you need a variance for a hardship, what is the definition of a hardship. The developer stated that he wouldn't necessarily consider it as a hardship. Commissioner Hedin questioned what the criteria are for granting this variance if this isn't a hardship. Mr. Hinzman explained that there have been temporary variances granted in the past. Commissioner Hedin questioned as to what grounds temporary variances have been granted in the past. Mr. Hinzman stated it is the Commission's responsibility to evaluate the reasoning behind the temporary variance. o c; 0 Regular Andover Planning arh Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 21 Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Hinzman if he could elaborate on examples of temporary variances in past years. Mr. Carlberg explained that there have been unique situations in the past where it made sense for the developer to do it, however, it is difficult to remember the exact details. Commissioner Hedin questioned the developer and the staff as to how they are assured that the developer does indeed build even if a road never goes through. Mr. Hinzman stated there is no sure way of knowing what will happen, but it is very likely the road will go through. Chair Squires stated if one looks at the criteria for a variance in the packet, he believes it is a stretch, however, he agreed that there is a state law that states a variance can be granted where there are practical difficulties. He suggested granting the variance on grounds of practical difficulties and/or hardship. Commissioner Daninger stated that based on the way the request is written, and since there is no hardship, he would deny the request. o The developer explained that this is the most practical way to build the home. Mr. Hinzman questioned if it would be possible to construct a home on one of the other ghost plats in the area. The developer explained that the home has restrictions on where it can be placed and, therefore, the variance request is the most simplified way to handle the problem. Commissioner Hedin stated that he supports the request of the variance, however, is concerned about the time frame since the Commission is unsure at this time as to when the street would go through the area. Commissioner Hedin stated he sees where there could be practical difficulty with the development. Chair Squires explained that there would be major difficulty if it was necessary to pick up the house and relocate. Mr. Hinzman read aloud Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval the variance request of Semler Construction Inc. to allow for the construction and placement of a single family home which will encroach into the rearyard setback on the property located at 143XX Butternut Street NW for reasons of possible future hardship. Motion carried on a 3-ayes, I-nay (Daninger), 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. C) VARIANCE - ROOF PITCH - 14122 PRAIRIE ROAD NW - MARK MENTH r' l...J o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 22 Mr. Johnson presented an overview of the applicant's request of a variance to allow for the construction of an attached garage, which will not meet the minimum roof pitch requirements on the property located at 14122 Prairie Road NW. He mentioned that the property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. Mr. Johnson listed all applicable Ordinances pertaining to the request of this variance. He explained that the applicant is requesting to construct a garage to be attached to the single-family home. The home has a roof pitch less than 3/12 and was constructed in 1959. The applicant would like to tie the existing roofline of the home in with the new garage. The result is a structure that appears to be more desirable from an architectural standpoint. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant, Mark Menth, is out of the country and will be unable to speak on his behalf. Commissioner Kirchoff if the applicants plan to have another access onto Prairie Road. Mr. Johnson explained that they are working to remove the curb in order to widen the current driveway. (J Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance request of Mark Menth to allow for the construction of an attached garage, which will not meet the minimum roof pitch requirements on the property, located at 14122 Prairie Road NW. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 - REAR YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT - 4472 149TH AVENUE NW - ROBERT & ROSEMARIE DONLIN Mr. Hinzman presented an overview of the request for a variance pertaining to the construction of a 14' X 18' screen porch on property located at 4472 149th Avenue NW. He explained that the property is approximately 39,050 square feet and is zoned R-2, Single Family Estate. Mr. Hinzman listed all Ordinances pertaining to the variance request for the listed property. He mentioned that a 15' variance was granted from the 150' minimum lot depth requirement during the plat ofIvywood Estates in 1983. The existing home was constructed in 1987. The applicant has indicated the existing deck was constructed at the time the home was built. The City does not have a copy of the approved building plans, however, the applicant's copy shows footings for a deck. Footings placement shown on new construction plans are considered as part of the overall permit for new construction. It appears that the City permitted the existing deck encroachment. 1'\ \.J Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant has listed the following hardships: One, the inability to reconfigure the porch to meet minimum setback requirements due to the location of a service r, ~) o r\ '0 Regular Andover PlanningQ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 23 o door to the garage. Two, the proposed porch would not encroach any further into the rear yard setback than the existing deck. Mr. Hinzman stated the points of concern the staff has reviewed. One, the reconfiguring or reducing the proposed porch could allow the addition to meet all setback requirements. Two, the existing deck has already violated the rear yard setback provision. Three, an II' rear yard setback variance was granted to construct the neighboring home at 4428 149th Avenue in 1987. Four, similar variances have been granted in the past on homes inadvertently permitted encroaching homes, provided the addition did not encroach further than the original structure. Five, granting the ISO' lot depth variance in 1983 compounded with the 40 foot front yard and 50 rear yard setbacks reduces the area to be developed to 45' in depth. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there has been any local objection. Mr. Hinzman stated that he has heard of no objections from surrounding property owners. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance request for Robert and Rosemarie Donlin at 4472 149th Avenue NW, finding it meets the requirements of Ordinance No.8. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. Chair Squires stated this item would be considered at the April 18, 2000 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hinzman stated that Item 13 has been postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2000. Mr. Hinzman briefed the Planning Commission on the outcome of the issues that were pending with the City Council. He also gave a brief overview of items that will be up for discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hinzman congratulated Doug Falk and his family as they announce the birth of a new baby girl, Gabrielle. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to adjourn. Motion carried on 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent vote. The meeting was adjourned at II :59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t' " ; ) '-/ (--) ,,_.I ~ \...._) () l) Regular Andover Planning 'a,{d Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2000 Page 24 Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc