Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 8, 1998 , \ V .:J F " '-/ (j () CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 8, 1998 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Randy Peek on December 8, 1998, 7:30 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Mike Gamache (arrived at 7:47 p.m.), Don Jacobson, Jeff Luedtke, Lorna Wells Jay Squires, Maynard Apel Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planning, John Hinzman Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Carlberg asked that Item 7, Public Hearing: Revised Preliminary Plat - Chesterton Commons, be withdrawn from the Agenda. The item will be readvertised because of an error in the property description and will be scheduled for the next meeting. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Luedtke, approval ofthe Agenda as amended. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, 3-Absent (Squires, Apel, Gamache) vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 24, 1998: Correct as written. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to approve the Minutes. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 1- Present (Luedtke), 3-Absent (Squires, Apel, Gamache) vote. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,;, GREY OAKS - SECTION 22 - CHESTERTON PARTNERSHIP 7:32 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Chesterton Partnership for a Planned Unit Development to develop a mixed use development consisting of two 65-unit apartments, six 30-unit apartments, 38 twinhomes, 4 single family residential lots and 3 commercial lots to be known as Grey Oaks. The property is about 60 acres in size and is zoned M-2. The Commission tabled the item at the November 24 meeting and requested the developer submit development standards for the project, which has been done. \ \) u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ) Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Jerry Windschitl. Chesterton Partnership - reviewed a scaled drawing of the proposed layout and architectural drawings of the development. The architect on the project also designed the senior complex with town homes in Ham Lake. The buildings are proposed to be brick, stucco and vinyl with a New England village green atmosphere. The units will have washers and dryers. There will be a fountain with an extensive trail system throughout the project as well as picnic and recreational areas. RV storage facilities are also being proposed. A total of 352 residential units are being proposed. The trail system will be private except past the commercial area and down Hummingbird. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending cash in lieu ofland for park dedication. The intent is to custom grade the project to save as many trees as possible and to retain as much green space as possible. An extensive landscaping plan has been submitted to the City. " Mr. Windschitl stated an issue that has been raised is that of parking. They are proposing 1 ~ parking spaces per dwelling unit in the project, which is what they thought was the standard. Typically senior projects provide .75 parking spaces per unit. An interpretation of the ordinance could mean up to 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. The convenience store, office retail and day care will all meet or exceed the parking ordinance. The City Council has not yet approved the TIF district, but there appeared to be a willingness to set aside at least three of the units in the TIF district identical to what was done with the Farmstead project. / Mr. Windschitl went on to explain they worked with the City Staff on the design standards that have been submitted for the project. The minimum design standard is 38 feet from the center of the street to the building. Many structures are further back than that. In the R-4 district, it is 30 feet from the center ofthe road to the boulevard, then 35 feet to the structure. The speed limit will be 30 mph. Mr. Carlberg stated the M-2 zone requires a 40-foot front yard setback. The proposal shows 25 feet for the single family units. The streets will be public. (Commissioner Gamache arrived at this time, 7:47 p.m.) In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Windschitl explained if the TIF district goes through, the three buildings will be rental units. One of the requirements of the TIF district is that the developer write down the rents for senior housing. Any of the units that are not in the TIF would be for sale units at the nonnal market costs. If the TIF district is not approved by the City, all units would be for sale. Commissioner Jacobson questioned what control or guarantee the City has that the development will be senior housing. While the intent of the Council may be to enter into a TIF district on the three units, nothing has been done yet. Mr. Carlberg explained the establishment of a TIF district would guarantee through the use of public funds that those units would be senior rentals. The only other legal method to say this is a PUD for senior and empty nester housing would be to establish a TIF district over the entire project. He also explained how the TIF law works, noting when a TIF district is set up for a housing project, there is no risk to the City or taxpayers. , / \ J , / \ 'oJ -' Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Mr. Windschitl stated their intent is that the entire development be for age 55 and older; however, he cannot make a guarantee because of the federal and state regulations in real estate. From a practical standpoint, the project is being developed and marketed for seniors. He also noted the Anoka County Board's findings on the demand and need for senior empty nester housing in the county. Commissioner Jacobson was concerned if there is no TIF over the entire project, there may not be senior housing there because it will be open to anybody. / Mr. Carlberg then continued with the Staff presentation noting the items to discuss of the development standards presented by the developer, the green space variances in the commercial area, the parking requirements and the proposed entrance onto Nightingale from the RV storage facilities. All three commercial lots need to go through commercial site plan applications individually, and they will be treated as Neighborhood Business zoning designations. A Special Use Permit will be required for the convenience store for the underground storage of bulk liquid fuels. Staff provided drawings to the developer combining the two accesses from the convenience store and office retail building into one to eliminate the conflicts with two accesses. The public trails along Hanson Boulevard, the commercial area and Hummingbird are proposed to be constructed on a 50-50 cost share between the City and the developer. Staff is concerned with the mid-block trail crossings in the development. They will be working with the Coon Creek Watershed to get the trails through the wetlands to avoid those mid-block crossings. Staff is also recommending that the trail be provided along the south side of the day care facility for access because of the potential of the seniors working there. A lift station is needed to service the western portion of the plat plus a portion of Fox Hollow to the south. A geotechnical engineer will be consulted on the two 65-unit buildings regarding the lowest floor elevations. Mr. Carlberg also explained there are two development time frames over this plat. The eastern portion of the project is designated for 1995-2000 development. The western portion is in the 2000- 2005 development time frame. The Council has agreed to allow the installation of utilities in the entire plat at once, but the construction would be phased in according to that schedule. If the developer wishes to construct the western portion before the year 2000, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required. Mr. Carlberg also explained Staff calculations determined the number of units proposed under the PUD is 24 more than if this were developed under the M-2 requirements. However, there no density increase because of the different criteria used for determining maximum density in a M-2 zone versus a PUD development. There are no plans by the county to upgrade Hanson Boulevard in their five-year plan, though there is the potential for that road to be upgraded to four lanes. The developer is planning for turn lanes and a wider intersection to control traffic onto Hanson Boulevard. There could be future signalization with the property to the east. . / '. / . / '. ./ ~) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Commissioner Wells was concerned with the narrow roads and high speed and asked if the roads could be posted for 20 mph. Staff eXplained the minimum speed that can be posted is 30. The concept of a narrow 26- foot wide street is to provide the feeling of the need to slow down. The roads meet the design standards of 30 mph. The Commission generally agreed to hear testimony on the Special Use Permit for the PUD first, then discuss the preliminary plat before acting on the Permit. Acting Chairperson Peek also reminded the audience that the property has already been zoned M-2, so any testimoy relative to the zoning is not germane to this discussion. He opened the hearing at 8:22 p.m. Jerry Putnam. 1869 157th Lane NW - represented several people in the same neighborhood. He submitted a letter outlining their questions and concerns regarding the development, then summarized that letter. He summarized their concerns with the rezoning to M-2. In their understanding of the PUD and zoning ordinances, they asked how the proposed development meets the criteria for innovation, higher standards, more convenience, preservation and enhancement of site characteristics, creative and efficient use of the land, and its harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. They also had questions about the ownership of the development, whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive land use and sewer plan, if it is consistent with the City's ordinances, if the plan provides at least the amount of open space as under the original zoning district, the provisions and standards for the operation and maintenance of the common areas and service facilities within the PUD, how the development will be phased, density, utility and landscaping issues and setback requirements. Their biggest concern is they do not have enough answers go give an opinion on whether this is a positive or negative development for the residents and the City. Some of the answers were provided this evening by Staff and Mr. Windschitl, but they still have many unanswered questions. They would feel more comfortable if the Permit were not approved until all of the questions have been answered and issues resolved. They are proud of the City and oftheir neighborhood, and they want nothing less than high standard development. Mike Getts. 15629 Osage. Wittington Ridge - stated density is a big concern. They are looking at more of a traditional transition from their rural 2 ~-acre lots to multiple town home and apartments. They would like to see single family on the west and the higher density on the eastern half of the project. He understands the development of a convenience store but questioned the office retail space. The RV storage on the west side backs up to their neighborhood. He felt it is basically a rental situation, which is commercial, and shouldn't be allowed in that location. He asked what regulations are in place regarding the rental units when the TIF district falls off. Something should be in place for that. A realtor has informed him they live in an exclusive neighborhood; and if anyone can see one of the high rise buildings, it can drop the value of their property by 10 percent, which is a huge drop on a $300,000 house. In looking at the overall effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community, the development does affect the neighbors with horses who back up to the project. He will see the town homes from his property, which also affects his valuation. He felt these items need to be addressed. \ j \.J ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Winslow Holasek. 1159 Andover Boulevard - noted Northern Natural Gas is proposing to add another line in their easement but not remove the existing line. He understands the new line would be 25 feet off the existing line, and he didn't know how that would affect the setbacks in the development. He also understands that new line will be 16 to 20 inches, which is four times the capacity of the existing line. He felt that should be taken into consideration. He also did not know if the people understood that under a TIF district, the county and school district do not get the taxes, only the City does. What would those taxes be used for? Mr. Carlberg stated they could be used for improvements in the project. In this case the developer would be paying back the portion the City bonded. The documents would be the same as for the Fannstead development, which are available for Mr. Holasek to view. Russ Mitchell? 15744 Nightingale - stated as a part of Nightingale Preserve, he was required to move his driveway off Nightingale, as it was assumed there would be high-speed traffic on it and they wanted fewer accesses to it to stop the smooth flow of traffic. Now no more than a couple hundred feet from his old driveway is a place for RVs to pull in and out on a regular basis. He felt the RVs would be a significant impediment to the traffic movement, and he didn't understand why his driveway needed to be removed but an RV entrance is allowed. Mr. Getts - was told by the developer the intent of the Wittington Ridge development was to be for empty nesters. In fact, there is only one empty nester and the rest are younger families. If the intent of this development is for seniors, he felt that should be put in writing. Mr. WindschitI - stated no one in Wittington Ridge was told that would be for empty nesters. Tony Howard. ? Wittington Ridge - asked if the design standards for the three TIF buildings will be used for all units. Mr. WindschitI stated the intent is for all of the buildings and the office building. The town homes will be part brick. The accent hasn't been selected yet. It will be maintenance free. The RV unit will have brick and accent facing Nightingale. Mr. Howard - stated they can't park their RVs in their driveways in Wittington Ridge. He was also concerned that other items such as boats and snowmobiles will be stored in that building as well. It is commercial rental property and doesn't belong there. He also had a problem with 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Many people 50 or 55 years old still work and have two cars. There will still be traffic on Hanson Boulevard and Nightingale, which will affect his standard of living. Where will the traffic go for those working at the office building? That too adds to the traffic congestion. If they use Nightingale, if affects his standard of living. Will there be turn lanes on Nightingale to get into the project or will traffic have to slow down. The transition in the project affects his quality of " life, stating there is no transition. The proposal is a 65- unit apartment to a 30-unit apartment within . / 600 feet of one of his neighbors. He again emphasized there is no transition for his neighbors nor the single family housing proposed in Fox Hollow to the south. The result is those lots will drop in j ',-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,) Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 6 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) value, creating cheaper housing. The town homes next to Nightingale will mean a drop for property values along there. There is no cohesiveness between the project and the neighborhood, and the property values will not hold because there will be lower priced housing in those areas. He lives in Andover for the aesthetics, which also increase property values. He doesn't want to move, but he claimed this development definitely adversely affects their neighborhood. Dan Johnson. 2165 154th - stated when he moved in 12 years ago, the proposal was land north of City Hall would not be developed with sewer and water until 2010 and lift stations would not be used. He is disappointed, because the entire western area of this plat and that of Fox Hollow was intended to be 2 Y2-acre lots. He's not real excited about having an extra 2,000 to 3,000 cars a day going down Nightingale, adding another 10 minutes to get to work. Sharon? . 2226 153rd - lived there a year but has been in the City since 1982, and her husband has been in the City since 1977. She has witnessed a lot of growth and development in the City and is concerned with the school situation. The new schools in Andover became overcrowded a year after opening, and changing boundaries is being considered. The affect on the schools should be addressed if apartments are being constructed. -- ) Mr. Elliott - suggested given the size of the area and the project, that more meticulous calculations be made on the project. He understands there is a give-and-take when developing under a PUD. If this is to be for senior living, he felt the City should expect to have that in writing. Where are the enhancements under the PUD? He didn't see any and would rather have the property develop as M-2. Linda Iverson. 17231 Partridge Street - stated there are a lot of people in the City of Andover that know nothing about this development. She is greatly saddened by the development. She has children who go to the schools, and she works at the school. They are full and can't fit any more children. Portable classrooms are being considered at Oak View Middle school for next year. She was told the area would be 2 Y2-acre minimum and that the City would progress in a rural manner. They do not want to see development in Andover like they have at Riverdale where the town homes are built right up to the swamp. They don't want to turn into a Brooklyn Park but want Andover to stay rural. If there is any way to turn this down, she asked that it be done. She doesn't want it. The residents of Andover don't want it. Shelly? 15711 Nightingale - has lived here since 1973. How can this be for the betterment of Andover when no one wants it? Isn't Andover the people who have lived here for years? Mr. Mitchell (?) - stated constitutional rights were mentioned at the last meeting. But their constitutional rights are also being compromised when on one side of Nightingale multiples and . \ commercial property is allowed, but not on the other. On their side of the street they will no longer , / have the life style they enjoy, and they will be paying extra for fire, police, etc., because of the Grey Oaks community. He is concerned that they have a different standard of care than on the other side of the street. He also chided the Staff for ramrodding this through and not working for the other I \. / . \ <) / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 7 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) residents. Maybe more staff is needed to get the job done. Acting Chairperson Peek stated the attacks on the Staff are inappropriate. This has no bearing on the Staff, as they have performed their duties. The City is following state statute. Several residents came to the podium again to express concerns with the Grey Oaks development that it is very detailed and that the City does not have enough time to evaluate it, that the residents do not know the options of development under the M-2 zone to be able to consider both that and the PUD, the concern that this is called a senior development but there is no contract that it will indeed be senior living there. Mr. Putnam - stated the concerns are that it is very confusing and the residents have questions and concerns the Staff should ask the developer to consider. He also had a copy of the PUD application in East Grand Forks which asks for detailed information on various items. He stated he would be willing to provide Staff a copy as a potential means to avoid the confusion in the future. ., Motion by Wells, Seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 9:27 p.m. Motionby Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to table the issue of the PUD until such time as we discuss the issue of the plat and pull the issue of the PUD off the table at that time. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: PRELIMINARY PLAT - GREY OAKS - SECTION 22 - CHESTERTON PARTNERSHIP 9:28 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the preliminary plat for the Planned Unit Development of Grey Oaks as requested by Chesterton Partnership, highlighting the comments outlined in the Staff report in agenda material. The issues to consider are the lift station, servicing property to the north, drainage and phasing. The intent has been to service the property from two different directions, from the east side of Hanson Boulevard and from the south by the school. A water plan is in place; the issue is the need for a lift station for sanitary sewer. The lift station would benefit the property, and the costs would be paid for as a part of the development. The eastern portion of the plat cannot develop until the drainage issue east of Hanson Boulevard is resolved. The developer has been in contact with Northern Natural Gas and will be going through the Coon Creek Watershed Board for their approval. Commissioner Wells had a concern with a day care facility being so close to the gas line. \ , / Mr. Carlberg stated he has had limited discussions with Northern Natural Gas. They have an existing 8-inch line, and he believed they will be going to a 12-inch line within the existing easement. He was not sure of the location of the new line, but the company understands a Special Use Permit is needed for the new line. He is not aware that they are looking for additional easements in this area of the pipe line, though that could change. '--./ \ \...J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 8 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Commissioner Jacobson calculated the plat is 135 parking spaces short of what would be required in an M-2 zone. He felt seniors will need more parking than provided because those residents will usually have children and families visiting which require the need for additional parking spaces. As he reads the plat, there is a utility pole in the right of way of 155th Lane on Hanson Boulevard. He didn't know ifNSP would move it; and if so, it would be very costly. A letter from Anoka County requested either the City or developer put in a turn lane at Hanson Boulevard. The plat does not show an in and out lane there. Mr. Carlberg stated a design has been prepared that shows right turn lanes onto Hanson Boulevard in response to the county's request. A revision is needed to the plat to show those turn lanes. Commissioner Jacobson noted a December 29, 1997, letter from the county indicates the noise at that location could exceed the noise standards. If that is true, how will the noise be mitigated? He didn't see any buffering provided in the plat. There is a sign easement at l55th Lane. Why? Mr. Carlberg stated the developer is asking for a variance to allow him to make application for a Special Use Permit for an area identification sign for the project at a later date. The sign would be 10 feet from the property line. Commissioner Jacobson stated the location of the easement on the plat would have to be changed. The entrance to the convenience store is shown too close to the easement. Ajoint parking resolution with the office retail lot is also needed. A temporary turnaround should be indicated on Hummingbird to the south. Mr. Carlberg stated that will be shown. If the development to the south is done simultaneously, the temporary turnaround will go away. Commissioner Jacobson didn't see a trail to the south to the school. Mr. Haas stated Staff will meet with the developer of Fox Hollow and the school district regarding a trail either along Hanson Boulevard or to the northern property line of the school. The Commission could recommend that the trails other than that on Hanson Boulevard be provided. Commissioner Wells asked how the Planning Commission can add a stipulation that hasn't been agreed to by the school district or Fox Hollow. The school facilities are way overused now, and she questioned how the City can add to that. Commissioner Jacobson felt there should be a trail connecting Fox Hollow regardless of the decision by the school district. He was also concerned about the ground floor elevation on several apartment units. He reads them to be below the 1 DO-year flood elevation. He understands the developer will be talking with a geotechnical engineer, but he was worried about the big apartment building in the flood plain. On Block 5, Units 5 - 11 and 19 on Lynnette Street show the rear of the buildings in some cases extending into the wetlands and into drainage and utility easements. Mr. Carlberg stated the lot boxes are, but the buildings themselves are not. However, those can be assessed further. , / Commissioner Jacobson stated the wetlands shouldn't be touching the edge of the buildings and the plat should be corrected. He also felt the lot on Lynette is too close to the intersection of 156th Lane. \, " (J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting / Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 9 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) He continued, there is nothing in the landscaping plan indicating a buffer along Nightingale in the area of 156th to shelter the plat from the other side of the road. Mr. Windschitl - stated there is a second growth tree forest plus some large oak trees on the border to Nightingale. There are mature and small trees along the north. They intend to custom grade for single family homes in there. They have no landscaping plans other than what already exists that he is aware of. A landscape architect has done an extensive landscaping plan, which he would have to review. Mr. Carlberg stated those items would be part of the final plat and the association documents which will be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Jacobson had a problem with the RV storage facility. It is a large building. He'd prefer to have that facility taken out of the plat and the RVs stored elsewhere. The location of a lift station is not shown on the plat. Where will it go? Mr. Carlberg stated the exact location has not been determined. The consulting engineering firm will make that recommendation when the feasibility report is done. That design work is not done as a part of the preliminary plat but as a part of the project. I Commissioner Jacobson asked how the mitigation will be accomplished for the 35,074 square feet of wetland that is being filled in. Mr. Windschitl believed the mitigation is 31,000 square feet which will be filled in for streets and trails. No structures will go into the wetland buffer area. The area in the southwester comer will be used for mitigation and has to be turned into a lifetime wetland. That does not necessarily mean it will be wet. Approval will be needed by the LGU and is still in the review process. Commissioner Jacobson was concerned that the City falls under the 60-day time constraint, which means this goes to the City Council at its first meeting in January. He asked if Staff can complete all of these items by the next Planning Commission meeting in order to present a completed proposal to the City Council in January. Mr. Carlberg stated they have three weeks before the January 5, 1999, City Council meeting. They will have done their third review, and Staff expects to review those items that need to be addressed. Some of the items the City Council will need to address. It is their goal to address the items before it goes to the Council. , I Commissioner Jacobson was concerned with the number of trail street crossings. Mr. Windschitl stated the reason for the crossings is because of the wetland issues. They will try to minimize whatever they can through the Coon Creek Watershed. He did not believe the utility pole is a problem for the entrance at l55th and Hanson Boulevard, as that pole is in the Hanson Boulevard right of way. They do not intend to move it. They don't have a problem putting in the trail on Hummingbird if the trail goes somewhere. The problem they have had is they have not yet received the revised plat of Fox Hollows. The last one they had did not show a trail on Hummingbird. The request to delay the Special Use Permit for the identification sign is because he wants to create something of a landscape nature to be more striking than just a sign. \ I , ./ , ., . ) '--~ / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 10 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Acting Chairperson Peek stated he would not support varying from the area identification sign process. He thought it needs to be a part of the preliminary plat process per the ordinance. Commissioner Luedtke asked about the number of variances to accommodate building setbacks. He also felt the design standards submitted are less than what the ordinance requires. Mr. Carlberg stated the variances are from the M-2 provisions, but this is a PUD and the developer is proposing that change. Mr. Windschitl stated the M-2 zone requires a 30-foot setback; they are proposing 25 feet. The driveways are designed so that two cars can park in the front yard plus two cars in the garage. Commissioner Jacobson noted the grading plan shows a 12-inch outlet for storm water drainage into a pond proposed in Fox Hollow. It appears water from this development will be going outside the boundaries of the plat. Have the owners of Fox Hollow given permission to use their facilities and to accept water from this development? Mr. Haas reviewed the grading plans. If there is an increase in drainage, the developer is required to get easements outside of the plat. In this case, the water has the right to continue going where it naturally goes. From the pond it will eventually to go the ditch. Some Commissioners were concerned that this is the identical situation as across from Hanson which involves this same developer. It's taken two years, and that problem still isn't resolved. J Mr. Windschitl - stated they had worked with the former owners of Fox Hollow, and he doesn't believe there are any issues between the two plats. The difference with the drainage issue to the east is in that case the water drainage was artificially changed to drain in another direction. The water is coming out of the pond in Fox Hollow into one of their ponds, and they will give permission to do so. Mr. Haas stated some of that information is not on the plat. They will check the low floor elevations to be sure no one is flooded out. The Fox Hollow plat has not yet been reviewed. Mr. Carlberg understands the developer would like to see all of the construction done in 1999. If that is his intent, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required on the western portion of the project. Mr. Windschitl - will try to install the entire infrastructure at one time. It is unresolved whether they will be able to build on the west side of the creek in 1999. If they can't, it will wait until the year 2000. Ifutilities, streets, trails and recreational facilities are installed all at the same time, they will maintain the site until it is developed. Their preference is to have everything constructed when people move in. Commissioner Wells was concerned with blowing dust. Acting Chairperson Peek opened the hearing for public testimony. 10: 15 p.m. Dan Johnson. 1165 154th - has a nice pond on his property, but it goes dry when there is development. What assurance is there that the water in his pond will be preserved when this area is developed? Do the single family homes have basements? , _/ Tom? . 1434 153rd Lane - stated the developer's seeding on Chesterton Commons was inadequate. They couldn't keep their windows open in the summer because of the blowing dust. If Mr. , J , , ,-_J \ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 11 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) Windschitl is planning to do all this development in 1999, when will he finish what he started in Chesterton Commons on the other side of the road? It seems overly ambitious to him. Mr. Haas explained this is a sensitive use area because of the farms down stream. The City tries to keep that water up stream from flooding those down stream. There is one pond that the Coon Creek Watershed wants to have a high bounce. This development should not affect Mr. Johnson's pond. Many of the surrounding ponds are lower than those in Grey Oaks. No drain tile is being proposed. Commissioner Wells noted the underground garage is below the 100-year flood elevation level. Mr. Windschitl- said Mr. Johnson's pond is 5/8 of a mile or more from the site. The potential for this site to affect the ground water is remote. The watershed is trying to use this project to enhance the wetland. They will not be digging into the water table for mitigation. There are two basements. The interpretation of the City Building Official is one foot above the 100-year flood elevation or a geotechnical engineer to make a determination if there will be infiltration. Two buildings have the garage floor even with or above the 100-year flood elevation. There will be a geotechnical report on those two buildings. The adjacent owner of the property to the north stated four years ago he put an addition on his / property. The soil borings showed water six feet under his property, so he had to take out a special permit from the City. He needed a sump pump for the basement. Mike Getts. 15629 Osage. Wittin~on Ridge - was concerned with raising the water level, thinking it affects the acreage down stream. Don't the calculations on density have to be done? When Nightingale Preserve was done, there was a drainage issue that had to meet the 200-year event back- to-back. Mr. Haas stated that pond is landlocked. These will all be allowed to drain. Mr. Getts - reinforced the issue of density and the transition on the west side of the property. He also cautioned the Commission to be careful of fast-tracking this, which was a topic at the City Council meeting. He would prefer a cul-de-sac at 156th and Nightingale with only emergency vehicles allowed to reduce the noise, traffic and safety issues on Nightingale. Mr. Haas stated the Fire Department did review it and wants that access to Nightingale. Winslow Holasek - stated Ditch 37 is a drainage sensitive ditch, which has more stringent restrictions. Mr. Haas believed the systems will be designed to a 25-year storm. The Watershed will be reviewing that. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:30 p.m. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Gamache, to table this issue temporarily and go back and take the , / issue of the PUD for Grey Oaks off the table for discussion. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote \ '-J o '\ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 12 / SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PUD - GREY OAKS, CONTINUED Acting Chairperson Peek stated the critical concept of the PUD is the specialty housing; and until that can be resolved satisfactorily between the City and the developer, he felt any further discussion is mute. He felt the design standards are about half completed. Issues such as parking, setbacks and building heights have not been addressed. The suggestion of materials needs to be proposed for all buildings. He would not be in favor of varying from the M-2 zoning requirements in any setback requirements on the perimeter of the project. It is a reasonable expectation of the abutting property owners that there be no variances from the location of the buildings as it affects the perimeter of the property. He agreed with Commissioner Jacobson relative to the parking requirements. He would not support any reduction of the parking stalls from the M-2 requirements. He felt the notion of an RV storage facility was nice but is not appropriate in that location. He would not support its access directly onto an arterial street or its location on the western part of the property. Overall, he felt there is a compression on the site. The location of the buildings relative to right of ways and green spaces in front of buildings seems less than what could be expected from a development like this. The 25- foot setback for the town homes is really tight. He didn't know if traffic could be controlled under this concept, but he didn't want this to be the test case. He also felt Mr. Putnam's items were legitimate and that the developer needs time to address or respond to them. / Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to deny the Special Use Permit of Chesterton Partnership for a Planned Unit Development to develop a mixed use senior/empty nester development consisting of two 65-unit apartments, six 30-unit apartments, 38 town homes, four single family homes and three commercial lots known as Grey Oaks on the most northerly 60 acres of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, subject to easements of record if any. The denial is based upon the following findings from the Commission: 1) There is no guarantee that the project will be senior/empty nester project as anticipated, which is one of the major reasons for the PUD. 2) The present plan allows for more units than in the M-2 designation. 3) Parking is found to be inadequate. 4) There is a question as to the adequacy of the right-of-way needed for the Northern Natural Gas line which could significantly change the setbacks and open spaces on the plat. 5) There is a questionable use ofTIF funds on this particular project. 6) An 8-foot setback on the streets is too close for safety and affects snow removal. / 7) There is a concern about the RV storage. 8) Without phasing, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. , , '-_/ \ '--.J , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 13 ) (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Grey Oak - Chesterton Partnership, Continued) (Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, continued) 9) There are significant items still outstanding which have not been addressed by the developer. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Ape!) vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT - GREY OAKS, CONTINUED Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to deny the preliminary plat of Grey Oaks on the basis that the PUD has been recommended to be denied. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Ape!) vote. Both items will be on the January 5, 1999, City Council agenda. 10:38 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - SHADOWBROOK - SECTION 25 - BUNKER, LLC 10:38 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request by Bunker, LLC for an Amended Special Use Permit to amend the Planned Unit Development of Shadowbrook Fifth Addition. The original plat called for 60 town homes to be built; the new proposal is for 40 single family detached town homes. Also, Lot 1, Block 2 of Shadowbrook 3rd Addition where a water storage facility was planned to be constructed will be replatted. The City has changed its plans and is now only providing for a well in this location. Three single family lots are planned as a part of the replat, and the City will buy one of the lots for the well site. Mike Quigley_ Bunker. LLC - stated in the development of the 3rd Addition, they found that people preferreddetached single family town homes versus the twin homes. Because that market is much stronger, they are revising the plat. The common areas are held by an association, and those documents are on file at the City. Commissioner Jacobson stated the street going north should show a temporary turnaround. Mr. Carlberg stated they will look at that. If it exceeds 210 feet, a temporary cul-de-sac is needed. Commissioner Jacobson stated the plat does not designate whether the streets are private or public. Mr. Quigley stated they are waiting for approval of the street names. Then they will be put on the plat. He noted that 141 st Street is already constructed. I / Commissioner Jacobson stated Lots 13, 7 and 8 appear to be in the wetland. Mr. Haas stated the lot box is approaching the wetland, but the structures will not be in the wetland. Mr. Carlberg also noted that this property was in the 1997 development time frame and has been carried over. The proposed Resolution also carries forward all of the items from the 1996 Resolution. , / '-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 14 (Public Hearing: Amended Special Use Permit - PUD - Shadowbrook, Bunker, LLC, Continued) Commissioner Jacobson stated Items 4 and 5 should be done before forwarding the item to the City Council. He asked if the developer would be willing to wait until those questions are answered. Mr. Ouigley - stated there is no revision to the plat other than the number of units. Some things may not have been detailed. They should be able to respond to all of these items by tomorrow. Mr. Carlberg stated some requirements have changed since 1996, and Staff will make sure that all of the ordinance changes are brought into compliance. Acting Chairperson Peek opened the public hearing for testimony. There was none. Motion by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote 10:55 p.m. Commissioner Wells asked if the developer would be willing to table the item to the next meeting to be sure these items are addressed. Mr. Quigley - stated they are not concerned whether it is approved tonight or in two weeks. They want to bring the items forward during the time table in place. The items are relatively minor issues, and they can address them tomorrow. Commissioner Jacobson was concerned that everyone be treated fairly, and the previous plat was denied because items were not addressed. Mr. Carlberg suggested if the Special Use Permit is tabled, the preliminary plat should also be tabled. Staff has been trying to work through these items while going through the hearing process in an attempt to get them through this year. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to table the Amended Special Use Permit for Shadowbrook by Bunker, LLC, until the next regularly scheduled meeting to obtain additional information. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Ape!) vote Because the item is being tabled, the consensus of the Commission was to reopen the public hearing and hold it open to the next meeting. Motion by Wells, Seconded by Jacobson, to reopen the public hearing on Item 5. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Luedtke, to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting in December. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Ape!) vote. 11 :00 p.m. j , , ) \ '--) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT - SHADOWBROOK - SECTION 25- BUNKER, LLC Motion by Wells, Seconded by Peek, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Squires, Apel) vote Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Luedtke, to continue the hearing to the next meeting. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote II :02 p.m. SKETCH PLAN - WOODLAND MEADOWS THIRD ADDITION - SECTION 10 - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Mr. Carlberg reviewed the sketch plan of Woodland Meadows 3rd Addition which contains six single family rural residential lots. He also summarized the comments of the Andover Review Committee as outlined in the Agenda material on the extension of the street to the south, variances to the lot sizes, the relocation of the existing driveway from Lot 6 to the new street, and the removal of existing structures on Lot 5. He believed all setback requirements will be met on Lot 6. Commissioner Jacobson asked if there is any way to bring the three lots up to the area requirements. " Byron Westlund. Woodland Development - stated that is being looked at. They originally bought 80 acres and developed Woodland Meadows 2nd. The husband passed away, and the wife would like to move. This sketch was designed at the time Woodland Meadows 2nd was developed. They can look at minimizing those variances. Commissioner Jacobson suggested the setback lines for Lots 3 and 4 be reviewed to be sure they meet code. His biggest concern is that the lots meet the size requirements. Mr. Westlund - stated it is their intention to meet code. The front section of the property is high, the back end is low. There is a 10-acre parcel to the south that has a significant amount of wetland, plus there is a house on the five-acre parcel. Because of that, he didn't see an advantage to moving their road to connect to the south. Mr. Carlberg stated they can review that with the developer. If it appears a road to the south won't work, they will not recommend it. The Commission made no further comments on the sketch plan. DISCUSSION - ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Hinzman stated there was some concern on the transitional residential district. Staff is proposing in the Zoning Ordinance under the rezoning provision that criteria be drafted similar to / that which is addressed for a Special Use Permit in the current ordinance. Criteria would be that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, etc. Acting Chairperson Peek felt quantified criteria is needed. I "-./ '\ "'-..j J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 8, 1998 Page 16 (Discussion - Andover Comprehensive Plan, Continued) Mr. Hinzman stated the Comprehensive Plan Task Force felt such criteria would be better addressed in the Zoning Ordinance than in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Jacobson stated the reason is that it allows the City more flexibility. Any change in the transition zone would require a rezoning, which also must meet certain criteria such as the health, safety, welfare, traffic issues, etc. Mr. Hinzman also noted the transitional residential zone is for residential zoning only. A comprehensive plan amendment would be necessary to change it to a commercial zone. Acting Chairperson Peek understood that but noted the transitional residential zone could be rezoned to any density. Mr. Hinzman stated with the criteria language in the zoning ordinance, the density would be evaluated for the specific use to see if it fits. The criteria in the zoning ordinance would formalize it. Acting Chairperson Peek was concerned that it is still being arbitrary. He agreed to a zoning district map with the existing residential designation and the transitional zone as an overlay. If the intent is that this is a tool to change the official land use for rezoning, he did not have a problem with it. Mr. Hinzman stated he will put language in the ordinance that would be consistent with the intent of the transition zone. \ ) Mr. Hinzman stated the City has received the sewer plan from TKDA. A problem exists with capacity along the Crosstown and Bunker Lake Boulevard trunk where all the feeder lines converge. The direction of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force is to keep the proposed 2020 MUSA boundary in place. Under the current infrastructure, there would be fewer developments that planned. Commissioner Jacobson stated the Task Force wants the Council to be aware that if they plan for many high density developments in the future, they may be hindered by the sewer capacity constraints in the City. Mr. Hinzman stated the Comprehensive Plan will be discussed at the December 15 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION - REVIEW RESULTS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Gamache, that Item 10 be tabled and put on the next meeting agenda. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Ape!) vote. Motion by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to adjourn. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. The meeting adjourned at I I :27 p.m. J Respectfully submitted. \\\ r,-'----? \~~~r,~1-