Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 27, 1998 / ..... v o /--.", V u o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 27,1998 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Randy Peek on October 27,1998,7:32 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Don Jacobson, Jeff Luedtke, Lorna Wells Jay Squires, Mike Gamache City Planning, John Hinzman APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 13, 1998: Correct as ",ritten. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Wells, to approve the Minutes. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1- Present (Luedtke), 2-Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL TO R-4, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN - 1650 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW - WILLIAM HUPP 7:33 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of William Hupp to rezone 1.03 acres from R-l, Single Family Rural to R-4, Single Family Urban at 1650 Andover Boulevard. The rezoning is submitted in conjunction with a lot split. There is one house on the site, and another one could be built to the west with the approval of a future lot split. The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Sewer and water are available along Andover Boulevard, and Mr. Hupp would be required to hook up to those utilities within one year. The applicant is also proposing to develop the adjacent acreage for commercial or multiple residential uses in the future. Staff is recommending approval. Acting Chairperson Peek opened the hearing for public testimony. Bill Hupp. 1650 Andover Boulevard - explained he is trying to split off a lot. In the future he may want to rezone the remaining portion of the parcel for commercial on that comer. Now he is concerned with reducing the size of the lot for his house for refinancing purposes. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. 7:38 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reported at a joint meeting with the City Council, the Comprehensive Plan Task Force looked at the possibility of this area for a future commercial site. Right now the proposal would be ~-) ~-.J '\ J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission A1eeting Minutes - October 27, 1998 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Rezone R-1 to R-4 - 1650 Andover Boulevard, Continued) to split the approximately 40-acre parcel into two parcel. The area being discussed now would be zoned R-4. The other portion of the lot would have two designations, R-4 for the small sliver west ofthe house and R-I on the remainder of the lot. Acting Chairperson Peek wondered why it wouldn't be rezoned R-3, which is the zoning of much of the sun'ounding property. Mr. Hinzman explained that the City hasn't been using the R-2 and R-3 designations for new districts. R-4 requires the lot be served by sewer. Since it is available, the Staff suggested the R-4 zone. The new Comprehensive Plan is looking to designate the larger portion of the lot as Transitional Commercial, which will allow it to be developed as commercial in the future. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Staff. that we forward to the City Council with the recommendation for approval the rezoning request of William Hupp as prepared by Staff with the change that there be a new legal description for the actual requested area. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. This will be on the November 17 City Council agenda. 7:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - J 650 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW - WILLIAM HUPP / 7:44 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of William Hupp to split approximately 26,000 square feet, or about one-half acre, on which his house is located. The area to the west ofthe area being split off would be zoned R-4 and could be platted or split at a future date. Two sewer stubs are available to this property from Andover Boulevard. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Acting Chairperson Peek opened the hearing for public testimony. Mr. Hinzman stated the survey will have to be amended. The western lot line will need to be reconfigured slightly to meet the minimum 80-foot distance at the setback on the area which could be a future lot to the west. Tom Enzmann. 1718 Andover Boulevard - asked if the lot to the west will not be big enough to be built on, why is this being done? Mr. Hinzman stated the property line will be rearranged so that there will be enough room for a building on that future lot and to meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Enzmann - asked about the possibly of a commercial zone in the future, what is meant by the open space to the south of the property, and what is being recommended this evening. Mr. Hinzman explained the possible location of a commercial zone, the restrictions because of the landfill to the south of the site, the location of the parcel that is proposed to be split, the requirement to hook up to sewer and water once the lot is the R-4 size, and that the application is requesting a small lot for refinancing purposes. The City isn't attempting to develop the property as commercial. The '\ applicant is looking at doing so in the future, and the Comprehensive Plan would give him the J opportunity to do that with a proposed transitional commercial district. Ifthere is a request to rezone to a commercial zone, another public hearing would be held. (J (.J . , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 27. 1998 Page 3 , ) (Public Hearing: Lot Split - 1650 Andover Boulevard, Continued) Bill Hupp - stated his mortgage company has said they can only refinance on a smaller lot. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. 7:58 p.m. Acting Chairperson Peek stated when the property line for the lot split is clarified, Staff should consider there could be some neighborhood boundaries relative to the setbacks and present buildings. Motion by ApeL Seconded by Luedtke, that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council the Resolution granting the lot split request of William Hupp. Add a fourth condition that the lot split is subject to the approval of the rezoning. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hinzman again stated the legal description will be rezoned so that the future lot split will conform to the R-4 zoning. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. This will be on the November 17 City Council agenda. 8:00 p.m. / SKETCH PLAN REVIEW - FOX HOLLOW - SECTION 22 - GOR-EM, LLC Mr. Hinzman reviewed the sketch plan of the proposed development of Fox Meadows located north and west of the Oak View Middle School. The plan consists of 82 single family lots and 36 townhome lots 01146.7 acres. That area north of the school on which townhomes are proposed will need to be rezoned to M-l. That area is also adjacent to the Grey Oaks PUD for senior housing. The remainder of the property will need to be rezoned to R-4, Single Family Urban. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan will also need to be amended from RU, Residential Urban, to RM, Residential Medium density on the eastern part of the plat to allow the townhomes. Trails may be proposed along both Nightingale and Hanson Boulevard, as well as possible links to the school. A trail is also being proposed on the east end through the gas line easement between Lots 18 and 19, then along the street. In comparing this proposal to the one previously proposed by another developer for the area, one difference is the number of entrances onto Nightingale. Three entrances are shown on the sketch plan. Staff is proposing there be only two, similar to what was developed when the Burr Oaks sketch plan was proposed. The area can be serviced by sewer and water from the south, though a lift station may be needed. The ea<;tern portion may be served from the line east of Hanson Boulevard. Three existing homes will remain on the property, but only one will front on Nightingale. The other two will be incorporated into the streets in the development. , Mr. Hinzman also noted a five-foot variance is being requested to the front yard setback requirement .J on all of the townhome lots. Staff is suggesting this may be done through the PUD process rather than by granting variances. '. ,) ,J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting J Minutes - October 27, 1998 Page 4 (Sketch Plan Review - Fox Hollow - Section 22 - Gor-em, LLC, Continued) The Planning Commission made the following comments and recommendations: 1) When this was first reviewed, it was for single family lots for the entire development. If that is what was planned when doing the Comprehensive Plan, why should the City change it? Mr. Hinzman felt the biggest reason is that there is multiple housing to the north and the school to the south, and the idea was the townhomes would be a good transition between those areas. While most of the Commissioners personally did not want the increased density and preferred single family housing on the east end, some Wlderstood that a good planning technique is to have multiples for the transition. 2) The commission recalled they wanted a second connection to the PUD development to the north. Mr. Hinzman stated the City Council agreed to have Hummingbird be the linle Commissioner Wells disagreed with the Council, feeling another entrance to the north is needed for safety purposes. 3) Mr. Hinzman stated StatTis recommending that 155th and the street to the south be combined into one entrance onto Nightingale. Commissioner Luedtke felt there should be three entrances onto Nightingale, especially since there will only be one exit onto Nightingale from Grey Oaks. 4) Several Commissioners expressed concern with being a straight away parallel to the school property. The preference was to have some curves to slow traffic. 5) A couple Commissioners expressed disappointment that the developers were not present to explain their proposal and to hear the comments and concerns of the Commission.. 6) Mr. Hinzman stated the Staff is proposing a PUD to provide flexibility for some of the setback requirements. No density increase is being proposed. Several Commissioners stated they would not support variances in setbacks. For there to be a PUD, there must be some trade off, some benefit to the City. Mr. Hinzman stated the trade offwould be the hardship and tree protection. The Commissioners generally did not support the variances in the setback requirements. 7) Commissioner Jacobson had a problem with trails going onto the street. There could be a lot of traffic on Hummingbird, and the street is not a reasonable place for a trail. He suggested looking at the northern property line and run the trail all the way along the back to get it off the street. He also suggested some provision for a trail to the school be provided on Block 2 aroWld Lots 6 or 7. / 8) The townhomes appear to be on one lot, as no individual lot lines are shown. There needs to be individual lots. < I ~ - (, ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 27, 1998 Page 5 (Sketch Plan Review - Fox Hollow - Section 22 - Gar-em, LLC, Continued) 9) TIle Commission suggested the lot lines of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 3 be reconfigured, or property owners will be coming to the City to move those lines around. 10) TIle sketch plan should indicate provisions for temporary turnarounds where the streets stop at the edge of the subdivision. 11) There should be a buffer along the property abutting the school. It could be a fence or some way to keep people out of the school grounds. 12) Commis5ioner Jacobson supported an exit onto Hanson Boulevard to carry the traffic from the subdivision. Mr. Hinzman did not think it would meet the distance requirements from the proposed entrance in Grey Oaks to the north. 13) Commissioner Wells did not want to see them take out all of the trees when putting in the development. Commissioner Ape] stated that is the reason for the request to vary from the sctback requirements. To save the trees, something has to be given up. Mr. Hinzman noted this will be reviewed by the City Council at their November 4 meeting. DISCUSSION -ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Commissioners Apel and Jacobson were on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force and recommended the other Commissioners go through the draft, mark it up and make comments. Ifthcre are issues that bother them, let those on the Task Force know. Mr. Hinzman statcd the biggest section is the sewer plan, and he is still waiting for the consultant report before finalizing it. He is looking at November 10 as a public hearing datc before the Planning Commission for the Comprehensive Plan. / Acting Chairperson Peek stated in reading through this, future development will be in the transitional areas as residential and/or multiple use. His concern was leaving it wide open to be able to develop all multiples, in the worse case scenario, without any guidelines or standards as to where that use could or should not be. He was especially concerned since one of the goals is to promote high density in appropriate areas. He did not want the decisions to be totally arbitrary. Mr. Hinzman stated the property owner would still have to go through a rezoning, and it would be measured on its merits. TIlere is some criteria in the definitions for those densities relating to setbacks, location along major roadways, etc. Commissioner Jacobson stated the Task Force did not want to specifY where townhomes or apartments, etc., would be located. The proposal provides flexibility to allow those uses. He suggested Acting Chairperson Peek look at the verbiage and suggest some that would resolve his concerns. , - ) '-- ~ : ) ,~- - Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting " Minutes - October 27, 1998 Page 6 (Discussion - Andover Comprehensive Plan, Continued) Discussion was also on the fact that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to reflect the Comprehensive Plan. Because the Comprehensive Plan now dictates the development, the Task Force wanted language to allow the flexibility in the development. Commissioner Wells asked if there is a proposed location for a high school. Mr. Hinzman stated no, that the school has not responded to that request. There were no further comments. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hinzman reviewed the actions of the City Council at their October 20 meeting. He also noted that the developers of the proposed Hills of Bunker Lake 6th have pulled their sketch plan and will be coming back with another proposal to develop the site strictly commercial. Acting Chairperson Peek suggested for the next meeting the comparison of the sketch plan and the actual developmcnt of the Round Barn site be added to the agendn. Motio" by Luedtke, Seconded by Jncobson, to adjo'lrn. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Gamache) vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~UL Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary