Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 1998 u u () CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AMY 12,1998 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on May 12, 1998, 7:35 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Lynnette Barry, Randy Peek, Lorna Wells Mike Gamache, Jeff Luedtke Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planning, John Hinzman Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES ,-...., <...J April 28, 1998: Correct as written. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Barry, approval as presented. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote.. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLITIVARIANCE -14269 WOODBINE STREET NW - DAVE JABLONIC 7:36 p.rn. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of David and Joann Jablonic to split the southern 100 feet from a 0.820-acre parcel at 14269 Woodbine Street NW. The northern portion of the property is zoned R-3, Single Family Suburban; the southern portion is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. Woodbine Street terminates at the proposed split line, and a variance is needed from Ordinance 8, Section 4.04 to allow the split to occur without proper road frontage. This was originally two separate parcels but were combined for tax purposes by the owner in 1979. It is a unique situation because there would be no public access to the separated parcel at this time; however, a preliminary sketch plan for the area indicates frontage could be achieved by extending Woodbine Street when the adjacent land is developed. That adjacent land was allocated for development in 1998, but the City has not received formal plans for development. A neighbor across the street on the south side has spoken in support of the application but could not attend the meeting tonight. An option would be /--" to grant the lot split contingent on the extension of Woodbine Street to meet the frontage V requirements. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 7:42 p.m. u o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -May 12, 1998 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 14269 Woodbine - Jablonic, Continued) David Jablonic 14269 Woodbine Street NW - reviewed a written outline he had presented to the Commission explaining the reasons he is now asking for this lot split. They bought the home in 1997 and the lot to the south in 1979. They then worked with Anoka County to combine the two parcels for tax purposes. Their children are now grown, he is semi-retired and they need to down size. Last year they tried selling the entire parcel and had no one interested. Most people were afraid of possible future assessments on the vacant portion of the lot. This spring they again put their house on the market and have a purchased agreement contingent upon this lot split and variance. The vacant lot would be 100 feet wide by 178 feet deep and is covered with a wide variety of trees. Most people cannot afford to purchase such a large lot. He realizes it is just a matter of time before Woodbine is extended so that vacant lot would be buildable. He would hold the title in his name until that time. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Jablonic stated he did talk with some of his neighbors about them purchasing the vacant parcel. No one was opposed to the lot split, but neither did anyone wish to purchase it. He talked with Rosella Sonsteby's son a while ago, and he was not /",- interested in purchasing the vacant lot either. He understands that the lot would not be buildable until o Woodbine goes through. The Commission discussed the Staff's recommendation that the lot split be contingent upon the lot becoming buildable within one year, as most felt the chances of that happening within a year are very remote. They questioned the reason a variance could be granted. Mr. Carlberg noted the vacant parcel would not be buildable because it would not have access. These were two lots in the 1970s. At that time the City did not approve the subdivision oflots. It was all done through the county. The hardship may be that there is no way to get the needed right of way, and that there is history that it was a lot of record at one time which was combined for tax purposes. A contingency could be added that Mr. Jablonic retain ownership until Woodbine is extended. Harvey Moberg 14789 Woodbine - is in favor of the lot split. That lot was purchased as a separate lot, and he felt it should be returned to that original state. Commissioner Wells questioned why there was no road easement in front of the proposed vacant lot originally. Mr. Hinzman noted this area is a part of Auditor's Subdivision 82 which was replatted by the City because of surveying errors. He didn't think Woodbine ever extended beyond where it currently stops. Dennis Reinhardt 14279 Woodbine Street - is in favor of the lot split. He's lived there for several years. They know the property to the south and west will be developed some day. It is a matter of 8 time, and he felt it is proper to allow Mr. Jablonic to split the parcel and move on his way. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 8:02 p.m. (J CJ Q u u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-May 12,1998 Page 3 (public Hearing: Lot SplitlVariance - 14269 Woodbine - Jablonic, Continued) Motion by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to forward the Staff prepared Resolution on to the City Council for approval with the following changes: Condition 1 is to stay the same. Condition 2, the south 100 feet of the split lot shall be deemed unbuilable until such time as Woodbine Street NW is extended to provide for the minimum frontage provision of Ordinance 8, Section 4.04. Condition 3 to remain intact. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. This will be on the June 2, 1998, City Council agenda. 8:04 p.rn. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT - USE OF DECORATIONS, BANNERS AND SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH "CUSTOMER APPRECIATION DA YS" - 13727 HANSON BOULEVARD NW - SUPERAMERICA 8:04 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of SuperAmerica for an Amended Special Use Permit to allow for the temporary placement of signs, banners and flags associated with Customer Appreciation Days on June 11 and 12, 1998, at 13727 Hanson Boulevard NW. This is the third year they have held their Customer Appreciation Days, and there have been no complaints in the past. They monitor it closely and notify the Anoka County Highway Department. Staff is concerned '.vith the escalation of activities during this time period, but that will be discussed with the representatives of SuperAmerica. Several Commissioners agreed the activity should probably be restricted to Customer Appreciation without the added sales. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 8: 11 p.m. There was no public testimony. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Peek, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 8: 11 p.m. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to forward the Staff prepared Resolution on to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. This will be on the June 2, 1998, City Council agenda. 8:12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - R-I, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL TO R-4, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN - SECTION 14 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 8: 12 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of Ashford Development Corporation to re;,:;one approximately 22.39 acres from R-l, Single Family Rural to R-4, Single Family Urban located in Section 14 in conjunction with the preliminary plat for Chesterton Commons North. He noted the applicable ordinances and adjacent zoning and land uses. The majority of the area is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; however, a portion of Block 1 is inconsistent and lies outside of the 2020 MUSA. It amounts to less than five acres ofland. Staff has discussed this with the property o (j () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -May 12, 1998 Page 4 (public Hearing: Rezoning - R-1 to R-4 - Section 14 - Ashford Development, Continued) owner and with the Metropolitan Council and is proposing the rezoning go forward to the June 2 City Council meeting. Staff will come to the Commission at the May 26 meeting with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and 2020 MUSA map to include the small portion of property. That amendment would then be before the Council on June 2 in conjunction with the rezoning request. The Metropolitan Council has indicated a quick response to that amendment request. Mr. Carlberg stated there have been other rezonings done in the City contingent upon receiving a Comprehensive Plan amendment approval. Commissioner Wells asked how this area will be served with water. Commissioner Barry asked about the increase in density and future plans for road expansion to accommodate the increased density. Mr. Hinzman noted water is coming through Cambridge Estates to the south. If developed into rural lots, there would be about 10 lots or less. Forty-six lots are being proposed for urban development. This area was originally proposed as a PUD in the sketch plan stage. It is not being proposed as a PUD at this time. The Metropolitan Council averages ten trips per day per household. That would add about 460 trips per day onto Hanson Boulevard. The county does have plans to upgrade Hanson Boulevard, but not in the next five-year time frame. /- ....., o Commissioner Barry felt that signalization and turn lanes are needed as she sees the increase in density from Bunker Lake Boulevard all the way up Hanson Boulevard. She felt this definitely does affect the health, safety, morals and general welfare significantly. Stop signs are no longer feasible to control the number of trips and traffic on that road. The lack of crosswalks is unconscionable, especially because of the parks and schools across Hanson Boulevard. She has a difficult time with continually increasing density without planning for the amenities that surround it. She felt the 5afety issue is a huge factor with an increase of 460 trips per day. It is already a safety problem with the softball games at the City Hall parks. She has called the county and found that several intersections in the City do meet warrants but not even stop signs have been put up. She asked who is in charge of the road system and addressing the impact of the continued development in the City. Mr. Carlberg explained the City received approval for its Comprehensive Plan which included this area as urban development. At that time the traffic was also considered, and the MUSA was approved based on that traffic. The City is following what is in that Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of that small parcel ofland in this development. Unfortunately much of the improvements on the county road system won't get done until warrants are met. However, if development doesn't occur, there will be no need for those improvements. Mr. Hinzman also noted that some of the roadway construction lags behind the development. The City does plan those improvements by requiring turn lanes and coordinating street alignments among the different developments in the area for future signalization. o Commissioner Wells asked about the possibility to reduce the speed on Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Haas stated the City Council will be talking about the school zones and reduced speed limits in those school zones. u u '\ '-../ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 12, 1998 Page 5 (public Hearing: Rezoning - R-1 to R-4 - Section 14 - Ashford Development, Continued) Motion by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 8:27 p.m. Jerry Windschitl Ashford Development CO'l'oration - stated the reason that sliver ofland is being included in the plat is because the City asked him to do so during the sketch plan stage to eliminate that remnant parcel. It is not something he created. That 40-acre parcel had been split by metes and bounds four or five times over the years, and he is trying to blend that sliver ofland to eliminate it. That sliver ofland also allowed him to reconfigure the location of the road to eliminate any impact on the wetland to the south. The Coon Creek Watershed Board has asked him to move the entrance onto Hanson Boulevard further to the north to avoid the wetland. He also understood that the school district policy is that all children on the east side of Hanson Boulevard are required to take buses to school. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 8:32 p.m. / .." V Motion by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to forward the Staff prepared Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation for approval with the following additional condition 1, that this rezoning is contingent on receipt of an approved amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the 2020 MUSA map relative to that portion of Block 1 which is currently outside of the MUSA area. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Wells asked how this can be done and meet the obligation of health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding land. Chairperson Squires stated the real issue is that small sliver ofland, as the rest is already a part of the Comprehensive Plan and has gone through the City's planning process and the Metropolitan Council process and all those approvals. The question is whether that small sliver of land creates enough of a concern that its approval affects whether or not they should reconsider allowing this property to be developed in the current time frame. His position is that it does not. He also noted the law requiring the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan to be the same. Commissioner Barry felt they are rezoning and increasing density. She didn't think extending the MUSA necessarily meant increasing density. Mr. Carlberg stated yes it does. MUSA development occurs in R-4 zones with the smaller lot sizes. MUSA development would be cost prohibitive on the 2 Y2-acre lots. If municipal water is not available, this project won't go forward. Mr. Hinzman noted that with the exception of that small sliver ofland, this area is slated for development in 1999, so it is right on schedule. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Squires, Apel, Peek; NO-Barry, Wells; ABSENT-Gamache, Luedtke. This will be on the June 2, 1998, City Council agenda. 8:38 p.m. :~) ;' " \J u ,- " Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,-..J Minutes - May 12, 1998 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHESTERTON COMMONS NORTH _ SECTION 14 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 8:38 p.m. In relation to the concerns of Commissioners Wells and Barry on the rezoning, Mr. Carlberg explained the comments relating to traffic are also a concern of Staff They submit the City's plans to the county, and entrances onto county roads are widened to accommodate turn lanes. They also look at street alignments to provide for future signalization. The City's hands are tied when it comes to the county road system. The City is following its development plan, and hopefully the road improvements will be done in a timely fashion to accommodate it. He suggested the Commissioners let the City Council know their concerns on the traffic issues, who may in turn talk with the County Commissioners about them. / ~" Mr. Carlberg then reviewed the proposed preliminary plat of Chesterton Commons North located in Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, being developed by Ashford Development Corporation. The plat consists of 47 single family urban residential lots on 22.39 acres and is slated for development in 1999. The northern 126.56 feet of Block 1 is outside of the MUSA, and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map will be before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. He then reviewed the five variances being requested for the plat. Another issue is that of trails along Hanson Boulevard. If the MUSA area will not be extended further north, it doesn't seem logical to have a section of trail along Hanson Boulevard that will not extend further north, nor does it connect with the trail to the south because of a large wetland to the south. Because the decision on the use of lift stations to extend the MUSA area is being discussed by the City Council and because the Comprehensive Plan Task Force is also in the process of reviewing the MUSA boundary, Staffis recommending no decision be made on the trail until a later date. The developer would escrow the cost of the trail which would be used if the trail is constructed. v Commissioner Wells asked ifit is legal to add a contingency to the plat that no grading be done until water is provided to the property. She was concerned that the area will be graded and then left with blowing sand for a long period of time if water is not available, similar to what has been done in Chesterton Commons to the south. Mr. Carlberg explained that there is an erosion control plan that must be followed, and such areas must establish vegetation to prevent erosion. He has never seen such a contingency added to a preliminary plat. Most grading occurs before the utilities are available. Mr. Haas also stated that the Coon Creek Watershed requires graded areas to be seeded within 14 days. He can check on the problem just east of the City Hall tomorrow. He also reviewed a possible trail plan if the area to the north is developed to an urban density, and that would be to extend a trail north up Hanson Boulevard to CoRd 20, east along the county road to the railroad tracks, then south along the tracks to intersect with Crosstown Boulevard. , \ Commissioner Wells suggested rather than going north to the county road, consideration should be \.....J to construct a trail to the railroad tracks through the developments. The Commission discussed the trail issue. Staff also noted the Council has asked them to look at the possibility of a trail crossing Ditch 37 to the south and east of this proposed plat. u u ,.- " \._,) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -May 12, 1998 Page 7 (public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Chesterton Commons North - Ashford Development, Continued) Chairperson Squires stated it appears that Outlots A, Band C are intended to be attached to the property to the north. Could that be a condition of the approval? Motion by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. 9:06 p.m. Jerry Windschitl Ashford Development - stated he owns the property to the north and would not object to requiring Outlots A, B and C to be attached to the adjacent property. That is the intent. He stated the wetland south ofthis plat is a DNR protected wetland, and it is not possible to get a permit to put a trail through there. Given the success of the trails in the City, he felt it would be a good idea to get east to the railroad tracks and then south again. He doesn't have a problem with escrowing the 50-50 cost share of a trail. He also commented on the sand issue in the Chesterton Commons plat to the south. Given the dry conditions, it is virtually impossible on this project and almost all projects in the City to get vegetation started. They will try to do whatever they can for erosion control. ,- ., '_..I' Motion by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote 9:10 p.m. The Commission discussed the variances. For the variance to Lot 7, Block 5, a 5-foot variance to the minimum lot depth and for Lot 1, Block 5, a 1O-foot variance to the minimum lot width, the Commission suggested that those minimum requirements be met by reconfiguring the lot lines and the variances be eliminated. By granting the variance, the Commission feared the property owners will be coming to the City in a few years asking for another variance because of these variances to lot width and lot depth. Mr Windschitl - stated they would try to reconfigure the lots to balance the lot sizes and possibly eliminate the variances. It just makes the other lots smaller. On lot 1, Block 5, he arguecl his interpretation of the ordinance is a variance is not needed. The sketch plan has this as a back-to-back lot, which doesn't require a variance. In theory the Staff is saying the adjoining property would not be back-to-back lots. He presented a sketch of the adjacent property which is long and narrow with the most logical development being a road down the middle. Under that scenario, this would be a back-to-back lot. Mr. Carlberg stated it is difficult to determine, but these could be a back-to-back lots. He didn't think Staff has an issue with indicating that would be back-to-back lots and that a variance would not be required based on the sketch plan. Commissioner Peek asked why 158th Lane did not align. " \ . ) '-- Mr Windschitl- stated the road configuration was moved because of the wetland. The reason for the variance is the triangle. Almost all of the lot meets the 100-foot build ability with the exception of the little triangle. The alternative was to ask the Watershed for a variance to fill the wetland. The u CJ ,-- " Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 12, 1998 Page 8 \...' (public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Chesterton Commons North - Ashford Development, Continued) double frontage lot is really a trade off for 159th and avoiding the wetland. Lot 8 is proposed to be graded as a full walk-out. Mr. Haas stated the developer has the option of hiring a geotechnical engineer to detennine the high water table. All of the elevations have been verified by Staff and are acceptable. Motion by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to forward the Staff prepared Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation for approval with the following changes: Condition No.1: Add a sentence after the (15' variance), due to the location of delineated wetlands. Condition NO.2 to be stricken and replaced with Outlots A-C shall be combined with the property to the north. Item 4, add due to the delineated wetlands. Said lots shall front on and be addressed from 159th Avenue NW. Item 5 to be stricken in its entirety and all subsequent conditions to be renumbered. Motion carried on a 3- Yes (Squires, Apel, Peek), 2-No (Barry, Wells), 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote. This will be on the June 2, 1998, City Council agenda. 9:34 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS / , \_.../ Mr. Hinzman updated the Commission on the actions taken by the City Council at their May 5 meeting. Mr. Carlberg also updated the Commission on the development proposal for the new Commercial Park. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Luedtke) vote The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Recording Secretary ~ '\ I '..