Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 9, 1996 u /~ 'r-..N'N'ICI1 ~ ~ u w- .T~ .L.J J .?3{q(r; ., '-J CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 9, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on April 9, 1996, 7:03 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Lynnette Barry, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Randy Peek, Lorna Wells Maynard Apel City Planning, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 26, 1996: Correct as written. o MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to approve presented. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (Peek) Putnam} vote. the Minutes as 2-Absent (Apel, PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS - OAK VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL - ANOn HENNEPIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11 7:04 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the Anoka Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 is requesting a Special Use Permit to erect a 75-foot institutional sign at the southernmost driveway entrance at 15400 Hanson Boulevard, the site of the new Oak View Middle School. The property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. The Special Use Permit request is to allow more than the aggregate 32 square feet. Since the public hearing notice, it has been discovered that a variance will also be needed because the sign itself exceeds 32 square feet. He has discussed this with the City Attorney, who did not have a problem with including the variance request at the public hearing at this time. Mr. Carlberg noted the ordinance was amended in 1991, and this is the first request since then dealing with large signs based on the size of the project. It is a 49-acre site, and to have one sign of 75 square feet doesn't seem unrealistic when talking about this size of facility. Staff is recommending approval of the variance based on the hardship that strict enforcement of the ordinance causes the hardship. The size of the structure and the size of the property would warrant a larger sign. / '\ '---" Commission discussion was on a clarification on the aggregate square footage requirement. \ , '-./ , o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1996 Page 2 , I (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Institutional Signs - Oak View Middle School, Continued) MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:15 p.m. Zack Johnson, ATS & R, Architectural firm for the proiect - explained the sign structure is L-shaped. There is no message on the masonry to Hanson Boulevard. The lettering is applied over a lighted background. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing- Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:15 p.m. Mr. Carlberg didn't think anyone envisioned such a large project when the ordinance was amended. He felt the ordinance may need to be reviewed regarding the aggregate square footage and sign size and possibly consider basing it on the size of the building as is done in the commercial district. Commissioner Wells felt the proposed sign will look nice. It is important to have a sign that will be visible. After the new City Hall is built, visibility may become a problem as one drives north along Hanson Boulevard toward the Middle School. Commissioner Putnam did not think the size of the sign is excessive, nor would it have a large impact on the area. ,j MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to forward the variance to Ordinance 8, Section 8.0(C) (1) along with the Special Use Permit for signage at the Oak View Middle School to the City Council for passage. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. This item will be placed on the May 7, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:24 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS - ANDOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - ANOKA HENNEPIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11 \ , / 7: 24 p. m. Mr. Carlberg explained the request of the Anoka Hennepin Independent School Distri~t No. 11 for a Special Use Permit to allow more than one institutional sign per lot frontage with an aggregate square footage exceeding 32 square feet at 14950 Hanson Boulevard, Andover Elementary School. One 30-square-foot sign already exists at the southerly entrance on Hanson Boulevard. With the addition to the school, the proposal is to add another two-sided, free-standing sign at the driveway entrance to the site from Crosstown Boulevard NW plus a colonnade sign across the main entrance to the building. The aggregate square footage of the sign space will exceed 100 square feet; therefore, a variance is also necessary to Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 (D) (2) (i) (2). The sign off Crosstown Boulevard NW is proposed to be 44.5 square feet. The colonnade would be 84 square feet. The Special Use Permit is necessary for the excessive aggregate square footage of signage plus the number of signs per lot frontage. Variances are needed for exceeding the minimum 32-square-foot requirement for each sign, and another variance is needed to vary from the minimum 100-aggregate square footage requirement. '-) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1996 Page 3 , I (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Institutional Signs - Andover Elmementary School, Continued) Commissioner Luedtke was concerned with how far the sign will be set back from the road, as the structure itself would be high enough to block the line of sight. ~. carlbe~~tated it will be 10 feet from the property line. The An ~~~~/~ ~cc will be reviewing the sight triangle and other requirements before installation. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:32 p.m. Mark Hayes, ATS & R, Architectural firm for the school - explained with the new addition to the school, there was concern with focusing on the main entrance to the site. The main office will be relocated from the southern portion of the existing building to a central area between the original and the new buildings. A new entry has been constructed in that central area, plus one to the north which is more for staff and community education. The free-standing colonnade was designed to draw attention to what will now be the main entry for anyone coming from either Crosstown Boulevard or Hanson Boulevard. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:36 p.m. The Commission generally agreed with the proposal, that the colonnade is appropriate to avoid confusion and that the signage is not excessive. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to forward to the City Council approval for the slgnage as well as variances as stated in the application. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. This will be placed on the May 7, 1996, City Council agenda. Chairperson Squires suggested the Commission look at the institutional sign regulations again. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will look at that. 7:42 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS 3.02, 6.02, 4.18 AND 4.20 RELATED TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 7:42 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained this item was tabled to allow Staff to readvertise and include a change to the chart in Section 6.02 of Ordinance No.8. No other changes have been made. Section 6.02 was changed to eliminate any reference to minimum requirements in Planned Unit Developments in the R-4 and R-5 districts. Other ordinance minimum requirements will apply such as septic systems, building pads, etc., when development is done under a PUD. The proposed Ordinance 112 does allow up to a 20 percent increase in density based on certain criteria, that is a 5 percent increase for each of the four criteria listed in that ordinance. , , / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1996 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Amend Oridnance No.8, Sections 3.02, 6.02, 4.18 and 4.20, Planned Unit Developments, Continued) MOTION by Wells, Motion carried on public testimony. Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:45 p.m. There was no MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Putnam, to close Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. the public hearing. 7:45 p.m. The Commission agreed to discuss the next agenda item, the proposed Ordinance 112 for Planned Unit Developments, before acting on this item. DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE NO. 112, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the update to the proposed ordinance since the last meeting: Page 3, Section 4, was reviewed by legal counsel, who recommended no change. Page 5, Items 10 and 11 have been written to require all city utilities to be designed, installed and maintained by the City in conformance with all City standards and practices. The concern of Public Works and the City Engineer was that of responsibility if there are private associations and private sewer and water systems in the planned unit developments. As proposed, the City would maintain those systems as it does throughout the rest of the City. This specifically refers to the municipal systems, not private septic systems. Discussion was on the issue of density. Mr. Carlberg noted as written, the City Council would have total discretion over the density, up to a maximum 20 percent increase based on the four criteria outlined under Item 8. The ordinance allows a lot of flexibility and ability to negotiate with the developer in these developments. Chairperson Squires noted this can be a good tool, but it can also create a lot of discontent among the residents who have moved to the City with a good understanding of what will happen in the surrounding area only to find out there was an underlying POD in that area that proposed something entirely different. People making inquires about the zoning of properties surrounding an area they are considering to live should b~ made aware of any proposed POD plans so they are not surprised by what takes place after they move in. Commissioner Wells was concerned with the issue of notification of only 350 feet in the R-1 districts. With lots frontages of 300 feet, very few people who are affected receive official notification of public hearings. She hoped to see that 350-foot requirement increased, especially in the rural area. Mr. Carlberg explained the City is legally required to notify property owners within 350 feet. Any further area included in the notification would be arbitrary. Notices are also placed in the Anoka Union, plus he has found that the word does spread throughout neighborhoods so people are made aware of any proposal. Also, Staff often holds informational neighborhood meetings. '. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 9, 1996 Page 5 (Discussion: Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance Regulating Planned Unit Developments, Continued) Chairperson Squires agreed the issue is how far to notify people. Notification could be a tremendous burden for the Staff. That issue should be considered at another time rather than in this particular ordinance. In other discussion, Mr. Carlberg noted there is considerable reference to the platting ordinance. He felt this type of development will be more popular in the urban area, as the developers are saying 2 1/2-acre lots are easier to market than one-acre lots. Commissioner Peek asked what would happen to a planned unit development of clustered housing in a rural area when city utilities come through. Does the PUD become null and void? Mr. Carlberg stated the covenant for the PUD would be in place and would stay in place unless the people want to change it. It takes 51 percent of the people in the area to release that covenant. A concern of the people buying those lots will be if the open space will be preserved indefinitely or will it be allowed to develop in the future. Normally covenants are determined between th~ buyers and the developers; however, the development agreement with the City often includes those same things. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to forward to the Andover City Council the recommendations for approval for Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, 4.18, 4.20 and 6.02 as presented by Staff and Ordinance No. J12 as presented by Staff with the recommendation for approval. A public hearing was held and there was absolutely no comment. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions of the City Council at their April 2, 1996, regular meeting. There was also a discussion on the role of the Commission as advisors to the Council and the need to consider applications based on the ordinances or City policy and what is in the best interest of the City rather than from a personal standpoint. Respecting the opinions of others was also stressed. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. ~esp~~ ~,a A. Peach, Recording Secretary