Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 23, 1996 ~ () o u u CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 · (612) 755-5100 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda April 23, 1996 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - April 9, 1996 3. Public Hearing: Lot Split - 15318 Nightingale Street NW - Jerry Saarenpaa. 4. Public Hearing: Rezoning - R-I, Single Family Rural to R-4, Single Family Urban ,. "Shadowbrook" Subdivision - Sections 25 & 36 - Bunker LLC, Inc. 5. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Planned Unit Development - Single Family/Multiple Family - "Shadowbrook" Subdivision - Sections 25 & 36 - Bunker LLC, Inc. 6. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook - Sections 25 & 36 - Bunker LLC, Inc. 7. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Area Identification Sign - Shadowbrook - Section 36 - Bunker LLC, Inc. 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment u U('~Of'\ om.d ~ ~- - K"-.5I,~/qLp " ~ ',-/' CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 23, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoninq Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Randy Peek on April 23, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Lynnette Barry, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam, Lorna Wells Jay Squires, Maynard Apel City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Engineering, Todd Haas City Planning, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9, 1996: Pg 3, first paragraph, change "Andover Review Committee" to "Planning Department". ,- \ ~~/ MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as amended by Staff. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SAARENPAA LOT SPLIT - 15318 NIGHTINGALE STREET NW - JERRY 7: 02 p. m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the lot split request of Jerry Saarenpaa to split an estimated 13-acre parcel at 15318 Nightingale Street NW into two parcels of about 3 acres _ and 10i: acres. He summarized the applicable ordinances, noting the sum of $400 will be collected for park dedication on the newly created parcel. The proposed lot with the existing buildings has been enlarged to encompass an existing drainfield. All minimum lot requirements and setbacks are met. Commissioner Luedtke noted a recent Commission discussion concerned with additional accesses onto Nightingale Street. Mr. Carlberg explained if a structure is built on the 10-acre parcel, the driveway would be allowed onto Nightingale; however, there is a proposal to extend 153rd Lane through that area. Any structure built on the property would face south and would be required to access 153rd Lane once it is built and then abandon its access onto Nightingale at that time. That would be a part of the building permit process. u MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:12 p.m. Jerry Saarenpaa. 15318 Niqhtinqale Street m1 - stated he plans to sell the existing house but plans to keep the 10-acre parcel. He now has a ,~ '- _J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Lot Spli t, 15318 Nightingale Street, Continued) horseshoe driveway, so there are two driveways onto Nightingale now. He doesn't plan on building there now. Mr. Carlberg noted that all setback requirements for existing structures would be met even after 153rd Lane is constructed. He talked with the City's Building Official, who stated the existing buildings also face that future road and all setbacks are and will be met. The pole building was built keeping the extension o~ 153rd Lane in mind. There could not be any additional splits to the parcel without that future street construction. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:14 p.m. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to forward to the City Council the Resolution granting the lot split of Jerry Saarenpaa and grant the two parcels as stated in the Resolution. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:15 p.m. R.\ PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - g 1, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL, TO R-4, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN - SHADOrY'BROOK SUBDIVISION - SECTIONS 25 AND 36, BUNKER LLC, INC. 7:15 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the rezoning request of Bunker LLC, Inc., to rezone property located north and east of the intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard NW and prairie Road from R-1 to R-4. He summarized the applicable ordinances. This area has been included in a request for a Major Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the extension of sewer. The City is still awaiting the decision of the Metropolitan Council on the status of the property and its inclusion into the IlIetropolitan Urban Service Area, though he understands the review period for that amendment has officially begun. He felt that approval looks favorable but also noted that the MUSA expansion will Je-4 need to be approved before the property can be developed to the R 1 density. This area is also in the 1995-2000 time frame for development. The county was notified of the proposal but has not commented on it. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:18 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:18 p.m. The Commission raised questions on whether a study has been done on the potential impact the change in density will have on the existing roadway system, the effect of the railroad and the school district. Mr. Erickson stated a specific traffic study has not been done. There will be some increase in traffic, particularly along Bunker Lake Boulevard and along Prairie Road. The Council has discussed this and has asked to look at making improvements at the intersection of those two roads. The county has also included an upgrade of Bunker Lake Boulevard in its 2010 Highway plan. They too are aware of the developments taking place in " / . I , j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Rezoning, R-1 to R-4, Shadowbrook, Continued) Andover and plan their future improvements accordingly. Staff has not heard anything from Burlington Northern Railroad and whether there will be an impact on them. The railroad tracks are quite a ways to the west on the county road system. Mr. Carlberg also noted the City stopped rezoning property to allow time for the school district to plan keeping up with the City's growth. In 1995 the City received a letter from the school district that with the construction of the middle school and the addition to Andover Elementary, they can now keep up with the number of children coming into the City. Commissioner Wells stated the schools that will be affected by 433 new homes in this area are either near or above capacity. Mr. Carlberg stated the school district is aware of the City's plans and future developments. Also, the City participated in a transportation study done by BRW, which has been used to update the county's 2010 transportation program. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to forward to the City Council the amended ordinance as stated and drafted by Staff with the condition of the MUSA approval, which is understood. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2- Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:34 p.m. / PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - SINGLE FAMILY/MULTIPLE FAMILY - SHADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION - SECTIONS 25 AND 36 - BUNKER LLC, INC. 7: 34 p. m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Special Use Permit request of Bunker LLC, Inc., for a Planned Unit Development of mixed use, single farnily and townhome units in their proposed Shadowbrook development. Of the 433 proposed units in the development, 314 would be single family homes and 119 would be townhome units. The PUD area is proposed in th2 northeast portion of the Shadowbrook subdivision. He summarized the applicable ordinances and criteria to be used in reviewing the application. The proposed PUD would be developed under the current zoning ordinances because the Council has not yet approved the proposed Planned Unit Development ordinance. This concept allows for substantial variances with the approval of the Special Use Permi ts. Variance requests are for the minimum front yard setbacks for the townhome area and for the minimum lot requirements. He suggested, however, that the Resolution would state the variances will be reviewed and approved as a part of the preliminary plat. When the Commission asked why this isn't tabled until the proposed PUD ordinance is approved, Mr. Carlberg explained the developer has been working on the plat for the past 1 1/2 years. Staff and the developers are comfortable with the development as proposed and working with the current ordinance. The multiple use has to do with the tract of land and the number of units on that parcel. Basically, there would be 188 units on one parcel plus the common area. The developers would sell the units described in the legal area. / , \ <.J ,j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 4 . / (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Shadowbrook, Continued) MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 7:47 p.m. Garv Gorham, _Bunker LLC, Inc. - explained this concept was proposed many months ago in a sketch plan. He hears from residents of the community that there is a need for this type of housing, and he has done this type of development in other communities. The quality of housing is the same in the POD as in single-family developments. The basic difference is there is an association in each PUD area that takes care of the exterior maintenance of the yards and green areas, the buildings and the private streets and walkways. In this case, there would be two associations, one for the townhome area and one for the single-family area. It is expected the dues will be more in the detached single family units because there will be more upkeep. This type of association is becoming more popular with today's life styles, the size of the families and the age of the population. The document for the association is drawn up by the developer and reviewed by the City's legal counsel, then recorded with the final plat. Each owner of the PUD home or townhome automatically becomes a member of the association and has to live by its rules. The developers will be installing all of the improvements to the common areas, driveways, sidewalks, landscaping, underground sprinkling systems, grass, trees, walkways and other amenities. The association . / will take care of all of it. When the development is sold out, the association is turned over to the members who live there to run it according to the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the documents. The utilities and easements will be dedicated to the City. Rick Harrison, planner - showed slides of the proposed layout of the PUD. Of the 47.2 acres of the POD, 34.9 acres will remain as green space to which everyone has access. The northern parcel will have the attached units; the southern parcel the detached units. He described the life cycle housing with two- and three-car garages that are side loaded so the doors do not face the street, staggered in such a way that the interior window wrap of each unit will have a view of the green space, the narrow 24-foot private streets and public streets, the minimum of 10-foot setbacks between garages but with 20 feet between the units themselves, the distance of 400 feet in one direction and 320 feet in another between the backs of the units, the common walkways with gazebo, the area designed to keep as many trees as possible, a walking system that is completely separate from the vehicular system, and the design to be able to get around the project easily. He also showed slides comparing single family development areas and multiple housing areas with associations as each ages, pointing out that the multiple areas continue to remain clean and well kept as they age as opposed to single family areas where items tend to accumulate in the yards. The Commission had some concern with parking on the narrow private streets. \ Tonv Emmerich, Bunker LLC. Inc. - explained the intent would be to have no parking on any streets. Each driveway can hold six or more vehicles, plus the two- or three-car garages, which should be sufficient in most cases. They don't feel additional parking areas will be necessary. j <J ,) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 5 I (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - PUD - Shadowbrook, Continued) Commissioner Luedtke asked why this is proposed in the back of the entire development resulting in additional traffic traveling through the rest of the area. Mr. Harrison explained the intent was to take advantage of the amenities of the wetland and to get a lot of units on those views as opposed to single family lots with 20 to 30 percent fewer views. Mr. Gorham also explained that there would be the same amount of traffic per household generated with single family as there will be with townhomes in the PUD. Many of those in the PUD will be empty nester houses that will generate less traffic than the normal single family home. Putting it in the back actually reduces the amount of traffic instead of increasing it. Mr. Emmerich also stated no one has really addressed nice neighborhood settings for people his age. They hear all the time about people wanting a better selection of townhomes rather than next to a maj or road, the railroad tracks, or commercial areas. This is proposed to be an up-scale development. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 8:25 p.m. In discussing the proposal, the Commission generally liked the PUD ,/ concept, thinking this is specifically the intent of the proposed PUD ordinance. Mr. Gorham explained they anticipate developing the plat in phases, beginning at Prairie Road and constructing the single family homes first, and ending with the PUD area. They have also held neighborhood informational meetings to talk about their development before this evening's hearings. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Wells, pass to the City Council approval of the Resolution granting a Special Use Permit of Bunker LLC, Inc., for a PUD as prepared by Staff. Move the variances listed on a. and b. to be reviewed and approved as a part of the preliminary plat. Include the additional four conditions, the sunset clause, annual review, contingent upon the approval of the preliminary plat of Shadowbrook, and the City's review and approval of the association documents. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 8:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - SHADOWBROOK - SECTIONS 25 AND 36 - BUNKER LLC, INC. 8:32 p.m. Mr. Haas reviewed the proposed preliminary plat of the Planned Unit Development for Shadowbrook being developed by Bunker LLC, Inc. The proposed subdivision consists of 433 single family and multiple family residents lots and one outlot. Mr. Haas also reviewed the comments of the Andover Review Committee on the second access of \ Cottonwood Street NW north of 139th Lane NW, and the list of variances. ) The developer is requesting a variance to waive the minimum requirement of the lowest building floor elevation of 3 feet above the mottled soils. The developer's had a study done by GME, experts in this area, / , '_.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 6 / {Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued} and the City then hired Braun Intertec to provide a geotechnical evaluation of GME's report. That report basically concurs with GME's report. The Braun Intertec report, page 3, recommends the lowest level slabs be determined based on groundwater information derived thrcugh a hydrogeologic evaluation rather than using mottled soils. It was also of the opinion that a minimum 4-foot separation between the lowest level floor elevation and the estimated groundwater level will be suitable for this development. That is also the standard used by FHA/HOD. They do recommend that probes or shallow test pits be performed at the base of excavations to evaluate the groundwater level throughout the site. Mr. Haas stated the second request of the developer is for a variance to waive the minimum requirements of allowing the lowest floor to be less than one foot above the 100-year flood elevation and in many cases the lowest floors will be below the 100-year flood elevation for lots adj acent to storm water detention areas. Variances are also being requested to permit the double-frontage lots along prairie Road, which is designated as a municipal state aid street and classified as a collector. Direct vehicle access from those lots would not be allowed onto prairie Road. / Mr. Haas noted the Andover Review Committee is also concerned that the traffic volumes will exceed the functional classification for a local street, that is more than 1,000 vehicles per day based on the size of the subdivision. Also, Butternut Street NW located in the general area of Blocks 7 and 8 of Phase 2 was platted under Auditor's Subdivision No. 141 and will need to be vacated prior to the final plat being approved. Sidewalks are being recommended as proposed by Staff. A water storage facility is proposed for that area, possibly in the northeast area by the POD; but at this time it is not known whether it will be an elevated tower, at grade or underground. Mr. Erickson explained if the variance is granted to the mottled soils requirement, there would be a minimum of four feet between the water table and the lowest floor elevation on all houses. The experts are saying that mottle soils can indicate high water hundreds of years ago and is not necessarily an indication of groundwater levels at this time. Mr. Haas also clarified the variance to the 100-year flood elevation would be applicable around the ponding areas. GME is saying that with the fine sand and silt in the area, the permeability of the storm water retention ponds would be such that the water would not reach the houseg before it drains. The storm drainage system is designed for the 100- year flood, which is equivalent to six inches of rainfall during a 24- hour period. The storm drainage goes through a series of pipes and eventually discharges into a sedimentation pond and then into another wetland or creek. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried en as-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 9:00 p.m. , J "~) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 7 , {Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued} Tom Chouinard. 14123 Prairie Road NW - stated he is representing abouc a dozen neighbors. They feel this is one of the more elite projects they've seen in Andover, and the developers have been very courteous to the neighbors by answering all of their questions and addressing their concerns. One concern of the neighbors is the water storage facility. They really would like to see it be underground, not above ground like the other two towers. Because this is a high-class development, they can't imagine an above-ground tower in the vicinity. Also, he has some concerns with traffic on Prairie Road. Some stop signs and possibly a sidewalk along Prairie Road is needed. Other than that, they are very excited about the project. Garv Gorham. developer - addressed the variance relating to mottled soils. In talking with the City's Building Official, he was told that is the City's only way of determining where the lowest floor elevation should be. They then felt more engineering was appropriate and looked at why other communities have different regulations. That is why they hired GME to do the studies, and then the City hired Braun Intertec to review that report. He pointed out the report from Braun Intertec indicates the mottled soils are as much a geologic phenomenon as it is a seasonal phenomenon. It may be an indicator of high groundwater levels, but in Anoka County it is common to find mottled soils relatively close to the surface, even though groundwater may exist a~ great depths. And that is what they found on this site. I Mr. Gorham continued on the concern with the overall traffic volumes in the development. Because Shadowbrook is such a large development, he understood the concern. However, he indicated other developments in the City that are just as large or larger that were developed in phases or as separate plats where overall traffic volumes were never a concern and are not a problem today. He pointed to the area south of Andover Boulevard that consists of several plats, over 450 lots and only three outlets. Mr. Gorham also felt that further consideration needs to be given to sidewalks. He thought sidewalks were started in the older communities to accommodate a form of transportation for people living there. With today's life styles and forms of transportation, he wasn't sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian traffic does not exist that much in Andover. With triple-car garages, everyone uses their vehicles for transportation. The walking and biking trails are very advantageous and they support them. But sidewalks need to be given further thought. He felt the maintenance of the sidewalks will become a burden for the City. It adds about $1,000 to the cost of the lot. There is also the proble~ of maintaining the boulevard beyond the sidewalk. If sprinkler systems are put in, they would not be put between the sidewalk and the street; and that boulevard area then becomes an unsightly area for the development. Also, the limited space for snow plowing with a sidewalk I eight feet from the curb on a 90 by 150-foot lot and the gravel that gets place in that area. He felt people would not take the pride of ownership of that boulevard area as they do now without the sidewalks. , ) '-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 8 I (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued) Mr. Emmerich stated the Park Board is asking for trail access to Bunker Lake Boulevard, and they concur with that. They haven't pursued specific pedestrian crossings to Bunker Prairie Park. There is an active and an inactive park system and an east-west trail system, but they see no need for a north-south trail through the PUD area. That area has its own trail system down to the creek. With the curved streets to slow traffic, he didn't think safety was an issue for pedestrian traffic on the street. In an upscale development and concrete in the front yard would have a visual impact on the house. Several Commissioners felt the east-west trail provided is sufficient, but there should be a north-south trail on two fronts to connect to that trail, one along prairie Road and one further to the east. The trail system should have a destination point to get to the east-west trailway. Since there are no shopping centers or schools to walk to, the need for sidewalks is greatly diminished, though the need to walk to school bus stops was mentioned. Mr. Emmerich agreed it is more logical to have a trail along Prairie Road. Mr. Chouinard - stated he did not mean concrete sidewalks. Because Prairie Road is a high-volume road, a trail along it would be used by children on bicycles, roller bladers, horses, etc. The need is for an external trail system on both Bunker Lake Boulevard and Prairie Road to get people off those busy streets. Both Mr. Gorham and Mr. Emmerich then stated they agreed with a trail along Prairie Road and a north- south trail on the eastern end to facilitate getting to the trail along Bunker Lake Boulevard. They are open to working with Staff on that. Merv Mindness. GME - explained the research and report done by GME to support the variance on mottled soils and on the lOO-year flood elevation being requested by the developers. They have done extensive research in the project to determine the groundwater table. They have done 27 borings throughout the project and found the soils are basically sand, with three or four of them to monitor the water on a long-term basis. They have also backhoed test pits in several places in the interior of the project plus tested the hydrology of the area and of the region. They have determined there is a five-foot water table gradient along the southeast side that goes from the southwest to the northwest corner. The basements in the southeast area would have to be higher than the ones on the northwest corner because the water gradient table goes that way. They have very reliable water table level data which was collected over the past 18 months. Also, they have determined there will be hardly any "bounce" in the water table on this site because of the numerous wetlands which have the ability to absorb the new water. Plus the project creates 17 storm water detention siltation ponds. ~arry Olson, Midwest Surveyors Enqineers - explained in their analysis of a lOO-year storm, the worst case is the water would rise one foot above the nearest basement which is 80 feet away from the storm water collection water. It would take seven days for the water to travel through the soils from that collection pond to the nearest basement. '- / ~-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 9 I (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued) The storm water system is designed so that in the 100-year event, the water would stay in the retention pond for a maximum of only 5.28 hours. Also, there will be a drain tile system around the basements as another line of defense. That is the reason they are comfortable varying from the one-foot above the 100-year flood elevation. That variance would occur for homes surrounding storm water retention ponds that are constructed within the project, not from existing ponding areas. There would be no permanent standing water in those retention ponds. Mr. Olson also felt the City should reconsider its ordinance using mottled soils as the highest known and/or recorded water table. While the City's ordinance is 3 feet above the mottled soils, they would be constructing 4 feet above the reliable normal water level. From their studies, they do not think there is any correlation between the mottled soils and the normal groundwater levels on the site. Mr. Emmerich stated if the variances are granted, they would be following GME' s recommendations in placing the houses and the other items to reduce the risk of wet basements. If the variances aren't granted, their alternative would be to change the type of houses and limit the basements. It also affects their tree protection plan if dirt has to be moved around too much. All of the lower floor elevations will be indicated on the grading plan. \. / The Commission asked how many lots would be affected by these variances. Mr. Emmerich stated the mottled soils is relatively meaningless in this area because of the iron in the soil. It doesn't necessarily mean that water sat there. Mr. Olson stated there was a lens of peat found 15 feet below the surface. Their soil borings determine it extends for 50 feet and then disappears. Their intent would be to excavate all of ic and refill with sand. He did not know how many lots are affected by the variance from the one-foot above the 100-year flood elevation, but it is generally around the created storm retention ponds. All of the lots are affected by the mottled soils. The Commission asked about the second access to the north. Mark Jacobson, Coon Creek Watershed Planning - stated this plat is set for review on May 13. It was tabled on March 11 because of the wetland issue, and one area is that which relates to the possible extension of Cottonwood. That can't be decided until the Watershed Board reviews it. Representatives of the developers explained the request regarding the wetlands is for street crossings only, not for filling for housing. Mr. Emmerich stated they are aware of the wetland designation just beyond a proposed extension of Cottonwood. He felt that the land is drained and once they get the data from their test wells, it can be determined whether that is truly a wetland or not. Mr. Olson stated their choice is to extend Cottonwood around to provide a second access linking the other street in the PUD area. He too felt the area in question is no longer a wetland . \ \, ) _/ \ \.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 10 , , , / (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued) Mr. Emmerich stated they '...,ill retain ownership of the outlot. When the gentleman to the north develops his property, they would develop the outlot. Presently they are not able to get to that parcel. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Wells was not bothered with the variance for mottled soils but was concerned with the variance from the one-foot above the lOa-year flood elevation based on personal experience with flooding. She also did not have a problem with the lots backing onto Prairie Road, though she did not want construction traffic for those lots coming directly from Prairie Road either. Commissioner Barry felt the subdivision is very well laid out but understood the concerns of the Fire Department with accesses. She also has some concern with the traffic voluwe but did not know the procedure to address that concern. It seems that thinga have to be in place before the county looks at it. She also suggested that Staff look at the trailway system to be sure that the entire system is connected. \, \, ) Mr. Erickson stated Staff has been conservatively using the mottled soil to determine the water table elevation; but with all of the testing they have done on this site, the Council may want to consider the recommendations of the testing firms on this issue. Staff is cautious about the variance from the one-foot above the lOa-year flood elevation and has a concern with waiving that calculation as a new policy. They do see the new conclusions by the experts in the fields as reasonable and something that should be considered. Commissioner Putnam was not comfortable with the wording for the variances in the prepared Resolution. He felt the Resolution should bp. revised to reference the Braun Intertec report and to differentiate the variance from the one-foot above the lOa-year flood elevation from the collection ponds, explaining why the variances are being allowed. He also felt the proposed concrete sidewalk system is overdone and agreed with the discussion earlier this evening that the walkways should be to get people from one destination to another and along the major roadways. Commissioner Luedtke also felt the wording on the variances in the Resolution should be clarified. He was concerned with the traffic early on, but is happy with the overall proposal. Mr. Haas stated variations on the Resolution. they can identify which block and lots will need lOa-year flood elevation minimum and note them in the MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to send to the City Council the \ Resolution approving the preliminary plat of the Planned Unit j Development of Shadowbrook by Bunker, LLC located in Sections 25 and 36. A public hearing was held as there was no opposition. In fact there was some favorable comments from adjacent landowners for the development. \. J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 11 \. {Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Shadowbrook, Continued} Recommend to the Council the following variances: Variance No.1, stands as written in the draft. Variance No.2, ask Staff to work on revising it so that on the 100-year flood elevations to indicate locations of 100-year flood elevation we're talking about giving the variance to, meaning the standing water versus storm collection areas. And on Variance 3 as stands in the proposed draft of Staff. Variance No.4 as written in the proposed draft by Staff. No.5 that Staff talk with the developers in minimizing the number of lots showing the proposed sidewalk locations attached to the packet and come up with a reasonable routing of sidewalks to real destinations of the trails running east-west along Bunker Lake Boulevard and providing some north- south links within the site to that, and looking at a link along the east side of prairie Road and another location on the east side to be determined. Variances 6 through 10 as prepared by Staff. Also adding to the variances as outlined in the Special Use Permit, Items la. A 10- foot variance to the 35-foot front yard setback. And b under the Special Use Permit application, variance for lot area, lot width, lot depth, rear and side yard setbacks for the multiple Planned Unit Development Area of the single detached and attached multi-family units. Contingent upon receiving approval of the rezoning of the property. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Wells stated while she favored the plat and its layout, she is not amenable to the variance of the 100-year flood elevation. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-No (Wells), 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN _ SHADOWBROOK - SECTION 36 - BUNKER LLC, INC. 10:30 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request to erect an area identification sign at the entrance to the proposed Shadowbrook development at the entrance of Goldenrod Street NW at Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to review. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:35 p.m. Garv Gorham, developer - explained They will provide the maintenance. with landscaping around it. the sign will be sandblasted on wood. It is one-sided with no lighting and MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:37 p.m. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to forward to the City Council the Resolution for the signage as written for the Special Use Permit. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. 10:38 p.m. Mr. Carlberg noted all of the items will be placed on the May 7, 1996, City Council asenda. ) \ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1996 Page 12 \ OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the actions of the City Council taken at its April 16, 1996, meeting. He also reported it is Staff's understanding that the 60-day review period for the City's Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council was started today. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Squires, Apel) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. RespectfullY.13u.?mitted, ~ \~\(h_uQJi ~-:C:-.~<,yL Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary