Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 1995 o (-\ V o 7:00 p.m. o o CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 ANDOVER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA January 24, 1995 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: January 10, 1995 3. Public Bearing: Lot Split - 14xxx Butternut Street NW - Section 25 - LeRoy A. Johnson. 4. Public Bearing: Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign - Lot 8, Block 3, Foxberry Farms - Contractor Property Developers Company. Public Bearing: Amend Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdividing Ordinance. 5. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment o ~}-""rNIl.d ~ ~ U '1-- .;2.11~ I CL5 """4",;'::~~:j~!:::";''';',;,,, o {C}\' ~ /~~" CITY of ANDOVER ]I"".,O,""I"" 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 I.f PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY ;)': 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on January 23, 1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek Jerry Putnam City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 10, 1995: Page 1, Timber Meadows 3rd, first sentence, Ordinance 8, Section Ordinance 8, Section 4.18. paragraph, third 4.20, change to o MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - 14XXX BUTTERNUT STREET NW, SECTION 25 - LeROY A. JOHNSON 7:05 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request by LeRoy Johnson to subdivide a tract of land into two parcels of 20! acres and 4.25t acres on Butternut Street NW. The parcel no~T.~ of the creek would be utilized as a future single family building ~u~t~ That portion south of Coon Creek is proposed to be sold to a developer and developed once utilities are available. Park dedication would be required for the northern lot that is being created. Staff is recommending approval with two conditions. There are four structures on the northern parcel, though none are habitable. LeRov Johnson - stated one is a garage, and he will continue to use it for storage. There is a walk-out basement and underground wiring to some. He would like to keep the northern parcel. He sold the rest of his property; and in case he wants to come back, he would build a new home on that parcel. o Mr. Carlberg also clarified the newly created lots are a part of Lots 8 and 9, Auditor's Subdivision 141, though Mr. Johnson owns much more land south of the creek. The final survey of the newly created lots will be reviewed by Staff for accuracy prior to going to the county. The intent would be that the southern parcel would eventually be combined and replatted with the entire southern area. Also, one of the issues is the possibility of extending Butternut Street. Now it is a 33-foot u o Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 .\ Page 2 \..J (Public Hearing: Lot Split, 14xxx Butternut, L. Johnson, Continued) easement, which was created as a part of Auditor's Subdivision 141. In looking at future development sites and access, it may warrant a creek crossing at that location. The Engineering Department and Road Committee will be discussing that possibility prior to the Council action on February 7, 1995. If additional right of way is needed, an additional 16 1/2 feet of easement from these parcels may be requested for Butternut. The parcels meet the ordinance requirements for lot frontage, as Butternut Street is an approved road and has been maintained for a number of years. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:16 p.m. LeRoy Johnson, applicant - stated when Butternut Street was put in, the entire 33 feet was dedicated off of that parcel. Mr. Carlberg acknowledged the easement all came from Parcel No.8. Since then, two or three houses have been constructed that are 40 to 50 feet from the front property line. It would be difficult to acquire the additional 33 feet from the west side of the existing easement. Additional right of way is needed to meet current street standards. , "- '-) Mr. Johnson - was only concerned that if he decides to come back in two or three years that he would have enough acreage to construct a home. Mr. Carlberg stated even with a dedication of additional easement, the parcel still exceeds the minimum acreage. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:20 p.m. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to forward the draft Resolution contained in the Staff report to the City Council with recommendations for approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:20 p.m. This will be placed on the February 7, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:21 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - REAL ESTATE SIGN - LOT 8, BLOCK 3, FOXBERRY FARMS - CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY 7:21 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed -the request of Contractor Property Developers Company to erect a real estate sign on Lot 8, Block 3, Foxberry Farms, noting the applicable ordinances and criteria to be considered. The intent is to erect a 32-square-foot sign to market the Foxberry Farms subdivision, a single-family residential development. Staff is recommending approval with seven conditions. (J MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. no public testimony. the public hearing. 7:25 p.m. There was MOTION by Apel, Seconded by peekr to close the public hearing. carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:25 p.m. Motion u / "- u Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 , \ Page 3 "~) (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Real Estate Sign, Foxberry Farms, Continued) MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Apel, to forward to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Contractor Property Developers Company to erect a real estate sign on Lot 8, Block 3, Foxberry Farms. The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, including: the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community; the use will not cause serious traffic congestions or hazards; the use will not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also finds that the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07. The Commission makes the following conditions in accordance with Sections 8.07 and 5.03: l. 2. 3. 4. ~) 5. 6. 7 . The area for development is larger than 5 acres; The sign is located at least 130 feet from any residential structure; The sign area shall not exceed 200 square feet in area; An agreement is made to remove the sign within two years unless an extension of time is granted by the governing body; after approval of a Special Use Permit has been granted; The sign is located 10 feet from any property line; The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review by Staff; The owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the sign. There was a public hearing held and there was no opposition to it. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the February 7, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10, THE PLATTING AND SUBDIVIDING ORDINANCE ~) 7: 30 p.m. Mr. Erickson explained the various amendments have been proposed to update and improve the current ordinance. During the review process by the Andover Review Committee, a number of amendments have been recommended. A meeting was also held with four developers, Tony Emmerich, Byron Westlund, Gary Gorham and Jerry Windschitl, to discuss the changes. Mr. Erickson then explained each of the proposed changes to the ordinance and the reasons for them. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:50 p.m. Mr. Carlberg noted the letter from Jerry Windschitl of Development dated January 23, 1995, commenting on several proposed amendments. There was no further public comment. Ashford of the MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:51 p.m. ~~ o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 Page 4 (J (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 10, Continued) Commissioner Apel stated some proposals are a significant change from what has been done in the past, and he wanted to be very careful that the Planning and Zoning Commission responsibilities not be inadvertently given to the Andover Review Committee. The ARC has not had approval of the platting process before. As proposed, the plat would not come to the Planning Commission until ARC approval is given. Mr. Erickson stated currently the developer has the ability to submit a preliminary plat to the Planning Commission for a hearing even if there are problems with the plat. The intent of the amendments are to make sure the plat is complete and all documents submitted by the developer before placing it on the Planning Commission agenda for a hearing. There was some discussion among the ARC members as to the term "approval", and maybe that is not an appropriate term. The ARC does not approve plats or preliminary plats; they make sure they are in compliance. , ) Commissioner Apel noted there has been discussions in the past of streamlining the platting process for the smaller parcels of three to four lots, so they would not have to go through the same extensive, expensive process as a full-blown development. Because the small landowner often cannot afford that process, the land is sold to a developer, who then reaps the benefit of the land held by the property owner for many years. He'd like to see that reviewed. The Commission then did a Section-by-Section review of the proposed amendments and made the following comments and/or recommended changes: Page 2, definition for Buildable Lots: There was some question as to whether the lots would be identified as being served by municipal sanitary sewer or those that are not. Mr. Carlberg noted that is no change from the current ordinance. The Commission recommended no change. Page 3, definition of Owner: With the proposed addition, Commissioner Apel thought it would be tested by a few lawsuits. If he has one percent ownership in a corporation, does that constitute sufficient proprietary interest in the land? Or does one have to have a controlling interest of the corporation? Chairperson Squires suggested it be limited to the situation where there would be a controlling interest between an individual and a corporation as opposed to an individual with one share of stock. Or maybe the person has to be in the decision-making capacity in the corporation such that he/she would be able to shift ownership between the two. Possibly the word "sufficient legal proprietary interest" should be "controlling proprietary interest". What percentage is sufficient? Mr. Erickson stated he will look at the wording again for clarification. ~) Page 4, definition of Streets, A3, Minor Street: Commissioner Doucette suggested the terminology be consistent with the changes suggested in Section 9.03. Minor Street would be changed to Minor (Urban) City Street. Mr. Erickson agreed. .,., ' ""./ ',":. " " " . - . . . " ... ~ . ." ., r ,,,, I I'" , ) /- "\ \J '\ ,,) (~ .F' '\ '0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 10, Continued) Page 4, definition of Streets, A6, Limited Minor Street: Minor (Rural) City Street. Change to Page 4, definition of Streets: Add a definition for A7, Thoroughfare. Page 5, Section 6.02: Commissioner Apel felt the terminology of "any other property" gives a very wide latitude. He would like to have a definition so it makes sense. What does "any other property" mean? Mr. Erickson explained the intent is to provide flexibility to look at future street extensions and alignments, future platting, etc. Commissioner Peek also felt it would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Andover Review Committee as noted to be consistent with the remainder of Section 6. A suggestion was to change 6.02 to: The subdivider is required to show adiacent property and any other property as determined necessary for the review of the plat to allow for a thorouqh review to be made by the Planninq Commission. Page 5, Section 7.02, A: There was concern by the Commission over the terminology of "approval by the Andover Review Committee". Commissioner Peek thought perhaps another section is needed to address the review by the ARC prior to submitting the preliminary plat to the Planning Commission. He didn't think the intent of the ARC review was stated very well. Discussion continued with the problems now being encountered when all information and documentation are received from a developer, yet the public hearing and Council action is required to take place within 60 days of the developer filing the petition for the plat. Chairperson Squires noted the proposal gives the Review Committee substantial authority to make decisions about whether the Planning Commission and City Council can ever see any proposal. He thought the Committee is really looking at a procedural issue to make sure once a plat comes before the Commission, it is complete. He thought the lag time needs to be reviewed from that perspective. The Commission suggested the Staff look at not accepting the petition to file until all documentation is received and the preliminary plat meets the ordinance requirements. Once all these requirements are satisfied, the petition would be accepted and the time requirements would begin. At this point the Commission recommended this paragraph read: The subdivider shall submit 10 copies of the preliminarv plat to the Clerk. Then add another paragraph that the ARC would have a specific time period, for example 7 or 14 days, to review the forms for completion. If it is determined that it is complete, that initiates the filing, and that becomes the formal date of filing. The ARC would approve the completeness of the submission in order for the plat to be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Erickson stated Staff will clarify that section. Page 6r Section C.: original ten copies additional copies. Commissioner Doucette asked if it refers to the or ten additional copies. Mr. Carlberg stated ten .. "\ ~J , '\ U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 Page 6 l.J (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 10, Continued) Page 6, Section G.: Commissioner Doucette asked if it should be more specific regarding the accceptable form of notification to the subdivider. Mr. Carlberg explained the standard practice is to use the copy of the Minutes of the meeting. Page 7, Statement K.: Commissioner Doucette wondered if Council action should be within 60 days of the date from the Planning Commission public hearing. In light of the discussion on Section 7. 02A, Mr. Erickson agreed to review the limits in this section. Page 9, Section 8.03, K.: Mr. Erickson explained the intent is to allow very minor grading changes without coming for Council approval. In the normal day-to-day activities where Staff determines there has to be a change made, it would not have to come back to the Planning Commission or City Council. Significant changes would be brought back. The Commission suggested a definition be made for "significant". It was also suggested the first sentence be clarified: Any revisions to the development plan shall be reviewed by the Andover Review Committee. " \.) Page 12, Section 9.03 Streets: Mr. Erickson stated there has been no change in the width of any street right of ways. Page 15, 9.06, Al.: Commissioner Apel noted this is a significant change but that the impact will be beneficial in the long run. Commissioner Peek suggested the terminology be reviewed again for clarity. Mr. Erickson agreed. Commissioner Doucette asked if there is a need to specify the different kinds of mulch. Mr. Erickson stated there are differing City standards which are spelled out. Page 17, F.: Mr. Erickson explained double frontage lots that back along arterial streets or highways will now be required to have an additional depth of 20 feet for screening to be planted along the rear lot line. It is to create a larger buffer zone between the house and the major street. Mr. Carlberg stated that change came about as a result of the concern on the part of some Commissioners of the rows of houses backing onto collector streets and that more space is needed for screening. The Commission agreed with the proposed change. Page 21, Section 10.03 C.: Commissioner Doucette contract" should be replaced with "development consistent with 10.02. The Commission agreed. noted "performance contract" to be Page 22, Section 10.08 A3. and B3.: Mr. Erickson agreed to clarify that the intent would also be to include approved mulch. Page 26, Section 13, Easements: Commissioner Doucette asked if this , belongs with Section 11.04. Chairperson Squires explained Section 11.04 ~) deals with the requirements of the final plat. This section talks about the process of conveying the easements and recording them. ,'----\ \.j ,- " I,J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 24, 1995 Page 7 ,J (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 10, Continued) Page 28: Commissioner Doucette asked if consideration should be given to adding a Section 16.04 to limit the number of single-family residential building permits the City will issue each year to control the growth in the City. Commission discussion noted this is something the elected officials of the City should propose and questioned if this has been done elsewhere. Mr. Carlberg explained the Council is concerned with growth and has directed the Planning Commission to review the issue of regulating growth. Once the decision has been made on the on-site sanitary sewer issue, the Commission can consider addressing the Comprehensive Plan and phasing and controlling growth. The Commission asked that this item be brought back to them for their review once the proposed changes have been made to the amendments. Mr. Erickson agreed. 8:50 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the City Council's January 17 appointment of new Commission members Doucette and Luedtke and the reappointment of Commissioners Squires and Apel. I' " l j MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, fV\~~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary /- '\ t ) ~-