Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 9, 1994 , ) :-) ~~;: 7:00 p.m. ') , o u CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 ANDOVER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA August 9, 1994 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: July 26, 1994 3. Discussion - Preliminary Plat - Crown pointe East - Sections 25 & 26 - Ashford Development Corporation, Inc. 4. Public Hearing: Major Amendment to the comprehensive Plan for Sewer (MUSA) - School District No. 11 and City of Andover. Variance - Height of Structure - 1440 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW - Rieke Carroll Muller and Associates, Inc. for Anoka County. 6. Other Business 5. 7. Adjournment () ~~ 8 ~/q;.J / \ U <~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 't., PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 9, 1994 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 9, 1994, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Bonnie Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Randy Peek Jerry Putnam, Becky Pease City Planning Director, David Carlberg City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 26, 1994: Correct as written. :~-"J MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-Yes (Squires, Apel, Dehn, Jovanovich), 1-present (Peek), 2-Absent (Putnam, Pease) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SEWER (MUSA) - SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11 AND CITY OF ANDOVER 7:01 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed Major Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include 109 +\- acres in the MUSA being requested as a part of the construction of a middle school and an expansion to the Andover Elementary School by School District No. 11. One item missing in the proposal is the sewer flow calculations. That is being done by TKDA and will be included before submitting the Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Sewer will be flowing into the Coon Rapids Interceptor, which has ample capacity for the proposed projects. Commissioner Peek asked if the property would be rezoned. Mr. Carlberg stated schools are allowed in either R-4 or R-1 zones. Standard procedure is it would be rezoned since typically sewer and water are in the R-4 zone. The acreage includes approximately 49 acres north of the City Hall site either owned or being purchased by the school district for the middle school, 20 acres south of City Hall which is proposed to be sold to the school district for the expansion of the elementary school, and 40 acres of City-owned property. ,~-\ \~) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. 7:05 p.m. There was no public testimony. o o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 9, 1994 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Major Amendment to Comp Plan, MUSA, School District #11, Continued) MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Apel, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. 7:06 p.m. The Commission suggested the following corrections to the proposal: Page 5, 3C, "See enclosed maps (Attachment C)", is an incorrect attachment. Mr. Carlberg stated he will make the necessary correction. Page 4, Item II, Impact on Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework -- needs to be corrected to "Item III". o The Commission generally agreed with the proposed Major Amendment, as the school district proposal has been known for quite some time. They also noted that the acreage only includes contiguous land that will be required by the school district and the City Hall site. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the Andover City Council with the recommendation to forward the attached Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council as noted and amended. The Amendment is to accommodate the construction of the Andover Middle School and Elementary School for School District #11. A public hearing was held and there was no comment. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. 7:10 p.m. VARIANCE - HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE - 1440 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW _ RIEKE CARROLL MULLER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR ANOKA COUNTY Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Rieke Carroll Muller and Associates on behalf of the Anoka County Highway Department for a variance to the structure height requirement of 35 feet. The height of the proposed structure is to be 44 feet, requiring a 9-foot variance. This will allow the Anoka County Highway department to construct a salt storage building to comply with N.P.D.E.S. guidelines. A similar variance was granted on August 25, 1988, for the construction of the existing salt storage building. Mr. Carlberg noted the applicable ordinances, noting Staff is recommending approval. o John Monnens. architect for Rieke Carroll Muller Associates. Inc. _ explained the existing building is 72x88' and about 48' tall. The new building will be 180x160' and will be either 45' tall if the county chooses a wood structure, or 42' if they choose a steel structure. The requirement is to keep all sand and salt inside of the building, mix it and load it inside as well so it doesn't get wet and drain into the watershed. All work is done on concrete or asphalt, and water goes into a storage tank. Mr. Carlberg noted the application is for a 44' tall building. That should be changed to 45' maximum. o o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 9, 1994 Page 3 (Variance - Height of Structure, Rieke Carroll Muller and Associates for Anoka County, Continued) Mr. Monnens - explained that height is necessary to provide enough clearance to accommodate the front-end loader. There are only a few of these buildings in the State, but there will be more because MNDot has been leading the way. Other counties and cities are starting this process because of the new regulations. The intent is to have little to no salt storage outside to eliminate the runoff from it. They have several more of these buildings around the county in an attempt to eliminate the pollution from the sand/salt buildings. If they cannot get the building done this fall, they will have to get an extension from the MPCA to finish in time for next fall. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to forward to the City Council and recommend approval of the Resolution approving the variance of Rieke Carroll Muller and Associates as presented, changing the 9-foot variance to a 10-foot variance. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 6, 1994, City Council agenda. o DISCUSSION - PRELIMINARY PLAT - CROWN POINTE EAST - SECTIONS 25 AND 26 _ ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. Mr. Fursman provided some background on the proposed Crown pointe East plat, noting typically the Planning Commission does not get involved in these issues because they are resolved by the Staff and the developer before coming to the Commission as a proposed preliminary plat. In this case, there is an impass between the developer and Staff as to whether or not the plan is complete. Staff's interpretation of the ordinance is that all contiguous property owned by the developer must be included in the preliminary plat presented to the Planning Commission. The developer disagrees with Staff's interpretation, arguing all contiguous property is included in the proposed Crown Pointe East development. He asked the Planning Commission to consider this item and give direction on the interpretation of the ordinance. He felt this is the biggest hurdle tonight. The other items of grading and drainage are probably subordinate to the contiguous property issue and will be considered as the plat is presented. Commissioner Apel stated he has always been opposed to the contiguous property requirement, as it can create some ridiculous situations when dealing with large parcels of land. He gave some scenarios of when this provision doesn't work. Why should someone who owns 240 acres have to plat it all if he only wants to developer 40 acres? o Mr. Fursman stated in the past Staff has not required contiguous property to be included in a plat if the parcels are zoned differently or if one parcel is in the MUSA and the other is not, creating a different set of circumstances. In this particular case, the adjacent property is zoned the same and all in the MUSA. Another issue is whether there should be access between one development and the other for / o o o Regular Minutes Page 4 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - August 9, 1994 (Discussion Preliminary plat Crown Pointe East Ashford Development, Continued) safety reasons. The sketch plan for Crown pointe East has only one outlet in a development next to a high-pressure line and next to a rail line, which was a concern the City noted at the sketch plan stage. Another philosophical argument is if the City does not require adjacent property to be platted together, it would mean properties could be developed in piecemeal fashion, subverting the intent of the planning process to look at the macro rather than the micro. Mr. Carlberg noted both parcels of Crown Pointe and Crown pointe East were rezoned to R-4 at the same time. There is still 31 acres zoned R-1 in that area, but that is not owned by the developer. The Commission asked several questions of the developer. o Jerrv Windschitl. Ashford Development - stated there is about 100 acres in both Crown Pointe and Crown Pointe East. He asked to be treated the same as other developers before him in similar situations. The plat of Crown pointe East is owned by Ashford Development Corporation and consists of all contiguous land it owns in this area. This has been certified to the City in writing. He is the president of the corporation. The two plats has been in process independently since day one, long before this issue arose. He also noted the issue of a bridge being raised for safety purposes, the cost of which is staggering. Mr. Windschitl stated he is the fee owner of the parcel to the west. There are shareholders in the corporation and a Board of Directors consisting of two Board members, his wife and himself. The proposed plat of Crown Pointe East has no variances. It has been through the Andover Review Committee. He stated Staff is basing its decision on ownership on a February, 1980, memo from Attorney Hawkins relating to GM Investments. He was not familiar with the specific situation. In researching what took place, he wasn't able to locate that plat. Mr. Windschitl continued, in his limited research he found nine or ten plats from 1986 to the present where the property adjacent to the plat lists the developer as the property owner but is not included in the plat, the latest one developed in 1992. He claimed this section of the ordinance has never been enforced in Andover to the best of his knowledge. The ordinance defines "owner". He stated the contiguous property provision was put in the ordinance to ensure the person ahead had the legal right to plat the property. But if the interpretation for all these years has been according to what Staff is now saying, he claimed the ordinance clearly has been violated. He feels he has the right to plat the property as presented. C) Chairperson Squires asked if Staff requested an oplnlon from the City Attorney on this matter. Mr. Fursman stated Staff has talked to the Attorney about this specific situation, and the Attorney has considered that the property owned by the corporation and by the individual is in fact one in the same and, therefore, the rules should be applied. The Attorney is maintaining the same position as in 1980 when Mr. Windschitl was mayor. o o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 9, 1994 Page 5 (Discussion Preliminary plat Development, Continued) Crown Pointe East Ashford Mr. Windschitl explained the Board of Directors makes the decisions for the corporation. The Board members do not have the same voting power, as the shares are held unequally. He does have the power to make the decisions regarding the property owned by Ashford Development. The properties involved in both plats were actually purchased as three separate parcels under his personal name. He submitted documents to the City indicating the transfer of ownership for the Crown Pointe East properties to Ashford Development in June, 1994, which is a common practice when developing property. Once a developer gets to the point of development, ownership is transferred to the development company because it is the company that does the development and the marketing. Commissioner Dehn asked when the sketch plan came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Carlberg did not recall the exact date. He believed the two plats were viewed at different times. Mr. Windschitl stated there was a substantial difference in time between the two of them. () Commissioner Dehn asked if the sketch plan was presented under the individual name or corporate name. Mr. Windschitl assumed it was both, but he would have to check it. It should be indicated by the surveyors that the intent is to develop under Ashford Development. The ownership is checked before the preliminary plat is submitted in its final version. Commissioner Dehn asked if the plat to the west will be done ..EPder Ashford Development as well. Mr. Winds chit I stated at this~;'1:hey haven't addressed Crown pointe at all. They have to make a determination on the bridge issue. Ch . ptL!\res k d . f h b' d' . h lb' . a1rperson qU1FC as e 1 t e r1 ge 1ssue 1S t e on y 0 ]ect1on to platting the property simultaneously. Mr. Windschitl stated no. These were started completely separate. There is a very large investment in trying to start a plat. These were started as two separate plats from day one. To combine them would be like starting over from the sketch plan stage. Their intent is to process these as two separate plats, and that has always been their intent. Mr. Carlberg believed he would be required to go back through the sketch plan stage, but he would have to research that further. C) Commissioner Peek asked when Mr. Windschitl was first advised of the noncompliance on the contiguous property. Mr. Windschitl stated he turned in the plat on June 7. He received a letter from the City denying the right to a hearing before the Planning Commission on June 28. He reworked the plat, then submitted the revised plat to the City. He received another letter dated July 19, again stating they could not appear at the Planning Commission. His attorney then wrote to the City asking under what provision of the ordinance they were being denied the right to appear before the Planning Commission. He was subsequently placed on this agenda. The June 28 letter first mentioned the contiguous land issue. o o () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 9, 1994 Page 6 (Discussion Preliminary plat Development, Continued) Crown pointe East Ashford Mr. Windschitl then showed copies of preliminary plats which he felt proved his charge that the City has not been following the contiguous land provision. The plats were Timber Trails, Good Value Homes Hidden Creek and Hidden Creek East, Cedar Hills, Weybridge, Hills of Bunker Lake, and Winslow Hills 3rd Addition. Mr. Carlberg noted the portion of Hills of Bunker Lake 5th was not in the MUSA, but it was included in the original sketch plan. Mr. Windscshitl stated his attorney has not addressed the ownership on contiguous property in writing, but that could be made available. o Chairperson Squires didn't think a violation should be allowed to continue just because it has been done in the past. He didn't feel he was in a position to make a decision this evening, and he thought Staff would like to elaborate on each of the plats presented by Mr. Windschitl. He'd also like to see something on this issue from the City Attorney and something from Mr. Windschitl' s attorney as to why he doesn't think the ordinance applies. He also asked Staff to address why these pieces were allowed to proceed up to this point separately. Then the Commission would be able to make a better judgement on application of the ordinance. Commissioner Dehn also asked for copies of the Minutes from the City Council and Planning Commission on the sketch plans for both plats. Mr. Carlberg thought Staff may not have been aware of Mr. Windschitl's ownership of Crown pointe East at the time he platted Crown pointe. Or Mr. Windschitl may not yet have acquired the east property. He would like to research that further. Commissioner Dehn asked Staff to provide a chronological breakdown of events on the properties in question. Winslow Holasek - asked about the sketch plan regarding contiguous property. Mr. Carlberg explained the final plat can be done on a portion of the property, but the preliminary plat must include all contiguous property. Mr. Fursman noted the Commission will be holding a public hearing on Crown pointe East in two weeks regardless of whether this issue is continued. The developer has made that request; and according to the ordinance, he has the right to be heard within 60 days of the request. o Ross Abel, Hakansan Anderson Associates, enqineer for the developer _ explained when looking to combine the land side by side and looking for a reasonable route to connect the two, they have determined a bridge of approximately 500 feet to span the wetland and creek, 36 feet wide. The estimated construction cost is $60 a square foot, which comes to a construction cost of $1.1 million for the bridge. The Commission agreed to table the item to the next meeting to allow Staff time to research the information requested. The Commission also asked Mr. Windschitl to provide Staff with information that may be available. Mr. Windschitl agreed. () (-\ I...~ !) -.-/ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 9, 1994 Page 7 (Discussion Preliminary plat Development, Continued) Crown Pointe East Ashford Commissioner Peek asked for an update on Item 2, grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Mr. Fursman deferred the matter to engineering. Mr. Carlberg explained some changes have been made and have been reviewed for compliance with the Water Resource Management Plan. Chairperson Squires again asked that Mr. Windschitl work with Staff between now and the public hearing to resolve this issue. He felt this issue is procedural, either the proper plans were submitted or they were not. It would be helpful not to have this as an issue at the public hearing. Mr. Windschitl stated they will do everything they can to meet the requirements. Typically this item does not appear before the Planning Commission but is resolved between the City Engineer and the developer's engineer. The Commission agreed to address the issues again at the public hearing on August 23, 1994. ,- "'I 'J' MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. as-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. Motion carried on The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Recording Secretary " ( , '--../