Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 24, 1991 o o o (}\ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and ZonIng Commission was called to order by Acting ChaIrperson Steve Jonak on September 24, 1991, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hal I, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel; BonnIe Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Marc McMullen Becky Pease, Randy Peek City Planner, David Carlberg AssIstant CIty Engineer, Todd Haas Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES o September 10, 1991: Page 3, bottom, Item 5: "LInk the proposed structure to the prIncipal structure of the adjoIning property, 17615 Roanoke Street NW, by restrictive covenant." MOTION by Apel, Seconded by JovanovIch, to approve the Minutes as amended. MotIon carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent <Pease, Peek) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION OF RIVERDALE CHURCH IN R-l DISTRICT. 1657 161ST AVENUE NW 7:31 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Riverdale Church to construct a church on a 40-acre parcel, 1657 161st Avenue NW, noting the applicable ordinances and Council optIons. One concern of the Staff is the traffic that wIll be generated, which will be addressed at the tIme of the commercial site plan. Access will be control led by the county. The Park Commission will address park dedIcation when the property Is developed. Staff Is recommending approval. The hearing was opened to public testImony. James StelziQ. 1433 161st Street NW - asked if a school would also be allowed on the site and If there are regulations on the size and height of the buIldIngs. Mr. Carlberg stated a school could be an allowable use on the site. The ordinances do stipulate height restrictions and the amount of land coverage by the buildIngs. They have not yet selected the exact locatIon of the buIldIng. The SpecIal Use PermIt goes with the land and would have to be amended If the o property is split in the future. There being no further public testImony, Acting Chairperson Jonak asked for a motion to close the public hearing. ( , u , , u "- '- ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/Construction of Riverdale Church in R-1 District, 1657 161st Avenue NW, Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to so move. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by McMul len, that we recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request by the Riverdale Church. The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, and that the use wil I not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. The Commission would like to point out that they have heard from the Staff an Interest in the traffic conditions there, and it should be emphasized when the commercial site plan is reviewed and approved that this be looked at very carefully. That we add the caveat to the motion that the Special Use Permit would be subject to the annual review and site inspection by Staff and that the Special Use Permit shall have a one-year sunset clause as specified in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D). Note that there was a public hearing and no one expressed opposition. , ./ Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. The item is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 15, 1991. 7:41 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - JAMES G. PLATZ. 2206 145TH AVENUE NW 7:41 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of James G. Platz, Sr., to split off of Lot 12, Block 1, Kensington Estates, 2206 145th Avenue NW, a parcel of land to be combined with Lot 11, Block 1, Kensington Estates, 2215 145th Avenue NW, which is adjacent to it. Jerry Windschitl is the underlying property owner of the parcel to be split. The proposal is to split 43 feet of Parcel B and add it to Parcel A for tax purposes. Because it is platted property, the two cannot be legally combined unless it is replatted, but they can be combined for tax purposes: and the City Attorney has indicated the lot split procedure is the proper manner to make that combination. Mr. Carlberg understood the reason for the request is that Mr. Platz has done considerable landscaping in that area and would like to add it to his parcel for tax purposes. The parcel being split does not meet dimension requirements: however, there would be a restrictive covenant on it saying it is not buildable. Staff is recommending approval. \ ) James Platz. Sr.. 2206 2215 145th Avenue NW - stated the cul-de-sac on Osage comes to the parcel being split. His house is set back a long ways, so he is close to that remnant parcel: and that is why he wishes to use that area. , , l. ) , \ \..J Planning and Zoning Commission \ Minutes - September 24, 1991 ,~ Page 3 (Public Hearing: Lot Split - Platz, 2206 145th Avenue, Continued) The hearing was opened for public testimony. There being none, Acting Chairperson Jonak asked for a motion to close the hearing. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Apel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission accept Option 1 to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split request of James G. Platz, Sr., and Gerald G. Windschitl to split Lot 12, Block 1, Kensington Estates, into two parcels, sUbject to: A covenant, which has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, be entered into wherein it states that the lot remnant parcel created Is solely for the enjoyment of James G. Platz, Sr., and is not intended to be created for a building site. That the fully executed covenant be recorded at the Anoka County Recorder's Office and that a Request for Combination be completed which transfers title of the lot remnant parcel to James G. Platz, Sr., and documents that the lot remnant is not a building site pursuant to Andover Ordinance no. 8, 10, and 40. ) That the provisions of Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E) apply to this request regarding a sunset clause. Note that a public hearing was held and there was no objection to it. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. This item is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 15, 1991. 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.8. SECTION 4.05(B)(1). ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 7:50 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the Building Official has asked that this item be changed, stating the intent of this section was to limit the square footage of accessory structures on al I parcels of land over one acre to the total square footage of land cover of the principal structure. The ordinance now reads that parcels between one and five acres meet this requirement, and parcels over five acres are regulated by Section 6.02, which limits the total ground coverage of all structures to 20 percent of the total area of the parcel. Commissioner Apel opposed the proposal because it discriminates \ against lower- to modest-priced homes that would have less ground ,) coverage than the higher-priced homes. It also discriminates against two-story houses which normally have less ground coverage than other types of houses. He also stated it doesn't work well to apply small-lot size administration to large rural lots. / ' ~J (~ Planning and Zoning Commission , Minutes - September 24, 1991 ,) Page 4 (Public Hearing: Amendment to Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05(B)(1), Accessory Buidlings, Continued) Other Commissioners questioned how it is known what the original intent was, that the ordinance as is has been adequate for years with no apparent problems, and that they have been provided with no documentation proving there have been problems. Mr. Carlberg stated the Minutes do not give any concrete evidence that says what the intent was. The hearing was then opened for public testimony. Ernie Truttle. 1412 Andover Boulevard NW - opposed the proposed change to the ordinance. On his parcel, his home Is approximately 1700 square feet, but he has about 20,000 square feet of accessory buildings for his horse operation. He felt larger parcels, possibly 10 acres or more, could be exempt from that provision. This proposal really limits the use of his land. He again objected to the ordinance change. Commission noted the existing ordinance exempts parcels five acres or more. / MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Dehn, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by McMul len, recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission ~ecommend to the City Council that no change be made in Ordinance 8, Section 4.05(B)(1), and that It remain as It is at the present time with "...five (5 a.) acres or less, but..." left in the ordinance. DISCUSSION: Commissioner McMullen stated they have been given no reason for the change or anything showing there is a problem. Commissioner Apel argued against a change because it is discriminating. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. This item is scheduled to be on the October 15, 1991, City Council agenda. 8:08 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 10. SECTIONS 9.03(q). 9.06(a)(3) AND 11.01(a) 8:08 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the three proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 10: Section 9.03(g) to require temporary cul-de-sacs in al I new subdivisions where the streets will continue in adjoining areas in the future; Section 9.06(a)(3) to clarify what a buildable lot is that lacks municipal sanitary sewer outside the MUSA; and Section 11.01(a) allowing the City to adopt and enforce new regulations on unrecorded portions of preliminary plats and adds the ,.J review by the Andover Review Committee. The hearing was opened for public testimony. ( \ \J (-) , . ./ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Amendments to Ordinance No. 10, Sections 9.03(g), 9.06(a)(3) and 11.01(a), Continued) Jerry Windschltl. 3640 152nd Lane NW - had a problem with the one statement in Section 9.06(a)(3), "...require the lowest floor to be a minimum of three feet above the mottled soils..." Engineers disagree about using that as a standard, stating there can be mottled soils on the top of a hll I pushed up by the glaciers but not on the bottom. That mayor may not be any Indication as to whether the area is buildable. If it appears in an ordinance, It may make some lots unbuildable that really are buildable. He felt there are sufficient controls on buldablllty so the mottled soils standard Is not necessary. Mr. Windschitl also had a problem with the proposed change in Section 11.01(a). If the City wishes to change It, he felt other changes must be made to help the developers. The ordinances require that all contiguous property be included in the preliminary plat; however, it Is rare that the entire plat wll I be developed at one time for economic reasons. The platting process is expensive. He felt the developers need to have some guidelines so they know they can complete , what was approved originally. An element of risk is created that is / not necessary by requiring changes to preliminary plats that have already been approved. Mr. Windschltl stated to his knowledge there has not been a problem with the current ordinance. If it is going to be changed as suggested, he felt the developers should have a longer time in which to file the final plat, suggesting one or two years instead of the current six months. Commissioner Apel agreed with Mr. Windschitl regarding the mottled soil requirement because of the geology In this area. He didn't feel mottled soil is helpful at al I In making an engineering decision regarding the bulldability of an area. Mr. Haas explained the proposed addition In Section 9.06(a)(3) is simply an insert from another ordinance for clarification, so when someone comes to the City for information on subdividing land, all the information will be In the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission noted that If the portion on mottled soil is removed from this proposed amendment, it should also be corrected In the other ordinances. In discussing this proposed change, there was some reluctance to retaining the requirement of using mottled soils; however, no specifIc change was made. , The discussion was then on the requirements for filIng final plats In SectIon 11.01(a). Mr. Haas explained there are some preliminary plats that are 10 to 11 years old. The ordinances have changed drastically since then. They are asking to clarify the ordInance to require the final plats to meet the updated ordinances. If the final plat cannot be filed wIthin six months of the preliminary plat, the developers can ask for an extension. An unlimited number of extensions can be granted. J , , ,-j '-J , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991 Page 6 (Public Hearing: Amendments to Ordinance No. 10, Sections 9.03(g), 9.06(a)(3) and 11.01(a), Continued) The Commission questioned whether the six-month requirement is long enough, as it can often take longer than that to complete the necessary work. A one-year period was considered more reasonable. Staff agreed. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. MOTION by McMul len, Seconded by Apel, Section 9.03(g), recommend the change to delete "one hundred (100.0') feet In the rural areas" and to add "the Rural Service Area. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall be required in all new subdivisions that have made provisions for the continuation of future streets for adjoining aras. Each temporary cul-de-sac shal I be required to have a minimum roadway diameter of eight (80') feet." Note that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition to this. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. , MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to recommend approval of the changes for Section 9.06(a)(3) which consist of adding the statement as fol lows: "Said lot shall be required to have a finished grade of at least six and one-half (6.5') feet above the seasonal high water mark and shall also require the lowest floor to be a minimum of three (3') feet above the mottled soils or one (1') foot above the designated or designed one hundred- (100) year flood elevation, whichever is higher. Said lot shall also have": then strike "and has". Motion carried on a 4-Yes (Apel, Janak, Jovanovich, McMullen), I-No (Dehn), 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. ,~ Commissioner Dehn stated she disagreed with the mottled soils requirement, feeling it should be defined in geological terms. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by McMullen, recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the changes indicated In Section 11.01(a): "...or portions of the preliminary plat not proposed to be recorded, developed and submitted as a final plat, or granted an extension, shall be subject to the right of the City to adopt new or revised platting and subdivision regulations and shall be sUbject to review by the Andover Review committee (ARC)." \ ~ ) Also to change, "If the final plat Is not filed within six months following approval of the preliminary plat," to, "If the final plat is not filed within one year fol lowing approval of the preliminary plat," And also change the first sentence to "Within one year following approval of the preliminary plat..." Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. The proposed amendments will be on the October 15, 1991, City Council Agenda. 8:36 p.m. u , \ \J , Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991 Page 7 , ) SKETCH PLAN - WAYNE HOLMBERG Mr. Haas reviewed the sketch plan and Staff comments on the proposed develoment of a 20-acre parcel owned by Wayne Holmberg in the R-l Single Family Rural Zoning District into seven 2.5-acre lots. The main concern is the length of the cul-de-sac. The ordinance al lows the maximum length to be 500 feet; the developer is proposing 960 feet. He asked for discussion regarding options. Should the developer provide streets to the edge of the property going north and south to provide for the future developments of the adjoining properties? If so, then variances on lot sizes would be needed to provide for those roadways and/or eliminate a lot. If the 1/10, 4/40 density Is is required by the Metropolitan Council, the property to the north could not be subdivided; and the property to the south could be subdivided into two 10-acre parcels. Then a permanent cul-de-sac would be the best solution. The land to the east is unbuildable. Staff is recommending an extension to the north and the south with temporary cul-de-sacs. There are some buildings on the site which will be removed. , j The Commission discussed the options, feeling it is important to work with the ordinances as they exist today. The general consensus was to provide an easement or dedication to the south but not to construct the road at this time. Because of the trees to the north, there was some hesitancy to requiring a road to that northern property line. Mr. Haas pointed out the problem of who pays for the construction of that portion of the road when the property to the south is developed if the road isn't built with the plat. The City has been requiring that the roads be constructed to the property line with a temporary cul-de-sac when it is proposed to continue in the future. Further discussion noted there are many smal ler 'areas in the City like this left to develop which are difficult to develop. The City has an obligation to look at the overall layout of streets, etc., and there is a lot of land to the north and south of this parcel which can be developed. Mr. Haas also noted that the Fire Department has a concern with long cul-de-sacs. There were no further comments. This item is to be placed on the October 15, 1991, City Council agenda. VARIANCE: IDENTIFICATION SIGN FOR FIRE STATION NO. 2 IN R-l DISTRICT. 16603 VALLEY DRIVE Mr. Carlberg reviewed the background regarding the signing of Fire Station No.2 at 16603 Val ley Drive. Because it is in a residential ,) district, the ordinance only allows up to 32 square feet of signage. The plans call for over 87 square feet of identification to be placed on the building. Staff feels the problem is the zoning, as it is more of a commercial use, though the City has opposed spot zoning. I ~-~j ,J Planning and Zoning Commission \ Minutes - September 24, 1991 / Page 8 (Variance: ID Sign/Fire Station No.2, Continued) Mr. Carlberg explained the Commission wil I look at amending that section of the ordinance relative to signs for public and institutional uses in residential areas. However, in order to resolve this situation, Staff is recommending a variance be granted based on a pUblic use in the restrictive R-1 zoning district creating a hardship or difficulty having to do with the characteristic of the land. The Commission generally agreed that the Sign Ordinance needs to be reviewed. General consensus was also that the proposed variance is appropriate at this time. ,) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, based upon Staff recommendations, recommend: Ordinance No.8, Section 2, Intent and purpose, states that "This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of ...protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare (of the residents of Andover)..." It has been determined by the public by their approval of the bond referendum that the construction of a new fire station was for the protection of public health, safety, etc. It would stand to reason, then, that the station would need to be adequately Identified with signage. Based on the professional expertise of the building designer and the sign company, whose normal course of busines it is to provide said design and sIgnage, they support the request for 87.17 square feet of sign area. It Is, therefore, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the request be approved as presented. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Peek) vote. The item will be on the October 15, 1991, City Council Agenda. Commission recessed at 9:00; reconvened at 9:09 p.m. DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE RAISING AND KEEPING OF DOMESTIC AND NON-DOMESTIC ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANDOVER Mr. Carlberg explained the Items to be addressed are the possibIlity of allowing R-1 practices in R-2 and R-3 districts outside of the MUSA on parcels of five acres or more and on the keepIng of non-domesticated pets on 2.5-acre lots. If the Commission is agreeable to the fIrst Item, it will be placed on the next agenda for a public hearing. Concerns regarding odor and noise could be addressed wIth Ordinance No. 72, the NuIsance Ordinance. Another optIon Is to walt until the Comprehensive Plan Is approved and the zoning changes made to coincide with that Plan. ) The Commission discussed the different scenarios relative to an ordinance change of al lowing R-1 practices on the larger parcels in R-2 and R-3 zones outside the MUSA. Mr. Carlberg stated if a person " ) ( , ....-.-J , Planning and Zoning Commission . / Minutes - September 24, 1991 Page 9 (Discussion - Ordinance/Domestic and Non-Domestic Animals, Continued) leases property that is contiguous to what he owns, the combined parcels can be used to calculate total acreage. He will ask the City attorney whether ownIng or leasing land across the road would also constitute contiguous property. A woman living next to Mr. Padula outlined a scenario of having about 20 acres and being al lowed to have up to 100 sheep which are all housed in one barn. She bought her lot in 1978 and would now be in a situatIon of beIng In the mIddle of a lot of anImals on both sIdes of her. The Commission recognized those In the residential areas must be protected as well. Mr. Carlberg again noted Ordinance 72 would be involved if there are complaints of odors and noise. \ ) Mike Knight, 4622 175th Avenue - felt it is a double standard to allow horses on an almost unlimited basis but other animals are so severely restricted. DiscussIon noted that many cItIes have separate ordinances for horses, defining them as pleasure/recreational animals. There is an active lobby for horses; whereas, there Is no lobby for other animals. A suggestion from the Commission was that interested residents should form a committee to make recommendations to the Commission. It was agreed that anyone interested should coordinate the effort through Mr. Carlberg. The Commission briefly debated the issue of allowing animals on 2.5-acre lots, whether or not they should be al lowed, whether or not permits should be required, the number of animals that would be al lowed, the problem of controlling the issue, etc. Again, the Commission encouraged those present and other residents interested in working on the issue to contact Mr. Carlberg. Mr. Carlberg stated he will schedule a public hearing for October 8, 1991, to amend Ordinance No.8, Section 7.01 to allow rural agricultural uses on parcels of 5 acres or more in R-2 and R-3 Districts outsIde the MUSA. The CommIssion agreed. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg noted the agenda for the Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force meeting this Thursday, September 26, 1991. There being no further busIness, Acting Chairperson Janak declared the meetIng adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ) Respectfully submItted, )"v\~ ~~L Marcella A. Peach, Recording Secretary