Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 10, 1991 () o f\ ....J o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLAmHlm AND ZONmG COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 10. 1991 MI1JUTES The Regular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Randy Peek on December 10. 1991. 7:30 p.m.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. Commissioners present: Bonnie Dehn. Steve Jonak. Bev Jovanovich. Marc McMullen. Becky Pease Maynard Apel City Planner. David Carlberg Assistant City Engineer. Todd Haas Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 26. 1991: Page 4, third line, change to: 11,400 square-foot minimum MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 4-Yes (Peek. Dehn. Jonak, Jovanovich>, 2-Present (McMullen. Pease>, l-Absent (Apel> vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PERMANENT MONUMENT SIGN. 140TH LANE NW AND HANSON BOULEVARD NW. HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE 7:32 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Hills. Inc.. to allow the continued placement of a permanent monument sign for area identification at 140th Lane NW and Hanson Boulevard NW. Lot 1. Block 1 and Lot 1. Block 5, Hills of Bunker Lake 4th Addition. The City Council has directed the Commission to look into the matter of Identification signs. In this case. there is a monument on either side of 140th Lane. though the actual size of the two identification circles combined does not exceed 32 square feet. the maximum allowed by Ordinance. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the applicable ordinances, noting Staff sees it as two separate signs though they are very attractive monuments. The Commission may consider the monuments as one gate sign. He did not feel a variance is applicable because of the issue of having to show hardship. Apparently there was a misunderstanding between the developer and the person constructing the sign as to who was going to get the permIts. but no SpecIal Use PermIt nor sIgn permIt were obtained in this case. At this time there Is no penalty for after-the-fact permits. Mr. Carlberg also stated the Interpretation of a "development" has been each phase: therefore a plat developed in four phases would be allowed four monument identIfication signs. , ~~ o , Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ) Minutes - December 10. 1991 Page 2 (Public Hearing: SUP, Permanent Monument Sign, 140th & Hanson, Cont.) Chairperson Peek did not have a problem with the monument sign on 140th. feeling it does fall within the ordinance; but he was concerned with having three identifIcation signs within a distance of four blocks, which is what they now have along Hanson Boulevard. Tonv Emmerich. developer - stated the Hills of Bunker Lake has been developed in four separate phases. He stated the signs on 137th and 138th are there only temporarily. They will be removed when the neighborhood business develops out there. There are sign permits for those signs as permanent signs, but again Mr. Emmerich stated they are wooden signs that will be removed. The hearIng was opened for pUblic testimony. , J Jerrv Windschitl. 3640 152nd Lane NW - stated the signs on 140th are about as well done as can be done with an entrance sIgn to a project. He suggested the entire process can be sImplIfied by changIng the ordinance to allow the monument signs. an artist's drawing and locations, to be proposed with the platting process. The ARC Committee could give a recommendation on the signage when reviewing the plat, which would eliminate the problem of the signing being overlooked. A developer is trying to present as good an image as he can with their developments. It is a big investment, so they want them to be attractIve. Tonv Emmerich - didn't believe an ordinance can be written to cover all situations, agreeing that Mr. WindschIti's idea is something that wil I eventually have to be done. The City doesn't want to discourage nice signs. but all situations can't be covered In an ordinance. Someone will have to review them on a case-by-case basis. After some discussIon, the Commission felt it would avoid a lot of confusion if the signage of a development would take place at the time of the preliminary plat; however, they also felt that it is to the City's benefit to retain control of the signing via a Special Use Permit. Signage would be made a part of the Initial platting requirement, and the hearings for the signing Special Use Permit would be held at the same time the prelIminary plat is heard. Mr. Carlberg stated the sign permit application would then be made a part of the development packet. There being no further pUblic testimony, Chairperson Peek asked for a motion to close the publIc hearing. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Dehn, to so move. Motion carried on a ) 6-Yes. l-Absent (Apel) vote. / , u u , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 10, 1991 Page 3 (Public Hearing: SUP. Permanent Monument Sign, 140th & Hanson. Cont.> The Commission first discussed the specific Special Use Permit request. Chairperson Peek again stated he felt the sign is a single monument and complies with the ordinance with regard to size. His main concern is the temporary signs, as he would like to see a specific time set as to when those signs will be removed. With so many signs within such a short distance, it was his opinion the two temporary signs actually are real estate signs. He also disagreed with the Staff's Interpretation of a development as being each phase, preferring to have the number of identification signs limited to one per side. '\ , / Mr. Carlberg thought temporary signs are limited to a life of two years. Mr. Emmerich again stated he thought the permits are for permanent signs: however, they will be removed when the Neighborhood Business property develops. He cannot guarantee when that will be. He would like to see those two signs remain during the summer. There is one other monument for the development along Bunker Lake Boulevard. For the next meeting the Commission directed Mr. Carlberg to research the status of the signs on 137th and 138th as to whether they have sign permits and whether those permits are for temporary or permanent signs. Chairperson Peek felt it would be a mistake to grant a Special Use Permit without looking at the existing signage. He didn't think the intent of the ordinance was to have three project identification signs within a four-block area. Commissioner McMullen argued those signs are irrelevant to this request. They comply with the ordinance. The only question is whether the sign on 140th Lane is one sign or two, and he believes it Is one sign because it falls within the square footage requirement of no more than 32 square feet. Commissioner Jonak also felt that it may be better to look at all the signs relating to that develompent now and eliminate some of them now. Mr. Carlberg questioned whether the Commission can require Mr. Emmerich to take down signs that are permitted by ordinance. Some Commissioners felt he could make that gesture, but It cannot be required of him. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Pease, that we recommend adoption of the Special Use Permit and consider the coverage as one sign based on the fact that It falls within the 32-square-foot requirement. The Permit is to allow for the continued placement of a permanent monument area Identification sign on property located at 140th Lane NW and Hanson Boulevard NW described as Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 5, Hills of Bunker Lake Fourth Addition. , ) 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. u u " ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 10. 1991 Page 4 (Public Hearing: SUP, Permanent Monument Sign, 140th & Hanson. Cont.) (Motion continued) The Commission also fInds that the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07. The Permit is contIngent upon the following conditions In accordance with Sections 8.07 and 5.03: 1. The area for development is larger than 5 acres. 2. There shall be only 1 sign per development. 3. The maximum square footage of the sIgn is 32 square feet In area. 4. The sIgn Is located 10 feet from any property lIne. 5. The SpecIal Use PermIt shall be subject to annual revIew by Staff . 6. There shall be a maIntenance agreement for the monument. DISCUSSION: CommIssioner McMullen stated the decision when dealing with other signs in the future may depend upon the dIscussIon as to whether or not to make a change to the ordInance. He was not wIllIng to add a clause relatIve to the exIstIng sIgnage. , ) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Dehn, McMullen, Pease; NO-Jonak. JovanovIch. Peek: ABSENT-Apel. Motion faIled. The item will go to the City Council on January 7, 1992. wIth no recommendatIon. 8:17 p.m. The Commission then dIscussed possIble changes to the SIgn Ordinance. Chairperson Peek agaIn stated he felt It Is a mIstake to look at additions as developments, that the entIre development should be regarded as one and allow one sign per frontage. Another Issue is whether the square footage of the monument Itself should be addressed. Several CommissIoners agreed wIth the one sIgn per frontage. not per phase of the development. Mr. Windschltl - stated they are required to have multIple accesses to their developments. The sIgns give the neighborhood an identIfy as to where they lIve, from an appearance standpoInt, in giving directions to others, and In how to dlstlnquish It from other developments. Monuments for developments have only been used in Andover for the last fIve years or so. and they are expensIve to put up. They try to put them at the maIn poInts of Interest. By lookIng at the total sIgnage at the tIme of the plat. It can be determIned how many are needed and where they should be located. ,-J Mr. Windschitl went on to say that the SIgn OrdInance has been the most confusing over the years, either very strIctly enforced or very lenIently enforced at any gIven tIme. He also noted that each phase of a prelIminary plat Is consIdered a separate legal entIty, often sold to and developed by someone other than who orIgInated the preliminary plat. And that development is entitled to a monument. \ V (~) '\ ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 10. 1991 Page 5 (Public Hearing: SUP, Permanent Monument Sign, 140th & Hanson. Cont.> For the next meeting. the Commission directed Staff to address one identification sign per frontage rather than per development phase; to research the definition of what a development is; and to research the correlation between platting and the applicatIon for a SpecIal Use PermIt for a sign. Staff was asked to check with the CIty Attorney to recommend a procedure for the signage and platting process. 8:37 p.m. SKETCH PLAN - WEYBRIDGE Mr. Haas revIewed the Andover RevIew CommIttee's comments on the proposed WeybrIdge sketch plan, a development proposIng 147 lots In an R-4, Single FamIly Urban distrIct, off Andover Boulevard bordering the raIlroad tracks. Jerrv WindschItl - explained al I of the parcels wIll be elIgible for sanitary sewer and will be rezoned in the plattIng process. He also explained the reasons for some of the changes of this plan from the original preliminary plat. Vale Street NW was made a straight road ,\ to accommodate a change In the sanItary sewer plan, as the consulting \ / engineers prefer to extend the trunk sewer lIne north along that road. Some of the items are part of an agreement he made wIth the CIty as part of the negotIating process when Creek View Crossing was developed. The number of entrances to the park remain the same, but they have been moved because of the adjoinIng plat and the change in the locatIon of the sewer line. The park dedIcation is consistent with what was in the original plat. Mr. Windschitl also stated the CIty allowed the outlots on the east side of Xeon when that plat was fInaled wIthout holdIng publIc hearings. Normally It would be requIred that those remenant parcels be attached to the adjoining lot; however, he does not own those remanent parcels and has no control over them. Ideally, there would be identificatIon signs placed at each road. The property wIll be developed in phases. He explaIned the CommissIon may be seeing more phased developments that are smaller becuase of the new state law that taxes undeveloped lots the full amount immedIately. In the past they had three years before a lot was taxed fully. That will have a dramatIc effect on the plattIng process. Mr. Haas stated he has asked Anoka County for an opinIon on the entrance of Vale Street onto ACSH 16 due to Its close proxImIty to the Burlington Northern RaIlroad tracks. He has not yet received a response. The ARC CommIttee Is also suggestIng the bubbles be elIminated from the varIous IntersectIons, as they cause the drIveways to be very close together and are dIffIcult to snow plow. \ ~) , ) '\ \. ) \ , ) ., \../ '- ) PlannIng and ZonIng CommIssIon MeetIng Minutes - December 10. 1991 Page 6 (Sketch Plan - Weybrldge, ContInued) Mr. Wlndschltl stated the lot depth for those lots off Andover Boulevard wIl I be corrected In the prelImInary plat. The bubbles provIde a varIatIon In the development. They are allowed by the Clty/s ordInances. Some cItIes construct the curb for 90 degrees but leave the easement for the bubble, whIch leaves the appearance that the lot is bIgger, but It Is really CIty property. He wIll look at the possibilIties again. Mr. Wlndschitl stated he does have a house style that wIll fit on Lots 4 and 5 of Block 2. The reason for the sIze of those lots Is to match up storm sewer lInes wIth Creek VIew CrossIng. Mr. Haas stated the Staff recommendatIon Is the walkway access be 40 feet rather than 20 feet because of the sanItary sewer lIne. Mr. Windschitl stated the 20-foot walkway was In the original park agreement. It is really an engineering questIon to make sure the City has the ability to comply with OSHA laws regarding that sewer line. They wIll work that out. Mr. Windschitl also stated he has approached Burlington Northern to allow him to construct a 6-foot berm between the railroad and the lots along the entire length of the railroad. He has received a favorable response. but he does not yet know If that wIll be allowed. They are furniShIng engIneering reports on the contours and draInage. He has also received a permIt from the Coon Creek Watershed Board. No permits are needed from the DNR or the Army Corps of EngIneers. Mr. Haas stated another Item would be that the developer be recommended to apply for a SpecIal Use PermIt for the signs to be processed at the time the prelImInary plat Is heard. The CommIssion expressed some concern about havIng two sIgns for two developments at the same entrance of Xeon Street and Andover Boulevard. Mr. Windschitl asked that sInce thIs area Is nearing the end of the urban servIce area, should he consider a smali NeIghborhood Business area next to the raIlroad tracks. After a brIef dIscussIon, the CommissIon dId not feel one Is necessary because of those already specIfIed In the ComprehensIve Plan along Hanson Boulevard. They were also concerned wIth any additional traffIc that close to the raIlroad tracks. The CommIssion asked If 143rd and Xeon Is properly placed. Mr. Haas stated the distance meets the ordInance requirements. They also suggested the possIbility of requIrIng the berm along the railroad tracks. Mr. Haas didn/t know if that can be requIred. Mr. Wlndschltl stated he Is wIllIng to do It; It depends on the positIon of Burlington Northern. There beIng no further comment, Chairperson Peek stated the sketch plan will be presented to the Council on January 7, 1992. ., '- ~ " / '\ , ,) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MInutes - December 10. 1991 Page 7 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg asked that those Commissioners whose terms expire on December 31 and who wish to reapply do so by the next Council meetIng. The reappointments will be made at that meetIng. The CIty wIll advertise to fill any vacancy. It was agreed to cancel the December 24, 1991, regular PlannIng and Zoning Commission meetIng because of the holidays. Chairperson Peek revIewed the actIons of the City CouncIl on December 3. 1991. on Items referred to them by the Planning Commission. Mr. Carlberg also reported the CouncIl has determIned that the Planning Commission Chairperson wIll no longer be required to attend the CouncIl meetIngs unless there Is a major Issue. The Commission suggested that In those cases, they could take turns attending those meetIngs. ') , j The being no further busIness, Chairperson Peek declared the meeting adjourned. 9:20 p.m. RespectfUlly submItted. '{\\~ ~~ '~~cella A. Peach Recording Secretary ,/