Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 14, 1992 c o o o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 14. 1992 MINUTES The P.egular BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Bonnie Dehn on January 14. 1992. 7:30 p.m.. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel. Steve Jonak. Bev Jovanovich, Randy Peek Becky Pease, Marc McMullen City Planner. David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 10. 1991: Correct as written. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Peek. approval of the December 10. 1991. Minutes as written. Motion carrIed on a 4-Yes (Dehn. Jonak, Jovanovich. Peek). 2-absent (Pease, McMullen). I-Present (Apel) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT FROM R-l TO R-4 7:32 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Ashford Development Corporation, Inc., to rezone property west of the railroad tracks. south of Andover Boulevard from R-l. Single Family Rural, to R-4. Single Family Urban. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be considered. Mr. Carlberg also stated the City Council has given approval for the Staff to prepare and submit a Minor Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include 13 lots. Lots 1-13 of Block 1. in the MUSA area. If the rezoning is to be contingent upon the approval of the Comprehensive Plan, he suggested the 13 lots be contingent upon approval of the Minor Amendment to the Plan. Staff is recommending approva I . Chairperson Dehn opened the hearing for publIc testimony. Jerrv Windschitl. Ashford Development. 3640 152nd Lane - stated the Council has approved submIttIng a Minor Amendment for those 13 lots. Those lots are totally finished and serviced: they are ready to be brought on line once approval Is gIven. He is paying for all costs associated with the Amendment. He is askIng that the entIre parcel be approved. but he did not want the process delayed by having the rezoning contingent upon Met CouncIl approval of the entire Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners Apel stated rezonings do not need Metropolitan Council approval. The entire parcel can be rezoned, and It would remain as that zone until sewer is available. u u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting . ~ Minutes - January 14. 1992 ,~ Page 2 (Public Hearing - Rezoning, Ashford Development, Continued) Commissioner Jonak asked who looks at the effect on traffic conditions by this rezoning. Mr. Carlberg explained the Anoka County Highway Department has submitted their comments. Commissioner Peek felt traffic is not applicable to the rezoning. The Commission raised the issue of prior use on the property and possible environmental concerns. Mr. Windschitl - stated he has representation from the prior owners. which was a condition of the purchase of the property, that there are no environmental issues. Commissioner Peek suggested that documentation be made a condition of the preliminary plat. which is the next Agenda item. Mr. Carlberg also reported the 90-day review period for the City's Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council has not yet started. The City is in the process of submitting further information that has been asked for. There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Dehn asked for a motion to close the public hearing. / MOTION by Peek. Seconded by Jovanovich. to so move. Motion carried on as-Yes. 2-Absent (Pease. McMullen) vote. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning request by the Ashford Development Corporation, Inc.. to rezone property from R-1, Single Family Rural. to R-4. Single Family Urban. legally described as: That part of the west half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26. Township 32. Range 24. Anoka County, Minnesota. lying west of the westerly right-of-way line of Burlington Northern Railroad. Except that part platted as Creek View Crossing according to the recorded plat thereof. The rezoning meets the requirements of Ordinance 8. Section 5.03(B>. which establishes the criteria for rezonlngs. namely that the rezoning will not have a negative effect upon the health. safety. morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands: the rezoning wil I not have a negative effect on values of property and scenic view in the surrounding area: the purposed use is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The fourth condition of traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land really does not apply. \ / A public hearing was held and there were no comments in opposition to the rezoning. (J u \ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,~ Minutes - January 14, 1992 Page 3 (Public Hearing - Rezoning, Ashford Development, Continued) DISCUSSION ON MOTION: It was agreed that the rezoning should not be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan nor the Minor Amendment to the Plan. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent <Pease, McMullen) vote. The item will be heard by the City Council on February 4, 1992. 7:53 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT. WEYBRIDGE - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT 7:53 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the general comments and concerns of the Andover Review Committee regarding the proposed preliminary plat of Weybridge located west of the railroad tracks. south of Andover Boulevard. Chairperson Dehn opened the hearing for public testimony. \ .-/ Jerrv Windschitl. Ashford Development - thought the issue of the corner lot. Lot 1, Block 4, was resolved. He presented a drawing of the lot to scale which shows the lot width at the setback line is 85.32 feet plus another 5.32 feet to the right of way of Xeon. The drawing clearly shows he does not own the property to the street and that the proposed lot is in compliance with the ordinances. He does not own the remnants and has no control over them. With that information. Mr. Carlberg suggested the City Engineering Staff review the item again. Staff is also concerned with eliminating the lot remnants, requesting that the developer try to acquire them. Mr. Windschitl - stated he can try to obtain them, and has had some discussions with the owner: but he again claimed the lot as proposed does meet the ordinance and no variance is needed. Without frontage on Xeon. he does not have a corner lot. He did not want the plat held up because of the remnants, stating he is willing to have his surveyor do a certificate on the lot. Mr. Windschitl - stated the other objection of the Staff is on the bubbles. He stated in the past Staff has tried to eliminate them in plats, although there are bubbles located in three or four other areas of the City. The bubbles ensure that the plat is in compliance with the setback requirements. They have shown the driveway exists at those locations and would require the driveways to be placed there to meet the requirement of five feet of green space between property lines. , , / Mr. Carlberg stated the Review Committee looked at the negative aspect of bubbles for snow removal and street maintenance. There is no place to put the snow. The Commission noted the additional expense of o u , , j Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 14, 1992 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat, Weybridge - Ashford Development, Continued) plowing bubbles and cul-de-sacs, though Commissioner Apel noted many people like cul-de-sacs and are wil ling to pay extra for them. He felt the higher taxes paid by those on cul-de-sacs offsets the higher maintenance costs for them. Discussion was then on the proposed grading plan. Mr. Windschitl _ stated the grading plan was changed at the suggestion of City Staff to move the eastment line back to 140 feet. which is behind the lots on Block 2. The easement will have no encroachment on the lots themselves. It al lows more flexibility for the use of the rear lots. He also explained the drainage pattern through the area. The intent is to have a dry pond, designed not to have standing water and to permeate in less than one day. It will be seeded or sodded. It is al I sand. Commissioner Peek had concern for the person buying a lot where half of the back yard is a drainage easement, who will be surprised the first time there is a 100-year event to see his back yard flooded. He felt that has been addressed in Block 2, but not the other blocks. Mr. Windschitl stated he will have it checked again. Mr. Carlberg stated he will ask the City Engineering Staff to review it again also. .~ Mr. Windchitl - is in the process of looking at signage for the plat, but felt just one will be installed at Vale and Andover Boulevard. He will be requesting that Special Use Permit prior to the final plat. He also noted Staff is satisfied with the 20-foot easement to the park along Coon Creek, which also has a 10-foot easement on both sides. He has already obtained a permit from the Coon Creek Watershed Board. There being no further testimony, Chairperson Dehn asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Peek. Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried on a 5-Yes. 2-Absent <Pease, McMullen) vote. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jonak, to table this item until we receive details from Staff on Lot 1, Block 4, whether or not this is considered a corner lot based on information submitted by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Mr. Windschitl requested that rather than delaying the plat because of concerns over one lot. that the plat be approved contingent upon satisfying the Staff. He felt the item will be resolved quickly once Staff has the documentation. Mr. Carlberg agreed with the contingency. , , / Commissioners Jonak and Peek WITHDREW the Second and the Motion. .~ , , 'J , , ,~ , , o o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 14. 1992 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat, Weybridge - Ashford Development, Continued) MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Weybridge as submitted by Ashford Development Corporation. Inc.. finding that the preliminary plat is in compliance with Ordinances 8 and 10 with the following comments: 1. The proposed prelimimary plat is currently zoned R-l. Single Family Rural and needs to be rezoned to R-4, Single Family Urban. In addition, the proposed plat is not within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. This area has been proposed to be included in a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. 2. The proposed subdivision consists of 147 single family urban residential lots. 3. The Flood Plain Ordinance No. 50 will be in effect. The lOa-year flood elevation has been identified on the preliminary plat for Coon Creek. The developer is proposing not to disturb the existing floodway. 4. The developer and/or owner will be required to obtain al I necessary permits (DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Coon Creek Watershed District and any other agency which may be interested in the site). 5. Determination as to whether Lot 1 of Block 4 is to be considered a corner lot shall be determined by City Staff based on information submitted by the applicant: and if Staff determines it is a corner lot. that the said lot will have to be adjusted to comply with the ordinance. 6. That the bubbles at the intersections of 144th Lane NW and Wintergreen Street NW and 141st Lane NW and Vale Street NW are not in compliance with Ordinance 10 and should be reworked to comply with Ordinance 10. 7. That signage be provided to address concerns of the Anoka County Highway Department per their letter of December 13. 1991. A public hearing was held and there was no negative comment. DISCUSSION: The Commission noted the letter from the Anoka County Highway Department did not specifically place any constraints on the access to Andover Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg thought the concern is not having enough warning of the railroad tracks for motorists existing the plat from Vale Street and that signs on Vale Street will be needed to make them aware of that situation. Mr. Windschitl stated the signage is controlled by the City Engineer. If the County had been opposed to that intersection, they would have specifically said so. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, McMullen) vote. The item will be on the February 4, 1992, City Council Agenda. 8:33 p.m. " \ U \ \.J / Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 14, 1992 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - MINING - WDE SITE Mr. Carlberg asked that the item be tabled indefinitely due to lack of information. He will place it back on the Agenda once that information is received. The Commission agreed. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 10. SECTIONS 9.06(a)(1) AND 9.06(a)(2) IN RELATION TO BUILDABLE LOTS 8:33 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the additions to Ordinance 10, Sections 9.06(a)(1) and (2) help to define buildable lots. It is the same wording as in Section 9.06(a)(3) and will allow the Building Department to provide copies of the Ordinance to builders and developers which includes these definitions. Chairperson Dehn opened the public hearing for testimony. There was none. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes. 2-Absent (Pease. McMullen) vote. . ./ MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Peek, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council for approval the amendments to the sections of Ordinance 10 that we discussed tonight. Note that there was a public hearing. There was no input whatsoever. Note also that this Is to bring these sections in conformity to the practice of the Building and Engineering Departments so that when the people get the ordinance, they understand exactly what they are looking at. The addition to Section 9.06(a)(1), "Residential lots shall be required to have the lowest floor to be a minimum of three (3') feet above mottled soils or one (1') foot above the designated or designed one hundred (100) year flood elevation, whichever Is higher." The addition to Section 9.06(a)(2), "Said lot shall be required to have a minimum 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." Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, McMullen) vote. This wil I be on the February 4, 1992, Council Agenda. 8:43 p.m. " , ./ SKETCH PLAN - PINEWOOD ESTATES Mr. Carlberg reviewed the general comments of the Andover Review Committee regarding the proposed sketch plan of Pinewood Estates. The (J , \ i...J , Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 14. 1992 Page 7 ../ (Sketch Plan - Pinewood Estates, Continued) review is requested by Chuck Cook of ContInental Development. Inc.. for property located In the northwest section of Hanson Boulevard and Andover Boulevard known as "Santa's Tree Farm". He also noted some proposed changes by Staff on road alIgnment, elImInatIon of cul-de-sacs. and Alternate Plan "A" should Mr. Cook be unable to acquire the Lindgren property. The Commission questioned the use of the lots near the power line easement and whether or not those lines constitute a health hazard. Chuck Cook. Continental Development - stated the deed does not address temporary structures under the power line easements but does not al low permanent structures. There is no evidence of a health hazard around the power lInes. The Commission asked whether the "SO curve of 148th Lane to Hanson Boulevard is too severe. Mr. Carlberg stated that will be checked by the City Engineering Department at the time of the prelIminary plat. It may have to be adjusted somewhat. '\ , ./ CommissIoners Peek, Apel, and JovanovIch did recommendation to eliminate the cul-de-sacs. preferred the Staff recommendation. not agree with the Staff ChaIrperson Dehn Discussion was on the number of monument sIgns to the plat. Mr. Cook thought there would be a sIgn at both entrances on Hanson Boulevard. The plat wIll be developed In phases. He wIll be prepared to apply for the signage permIts at the tIme of the prelImInary plat. CommIssIoner Peek agreed wIth the developer's proposal to look at the scheme of things for that entIre corner, not just what Is immediately available for development, so that the entIre area can be Included as the land is available. He dIdn't feel the Staff's Alternate "A" does that. Mr. Carlberg stated the CommIssIon comments wII I be forwarded to the City Council for their review of the sketch plan at theIr January 21. 1992, meet! ng. DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE NO.8. SECTION 8.07. SIGNS Mr. Carlberg asked for some feedback on changes to the Sign Ordinance. He has not yet found the InformatIon on the exIsting signs along Hanson for the Hills of Bunker Lake development, statIng he wII I have that information available for the next meeting. '\ j The Commission noted a problem raIsed by the CouncIl was the signs on the CIty's water towers. The general thought was that CIty Identification on water towers should be exempted from the ordinance. , . \ "_J , "\ I \ \.J '../ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 14, 1992 Page 8 <Discussion - Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, Signs, Continued) Commissioner Peek felt it is a mistake to interpret phasing of plats as each phase being a separate development, therefore, being allowed a monument sign. He didn't think the ordinance intended to allow that many signs. Mr. Carlberg stated each phase is a separate legal entl ty. Commissioner Peek continued that they do not see the separate phasing, only the proposed plat as a whole. He'd prefer to deal with the signage for that plat as a whole, allowing one monument sign per frontage or per corner. Discussion was also on signing within the residential area. Commissioner Peek stated the ordinance is based on monument signs which are typically close to the road. The last issues before the Commission had to do with identification signs applied to the buildings. In order to be able to read the sign on the buildings, it has to be larger. It is difficult to address; but if the ordinance is rewritten, he felt It has to be consistent. He felt that governmental signs should have the same restrictions as anyone elses. " / The Commission asked that Mr. Carlberg check with other cities to see how they regulate institutional and residential monumental signs. Mr. Carlberg stated he would look at residential development signs as it relates to phased developments and institutional/governmental signs on bu i I din gs . OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg noted the Park and Recreation Commission has asked to meet with the Planning Commission at its January 28, 1992, at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Carlberg also stated he wIll keep the Commission updated on the progress of the Comprehensive Plan at the Metropolitan Council. He felt the Comprehensive Plan Task Force will need to meet once more after the Plan is approved regarding the printing and distribution. There being no further business, Chairperson Peek declared the meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. " " Respectfully submitted, \fY\o~~~ ~a~~lla A. Peach Recording Secretary , ; ./