Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 14, 1992 o o o o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 14. 1992 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Bonnie Dehn on July 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, Becky Pease Steve Jonak, Marc McMullen, Randy Peek City Planner, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 23. 1992: Correct as written. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Dehn, approval of the Minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 2-Yes, 2-Present (Apel, Pease), 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen. Peek) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8. SECTION 8.07 -- SIGNS: REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS 7:32 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed ordinance change which was requested by the Planning Commission at the May 26, 1992, meeting. The amendment increases the development area requirement from five to ten acres and allows one sign per street/road frontage of a development. He was not sure of the reasoning for the increase to ten acres, though there was concern with the phasing of developments, wanting to make sure of haVing larger developments and to avoid having an area identification sign at every street entrance. He didn't think Andover had a lot of five-acre plats or smaller. The hearing was opened for public testimony. Pamela Backer. Director of Municipal Affairs for the Builders Association of Minnesota - their Association has a membership of over 3.000 builders and developers in the State and she works with metro area comunities and regulatory agencies and boards. She raised some concerns over the proposed change in requirements for area identification signs. First, by limiting the size of the development, will the same restrictions be used for other things such as the smaller strip mall, churches, or others that are on smaller acreages? Mr. Carlberg explained that churches and schools come under institutional signs and business signs have different regulations based on the front footage of the lot and building. , J , I ~ , / Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - July 14. 1992 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8. Section 8.07 -- Signs. Continued) Ms. Backer - disagreed on the commercial issue. feeling they should be dealt with consistently. Secondly. she was concerned about the proposed wording in Item 2 of the proposed amendment of only one sign per "street frontage" of a development. She asked that that be more specific as to where that signage can go. If a development has frontage on three streets but only one entrance. would it be allowed three signs. two of which would not be associated with an entrance. or only one sign? Ms. Baker stated she works with cities and their staff on these types of issues, and she would be happy to work Andover to represent the builders and developers. Because Andover is growing so rapidly, she suggested the City take a comprehensive look at the signage to provide a package for builders and developers at one time. Then she can go back to the industry and tell them exactly what Andover requires. Commissioner Apei stated it would be nice to have a sign package, but realisticaliy that won't happen. He didn't think it was possible to write an ordinance to cover every contingency. Mr. Carlberg gave the ,/ scenerio of the developing Meadows of Round Lake, which has no frontage on a major road but which will be requesting two area identification signs at the Commission's next meeting. According to the proposed amendment. they would not be allowed any area identification signs. Under the current ordinance they are allowed one. They would like two. one at each entrance. Mr. Carlberg also stated that the results of the survey of ten other cities show that five of them allow one area identification sign per entrance. Two or three cities allow one sign per development. and two cities allow one sign per road frontage. He thought the concerns of at least one of the Commissioners was to avoid having a sign on every street along a major road such as Hanson Boulevard and also the problem of defining a development as the entire plat or per phase. The current proposal would determine the signage for the entire plat at the time of the preliminary plat. j In further discussion, the Commission noted the proposed amendment is more restrictive than the current ordinance. It was argued that the permanent area identification signs are very attractive and they create a sense of identity for the neighborhoods. It was also argued that it is difficult to write specifications to meet every situation and that some common sense must be allowed. It was then suggested that the signage still be done at the time of the preliminary plat by Special Use Permit as proposed, but that there be some flexibility in locating those signs. The number of signs and locations would be negotiated with and agreed to by the Andover Review Committee, with the Special Use Permit giving the City the controls needed regarding quality. maintenance, etc. ~ ) u \ ) Andove~ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1992 Page 3 (Public Hea~ing: Amend O~dinance No.8, Section 8.07 Continued) Signs, Chuck Cook. Continental Development - stated it is ve~y difficult to put into words in an ordinance guidelines that apply to every situation. He agreed with an additional p~ovision to the amendment that would allow exceptions. The Commission then agreed to the following changes to the amendment before them: SECTION 8.07, SIGNS (D) General Provisions (2) Signs Allowed by Special Use Permit h. Area identification signs may be allowed p~ovided: 1. The area for development is larger than five acres: 2. There shall be only one sign per develoment. and exceptions for additional signs must be approved by the Andover Review Committee and the City Council: (Items 3 and 4 as presented) , It was gene~ally felt that there is no need to change the size of , ) development because there has not been a problem, and that additional signs fo~ the developments should be allowed if it is ~easonable and ag~eed to by the Andove~ Review Committee and the City Council. Chai~person Dehn asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Pease, to so move. Motion car~ied on a 4-Yes. 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen, Peek) vote. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Pease, ~ecommend app~oval of the O~dinance as amended this evening and forwa~d it to the City Council. Motion ca~~ied on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen, Peek) vote. 8:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10. SECTION 8.04 -- REQUIRING LOCATION AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS 8:10 p.m. M~. Ca~lbe~g explained this amendment requi~es the p~eliminary plat of a development to show the location of the a~ea identification signs plus the Special Use Pe~mit to be applied fo~ in conjunction with the p~eliminary plat. , , ) Chai~peson Dehn opened the hea~ing fo~ pUblic testimony. There was none. MOTION by Apel. Seconded by Jovanovich, that the public hea~ing be closed. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen, Peek) vote. ~) ~) \. Andove~ Planning and Zoning Commission ) MInutes - July 14. 1992 Page 4 (Public Hea~Ing: Amend O~dinance No. 10. Section 8.04. Continued) MOTION by Apel. Seconded by JovanovIch. that the changed o~dInance 10 be app~oved as p~esented and fo~wa~ded to the CIty Council. MotIon ca~~ied on a 4-Yes. 3-Absent (Jonak. McMullen. Peek) vote. 8:12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: SPECIAL USE PERMIT -- AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN. PINEWOOD ESTATES. CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 8:12 P.M. M~. Ca~lbe~g explaIned ContInental Development Co~po~atIon has ~equested a Special Use Pe~mit to e~ect th~ee a~ea IdentifIcation signs (pe~manent monuments) to be located at the ent~ances of PInewood Estates plat. Unde~ the cu~~ent o~dInance, they a~e allowed one sign pe~ development. If the amendment ~ecommended In a p~evIous agenda Item Is app~oved by the CouncIl, they would be able to negotIate wIth the Andove~ RevIew CommIttee fo~ the addItIonal sIgns. The hea~Ing was opened fo~ public testImony. \ / Chuck Cook. Continental Development Co~po~atIon - asked if his applicatIon could be looked at usIng the c~Ite~Ia of the p~oposed amendment the CommIssIon Just fo~wa~ded to the CIty CouncIl; then If the Council app~oves the amendment, he wouldn/t have to come back fo~ anothe~ Special Use Pe~mIt. He would lIke to get one sign up by Septembe~ 1 fo~ the Pa~ade of Homes. Afte~ discussIon, the CommIssIon ag~eed to app~ove one sIgn which is allowed unde~ the o~dInance; and they dId not have an objection wIth the develope~ wo~king wIth the Andove~ RevIew CommIttee ~ega~ding the ext~a signs ~equested fo~ the plat If the CIty CouncIl app~oves the amendment as ~ecommended. They dId not feel it needs to come back to the Planning CommissIon no~ anothe~ applIcatIon made fo~ the addItional sIgns. Chai~pe~son Dehn asked fo~ a motion to close the public hea~ing. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by JovanovIch, to so move. MotIon ca~~ied on a 4-Yes. 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen, Peek) vote. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Pease, that the PlannIng and ZonIng CommIssIon ~ecommend to the CIty CouncIl app~oval of the SpecIal Use Pe~mit ~equest by ContInental Development Co~po~ation, Inc., to e~ect an A~ea IdentifIcatIon sIgn (pe~manent monument sIgn) on Lot 11, Block 4. \ The Commission finds the ~equest meets the c~ite~Ia establIshed in ,) O~dinance No.8, Section 5.03, IncludIng: the use wIll not be det~Imental to the health. safety. mo~als o~ gene~al welfa~e of the community; the use wIll not cause serIous t~affIc congestIons o~ haza~ds; the use will not dep~ecIate su~~ounding p~ope~ty; and the use is In ha~mony wIth the Comp~ehensIve Plan. (J .1' " \.J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission , Minutes - July 14. 1992 , ) Page 5 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit -- Area IdentifIcation Sign, Pinewood Estates, ContInued) (Motion Continued) The Commission also finds that the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No, 8, Section 8,07, The Commission shall also make the following conditions in accordance with Sections 8,07 and 5,03: , "- ) 1, The area for development Is larger than five acres: 2, There shall be only one 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, The applIcant shall execute a wrItten agreement with the City for the maintenance of the sIgn, 7, That In the event that the CouncIl approves the changes In OrdInance 8 and Ordinance 10. that the developer should meet wIth the Andover RevIew CommIttee to determIne any other sIgnage without havIng to come back to through the Planning CommIssIon process, 8, A publIc hearing was held and there was no negatIve comment, MotIon carrIed on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen, Peek) vote, 8:21 p,m, DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES IN AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLING/ JUNKYARDS Mr, Carlberg revIewed the background of the request by the CIty Council that the PlannIng CommIssIon examine the possIbilIty of requirIng all Junk/auto recycling yards to conduct theIr activities Inside of a buIldIng, In consulting with the City Attorney, he advIsed the CIty has the authorIty to requIre them to place their operations within structures if they are given a reasonable time period in which to comply. He recommended a five-year period in which to construct the buildIngs and reduce the size of the yards, Mr, Carlberg stated such a change would Impact the zoning ordinance because these yards are now considered excluded and nonconforming uses. Mr. Carlberg noted that the proposal dIffers from the request by Anoka Auto Wrecking which asked to be allowed to construct a buIlding to get employees out of the cold and for environmental reasons, They would contInue to store Junk outsIde. so the sIze of the yards would not be reduced, He also expected another Junkyard to come In wIth a sImIIIar '\ request soon, '-...-J \ / , I '-...1 ) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1992 Page 6 (DIscussion - Construction of Structures in Automotive Recycling/ Junkyards. Continued) The Commission discussed the pros and cons of the proposal. It was argued that it makes sense to allow the yards to construct buildings in which to do some of their dismantling and storage for environmental reasons and for the health and safety of employees, such as protection from the cold in the winter. It was also noted that this is a tax increment financing district which is intended for redevelopment. The proposal to require all activities within a building tends to support the Junkyards as a permanent activity in that vicinity. Mr. Carlberg stated that if the yards were al lowed to construct buildings in which to do their dismantling, the buildings would have to meet Ordinance 78 for commercial buildings. The Commission felt that would improve the aesthetics of the area. They also questioned what would happen to the land where the cars are now stored if the yards were required to store everything inside of a building, as that land would be landlocked and useless. The City is interested in the environmental aspects, health and safety of the community and the workers. plus aesthetics: and the proposal of putting up a building as requested by Anoka Auto Wrecking meets that criteria. Mike DeNucci. Anoka Auto Wreckinq - stated if they had a building, ) the need for outside storage would be much smaller, though there would still be a need for it. A building would be much better for their workers, they would be much better organized. and the liquids would not contaminate the soil. Some dismantling would stil I have to be done outside. such as crushing the cars, as it is not practical to have a crusher inside of a building. The Commission tended to feel it makes more sense to allow the Junkyards to construct buildings in which to dismantle the vehicles rather than requiring that all activity take part in a building. Before going to a public hearing with an ordinance amendment to that effect, the Commission preferred to get a feeling from the City Council as to whether that would be acceptable. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, that we direct the City Staff to prepare a ordinance amendment for our next meeting and we will review it then. If we find we can come to a consensus, we will act on it then. Motion carried on a 4-Yes. 3-Absent (Jonak, McMullen. Peek) vote. The Commission directed Staff to ask for a Joint meeting with the City Council, suggesting a 7:00 p.m. meeting on July 28 to discuss this issue. Mr. Carlberg stated he will mention this to the Council. \ There being no further business, Chairperson Dehn declared the meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. ~Rs~n~L ~a~ella A. ~~.E~ording Secretary