Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 9, 1990 o o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 9, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Becky Pease on October 9, 1990; 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Bill Coleman, Ron Ferris, Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich Randal Peek, Wayne Vistad City Administrator, d'Arcy Bosell; City Planner, David Carlberg; City Assistant Engineer, Todd Haas; and others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 25, 1990: Page 5, Other Business, second line, change to, "...changing Section 8.07 as it pertains..." o MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Jonak, to approve them wIth the change made. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, l-Abstain (Ferris), 2-Absent (Peek, Vistad) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - GENTHON POND - AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN MAP Chairperson Pease cal led the public hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. Mr. Hass reviewed the proposed Special Use Permit to allow placement of fill within the flood plain areas and an amendment to the Floodway maps of Ordinance 50 for the proposed Genthon Ponds Addition. The Andover Review Committee has reviewed this and doesn't have any concerns. The amendment is to exclude a piece of high ground from the flood plain. When the flood plain maps were done, the USGS maps were used which have a topography of ten feet. The grading map is in increments of two-foot contours, and the 100-year flood is more easily identifiable. That piece of high ground technically should not be included in the flood plain because it is above the 100-year flood. The filled area is to build Butternut through a portion of the flood plain. o Commissioner Ferris asked how the City knows what affect the filling in of a portion of the flood plain wil I have on the rest of the area. Ms. Bosell explained the Commission wil I first look to see that the criteria in Section 10.45 of Ordinance 50 is satisfied based on their best guess. Once the City CouncIl takes action on it, it wil I be submitted to the DNR and the Federal Insurance Administration for their review. Their engineers and hydrologists will submit an opinion in writing as to whether or not the proposal is workable and acceptable. ~-~ , ~ ~ < \ I ,~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 9, 1990 Page 2 (Public Hearing: SUP/Genthon Pond & Amendment to Flood Plain Map, Continued) The Commission then discussed several of the criteria set out in Ordinance 50, Section 10.45: 1. Ms. Bosel I felt that because there are no streams or water courses through the property, there is no impact. Because it is a 100-year flood plain, it is an area that has not been specifically studied by the US Geological Service. It is a protected wetland and there in water. She also explained that once this is approved, the flood plain map is amended to exclude the the high spot. It has to do with the insurability of the adjacent property. Mr. Haas also noted that nothing wil I be done within the protected wetland. 7. Mr. Haas felt that with the wetlands to the east and west, the best alternative is to put the road between the two, believing there is no other alternative for this. They tried to put the road at the most narrow part of the flood plain. \ 8. Ms. Bosel I noted they do not know the future development of the , ) adjacent area to the east. That area is in the City of Ham Lake, and no information has been received from them. The areas to the west are already divided into five-acre parcels, and the property to the north is also divided into large lots. 9. Ms. Bosel I stated the proposal is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and the Flood Plain Ordinance. 10. Mr. Haas said the 903 elevation wil I not encroach into the street itself, though it may be in a portion of the right of way. Within the 100-year flood, he felt safety of access to the property is assured. 11. Ms. Bosel I stated there is no stream or water course through the property, so this property is not impacted by a stream or water course and this section does not apply. The Commission asked about the heights of standing water, thinking there could be streams of water flowing within a 100-year flood event. Ms. Bosel I noted the existing Butternut was built under the same conditions, and there has never been a flooding problem. There wil I be even more stringent requirements for the construction of Butternut through this plat because of the Flood Plain Ordinance. Mr. Haas stated the expected heights in a 100-year flood is 903, and that should not create a problem based on the plans provided to the City. \ ) i ' ~.) u .) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 9, 1990 Page 3 (Public Hearing: SUP/Genthon Pond & Amendment to Flood Plain Map, Continued) 13. Mr. Haas stated that should be changed to submission and favorable review by the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization, not the Coon Creek Watershed Board, as this area is in the Lower Rum River watershed. Because of the policies of that organization, the review wi]] actually be done by the City. Mr. Schrantz has already reviewed this and has given a favorable review. He will now Inform the LRRWMO what Is taking place. There was no public testimony on this Item. Chairperson Pease asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Bosel I noted Kirk Corson of Hokanson Development has been working with the DNR on the plans. Mr. Corson stated the DNR didn/t have a problem with the location of the road. He told them the road was placed according to the desires of the US Army Corps of Engineers. He stated they hope to get started yet this year, noting they began last March, originally wanting to start last summer. , \ ,~ MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, that we recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit as requested by Hokanson Construction for the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, generally located In the vicinity of 17370 NW University Avenue, to al low placement of fil I for the proposed Genthon Ponds Addition; that a public hearing was held and no opposition was heard; that in accordance with Ordinance 50, Section 10.45 and the 13 criteria there stated, that a review of al I 13 criteria found no negative impacts that would result from approval of the Special Use Permit; that the granting of the Special Use Permit would be contingent upon review and certification of the Commissioner of Natural Resources and Federal Insurance Administration; and a further condition that the sunset clause of 12 months be applied to the Special Use Permit upon its granting time. Motion carried unanimously. <Peek and Vistad absent) Chairperson Pease noted this item wil I go to the City Council on November 6, 1990. Hearing closed at 8:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: GENTHON POND - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing was called to order at 8:18 p.m. Mr. Haas reviewed the \ proposed plat and the comments of the Andover Review Committee as ,) outlined In the Agenda material. The plat consists of 12 single \ '-~ , ~ , Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 9, 1990 Page 4 , / (Public Hearing: Genthon Pond - Preliminary Plat, continued) family rural residential lots; all lots meet the setpic system requirements, have at least the minimum house pad size, and have a basement floor elevation of 906. He also pointed out the two proposed variances: 1) Lot 3, Block 2 because it is only 2.2 acres due to the easement being required for University Avenue on the east: and 2) Lot 2, Block 1 does not meet the 300-foot lot width requirement due to the topography of the property and to provide an entrance to the housing pad on Lot 3. Ms. Bosel I noted the plat does not meet the Metropolitan Council's Rural Density Policy of 1/10, 4/40: and, therefore, it does not meet the density requirement and wi I I not be eligible for FHA financing. Kirk Corson. Hokanson Development - stated they are aware of that. It was eligible when they first started; now it is not. \ The Commission and Staff reviewed the contours of Lot 4, Block 1, with the Commission thinking the house pad is In the flood plain; therefore, the lot is unbuildable. After review, Mr. Haas agreed it is incorrect. It should be changed to follow the 903 line. The gradIng plan shows It fil led up to 908. He suggested the Commission could amend the previous motion on the Special Use Permit to al low fil ling of this lot and to make a change on the flood plain map. / The Commission and Staff also reviewed the proposed varIances in detail. Lot 3, Block 2 - Staff noted University is an existing roadway which the City maintains. When the preliminary plat is approved, the right of way wil I not be included as a part of the calculation. AI I three lots meet the 39,000 square-foot requirement. Technically the lot could be 2.5 acres if the road were moved further north; however, that is not possible because of the protected wetland. Commissioner Ferris questioned whether the wetlands would be protected more by reducing it to two lots instead of squeezing in an extra lot in this area. Ms. Bosel I noted the plans for the extension of University Avenue are not known, and it may even be that that road is never built and the easement would be vacated. At this time it is not required that UnIversity be built, only that it be dedicated. Mr. Haas felt that because the wetland Is so large, it is not feasible to construct UnIversity further north. Mr. Haas then pointed out the reason for the variance on Lot 2, Block 1. The lot lines could have been shifted to meet the 300-foot requirements: however, because of the existIng topography and wetland, it was moved to provide access to Lot 3. The CommissIon agaIn noted , an alternative would be to eliminate one lot so the variance would not ) be needed and the flood plain would not need to be filled in the vicinity of Lot 4. \ \...j / "', u "' Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 9, 1990 Page 5 , / <Public Hearing: Genthon Pond - Preliminary Plat, continued) On Lot 2, B]ock 3, Mr. Haas thought the proposal was to remove the materia] from the high knob that was just removed from the flood plain. He said the lot is buildable, noting the soil borings indicate the elevation of the water table appears to be consistent throughout the entire plat. The Commission and Staff discussed the construction of University Avenue at this time, noting it is not feasible without the cooperation of Ham Lake and adjoining residents. At the same time, the Commission was concerned that there is only one entrance/exit to this plat. Mr. Corson - thought the maintained University Extension could be used for emergency vehicles. Mr. Haas didn't think the City would continue maintaining it since the existing property owner would have access through the plat. Commissioner Ferris asked why Butternut is proposed as a temporary cui de sac, not a permanent one. Mr. Haas explained there is easement for the eventual extension of Butternut to the north if that property ever develops. There are residences on the parcels to the north. He \ stated it is not the intent that it be a permanent cui de sac, that ~ this keeps the option open to extend Butternut to the north if development warrants it. Mr. Haas stated he is also recommending that University Avenue not be built at this time; therefore, a temporary cui de sac should be placed at the end of 173rd as wel l. Ms. Bose]] pointed out the buildings on Lot 3, B]ock 2 would be lawful]y existing nonconforming structures on which they could not make future improvements. The hearing was then opened for public testimony. Mike O'Nei]. 156 177th Avenue - understood the developer wanting to make money on the 40 acres; but there are also people surrounding the parcel that have 10 acres of land, asking what kind of impact 12 housing units will have on them. It brings in a lot more people, reduces the wildlife, brings more traffic on the roads, and brings more problems. He'd prefer to have the quality of life he had seven years ago versus what he has today, implying this wi]] reduce it even further. Mr. O'Neil asked about pushing Butternut through on the easement abutting his brother's land. When that is done, it directly affects the 20 acres that he and his brother own, thinking the City can put it through whether they want it or not. He stated he'd prefer that the developer be made to comply with the ordinances and not grant variances. Mr. O'Neil estimated there are 25 acres of high ground, not seeing how this many houses can be put in there without having sewage and we]] problems, etc. "' ) \ ,,--) , u ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 9, 1990 Page 6 (Public Hearing: Genthon Pond - Preliminary Plat, continued) John O/Neil. Minneapolis. owns 10 acres north of the area - questioned whether the DNR, who generally is very restrictive on any wetland, has given approval because of the fil I, reducing highland, putting in culverts, etc. He was also concerned that the development wil I force the extension of Butternut, plus he too felt that the ordinance requirements should be adhered to, meaning no variances. Ms. Bosell explained the policy of extending regular City streets at the request of the adjoining property owners. Carolyn Bolander. 99 Crosstown NW - felt the plan incorrectly shows University Avenue and 173rd Lane as being joined. It is a dirt road at this time; it is marked; and it is maintained by the City. She was confused whether University Avenue would join 173rd, or if 173rd would end in a cui de sac so there would be no access and egress on University. Mr. Haas stated if it is not being used, the City would no longer maintain it because it serves only one party that would now have access from 173rd. University is not intended to be constructed at this time; it would be left as is without any maintenance until such time as both Andover and Ham Lake agree to construct it. . \ ,_) Ms. Bolander - was concerned that the road construction equipment would use University Avenue to construct 173rd. Mr. Corson - stated al I work being done in the plat would come in and out of Butternut and 173rd; University would not be used. Ms. Bolander - stressed then for construction, for ingress and egress, and for emergency purposes, there will only be one access to the entire develoment for now. Mr. Haas stated yes, for now, until either the property to the north or east develops. The adjoining lot in the plat is already reduced by the road easement, so it wil I not be affected at the time University is constructed. John O/Neil - asked if the DNR has given some inkling of approval of this plat. Staff stated yes; no wetlands are proposed to be fil led in, only the flood plain. Any approval would be contingent upon approval of the DNR. Mike O/Neil - asked about the tax forfeit triangular piece at the entrance of Butternut. Mr. Corson - stated they have ownership of it. There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Pease asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Ferris, to so move. Motion carried ) unanimously. ". ) , " u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting \ Minutes - October 9, 1990 / Page 7 (Public Hearing: Genthon Pond - Preliminary Plat, continued) Discussion was on the Commissioners' concerns that the plat is not ready to go on because Lot 4, Block 1 is not buildable, that the two variances are not acceptable because there are alternatives, because of their sensitivity of the flood plain and wetlands area, and because of their concern over building in that area in general. ) MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, that the Andover P & Z recommends to the Andover City Council denial of the Preliminary Plat of Genthon Pond Addition based upon the variances required, more specifically the variance for Lot 3, Block 2, in that it does not meet the 2.5-acre requirement in that it is only 2.2 acres in size. Secondly, Lot 2, Block 1, does not meet the minimum width at the setback requirements as required In Ordinance 8, that these two variances are not required and they can be eliminated by better planning -- more specifically, Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 2 is recommended to be reduced to two lots, not three, and Lot 4 of Block 1 is deemed at this time by the drawing in front of us to be unbuildable. To make it buildable would require extensive fill within the flood plain. It is our recommendation that that fil I not be done; it is not required, in that to facilitate it would be to allow a variance on Lot 2. It is therefore recommended that Lot 4 be eliminated and the width from Lot 4 be spread across Lots 3, 2, and 1, thus making al I three buildable lots within the existing ordinances and also eliminate the need for fil I within the flood plain of Lot 4. That this recommendation would be passed on to the City Council for their meeting on November 6. Motion carried unanimously. (Peek and Vistad absent) The matter is to go to the City Council at its November 6 meeting. (An addition to this motion was made later in the meeting) Commission recessed at 9:27; reconvened at 9:39 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE 8. SECTIONS 4.06. 4.21. 7.03 & 8.07 Ms. Bosel I reviewed the changes and corrections to those sections of Ordinance 8 relating to permitted encroachments, fences and wal Is, uses excluded, and signs. There was no public testimony on this item. Chairperson Pease asked for a motion to close the pUblic hearing. ) MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. () u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting \ Minutes - October 9, 1990 / Page 8 <Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, Continued) MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, that the Planning and Zoning Commission pass on to the City Council for recommendation to approve the changes to Ordinance 8, Sections 4.06, 4.21, 7.04, and 8.07 as presented by Staff in their letter of 9 October 1990; that a public hearing was held and that there were no voices brought forth. That this be presented to the Andover City Council on their meeting of November 6. Motion carried unanimously. GENTHON POND PRELIMINARY PLAT. CONTINUED MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, to reconsider my motion on Genthon Pond Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. :) MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, at the end of the motion state that a public hearing was held and that there were two Andover residents that did bring forth concerns with regards to the density of the property under the proposal, and that both of these residents felt that the granting of variances was not in the best interest of the City nor is it in the best interest to the area around It. They specifically support the recommendation made by Planning and Zoning that those variances in terms of lot size and setback not be al lowed, thus reducing the impact to the area from 12 lots down to 10 as the motion recommends. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: ORDINANCE NO. 29. DISEASEED SHADE TREES Mr. Carlberg recommended this item be tabled until they obtain further information from the County's Oak Wilt/Diseased Tree Hotland and the Department of Agriculture. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, that we table this item as per the request based upon further input from Janette Monear and David Stephenson, continue it to October 23. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Commissoner Coleman reported on a Star City Conference held last week. One of the points brought out was that wIthin five to ten years, people wil I not be able to give away quite a few houses in the Twin Cities area because of the overbuilding, especially single-family suburban type homes. He felt things were presented that should be thought about as the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He also presented a brochure. . ) \ '-.) , ) '-.J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting \ Minutes - October 9, 1990 J Page 9 (Other Business, Continued) Ms. Bosel] then updated the Commission on the Metropolitan Council's Rural Development Guideline of 1/10, 4/40 housing density in the rural areas and noted the frustrations of their reasoning being to preserve agricultural lands of which Andover has none, of the limited qualifications on land use planning of those who are making the decisions, of the further rules and restrictions they are proposing to make on cities with regard to septic systems and wel Is, etc. She felt the biggest issue is that of the Metropolitan Council, a non-elected body, having the authority to dictate zoning and other regulations to the cIties. The cities should be able to govern themselves based on their plan. Ms. Bosel I noted the report has been accepted, and a public hearing at Bunker Hil Is wil] be held on November 15. She recommended that everyone be made aware of the hearing and attend it. The Commission felt that the City should take a strong stand on the issue and be represented at that hearing, recommending Ms. Bosell bring the item up to the Council for their consideration and response prior to that hearing. \ ,) There being no further business, Chairperson Pease declared the meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Th ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ V~~ella A. Peach Recording Secretary \ j