Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 1989 o o () \.J .'.01 ,1'\ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1989 The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Becky Pease at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 24, 1989, in the Council Chambers of Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present included Bev Jovanovich, Becky Pease, Bill Bernard, Wayne Vistad, and new commissioners Gretchen Sabel, and Don spotts. Also present was City Planner, Jay Blake and Jim Schrantz. SWEARING IN CEREMONY o New appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission were as follows: Rebecca Pease was appointed to serve as the 1989 Planning and Zoning Chairperson. Gretchen Sabel and Don Spotts were appointed as new members of the P/Z Commission. The swearing-in ceremony was performed by Jim Schrantz. It was also noted that d'Arcy Bosell was re-appointed to a three-year term, and Ron Ferris was named Planning and Zoning Commission Alternate. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were made to the January 10, 1989 meeting minutes. o Ms. Pease had a correction on page six, paragraph four, the words public communities should be revised to read public utilities. Also in that same sentence, it should be corrected that the public utilities should not be exempt. In paragraph five of page six, Ms. Bosell's statement about the proper communication during the permit process and fee was not clearly understood by Ms. Pease. The commission members thought that Ms. Bosell could elaborate more on this as soon as she arrived at the meeting. Also on page six, paragraph six, the word "be" should be added so the sentence reads, Mr. Bernard felt that the fees should not be charged for permits." (J u c ~ o Andover Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Two MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Jovanovich to approve the amended minutes of the January 10, 1989 meeting. All voted yes. Motion carried. MINING PERMIT: ROSELLA SONSTEBY The application form for the mining permit and supporting materials were not available for this meeting. Jay Blake stated that Mrs. Sonsteby would have to contact the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization for additional permit information. Jay stated also that the city had received letters from the Minnesota Depart of Natural Resources stating that no DNR permit was required and one from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers waiving the permit process for the proposal. o Ms. Sonsteby stated that she wanted to know from the City what requirements were needed to complete the mining permit process, what the City wants for the slope. Jay Blake stated she would give Ms. Sonsteby a copy of the City requirements. Ms. Sonsteby asked if she needed a permit for digging a pond. Jay stated yes she would, but she would probably just need one permit for all these type projects. Bill Bernard asked how much black dirt was Ms. Sonsteby planning to mine and what would she be doing with it after it was mined. Ms. Sonsteby stated that it could possibly used for recreational purposes. Ms. Sonsteby does not have a buyer for the dirt at this time, but doesn't feel this is any problem at all. Jay Blake stated that the City would require that Ms. Sonsteby would have to estimate a total amount of fill to be taken, and to be completed within a certain amount of time. However, this amount can be amended on the permit at a later time. Mr. Vistad had a concern regarding the number of trucks used in this mining operating, the hours of operation of such trucks, and the travel routes that will be used by the trucks to haul the dirt. /\ ~ If Ms. Sonsteby completes the application promptly, there would a public hearing scheduled for either February 14 or February 21. l) u ~ ~ o Andover Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Three PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANACE 10 AMENDMENTS PARK DEDICATION FEES Jay Blake stated the public hearing was mistakenly scheduled this evening but had asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if the public hearing could be continued until the February 14, 1989 P & Z meeting in order to allow the Park Board to finalize their recommendation and supporting materials. Chairperson Pease opened the public hearing. Representatives from the Park Board Ferris were present to speak to the issue. Marc McMullen and Ron o Ron Ferris stated that the Park Board had reviewed the park dedication fees, and hired an external consultant (with the City Council's approval) to take a look at the Park Comprehensive Plan. The consultant, Westwood Planning, performed the task of reviewing the park dedication fees, and they compiled a chart with similar communities' park dedication fees. The finding was that Andover charged the lowest amount for park dedication fees. Mr. Ferris stated that presently Andover gets 10% of the assessed value of the land, or $100 per lot whichever is more, for residential property. For industrial, Andover receives 10% of the gross land, or $100 per lot. He related the fees of surrounding communities: Blaine - $395 per single unit; Lakeville $550; Coon Rapids $384; Champlin $1,400 per single family unit, Mr. Ferris stated that Blaine and Coon Rapids did not have much land left to be developed. The number recommended by the Park Board is higher than those two communities, but Andover does have a lot more land to be developed. Also Mr. Ferris stated that the Park Board arrived at a formula based on the common average values of land in Andover that have been sold over a period of 12-18 months. The staff has researched the recorded deeds that had changed in parcels greater than ten acres in the City of Andover. From that information, the Park Board came up with a gross number of the amount of acreage, and the value to which it had changed, and found that the assessed value was approximately a little less than 50% of market value of the land. If the City uses the assessed value vs. fair market value of the land, the amount is down approximately 50% as to what the assessed vs. fair market value of the land would be. o u u o Andover Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Four Mr. Ferris also stated that the Park Board determined a formula which equals 2.314 developable units per acre. So, by taking the average amount of land sales, and then taking 10% times 2.314 to equal $466/per single unit. Mr. Ferris made the statement that although this is a sizeable increase for Andover, the figure is in line with the other surrounding communities, and it has been a long time since Andover has addressed the park dedication fee. Also, Mr. Ferris stated that the Park Board would like to see added to a revision of the ordinance verbage indicating that the park dedication fees would be reviewed annually by the Park Commission. The following is the recommendation that was made by the Park Commission in reviewing the park dedication fees for Andover: u Residential $466/Single family unit S398/Two-family unit $349/Townhouse unit $293/Multi-family unit $363/Mobile Home Unit or 10% of the fair market value of the land, whichever is greater Commercial $1,078 per industrial acre Mr. Vistad made the remark that if the fees were continually increased, the cost of doing this transfers back to the citizens of the community. Mr. Ferris stated that the City has not been continually increasing these fees, and that it has been a number of years since the figure has been reviewed. Also, he made the point that the City has 50 parks to develop but doesn't have much money in the budget to perform this goal. o Mr. Bernard asked why the Park Board is now looking at reviewing this fee. Mr. McMullen stated that about a year ago, it was reviewed by the City Council but the Park Board was never involved in this review, and it was determined that the park dedication fees were adequate. u u o Andover Park and Recreation Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Five Ms. Sabel stated that the Park Board had applied for a Bond Issue, which failed, but then the Park Board approached the City Council for more funds and received them. At that time, it was evident that the Park Board did not have nearly enough money to develop the parks. By charging the developer a dedication fee, that money can go into the park in the neighborhood and this will increase the value of the land and people have more recreational opportunities. Ms. Sonsteby stated she felt the amount for this proposed park dedication fee was ridiculous. Also, she felt that the Park Board should take on projects like making Round Lake a good swimming area, as there's white sand underneath. Also, Ms. Sonsteby made the comment that she would like to see all people treated fairly, o Mr. Spotts asked if the current parks were in disrepair. Mr. Ferris stated that most of the parks aren't even fully developed as yet. Even if the 50 parks were developed, it would take considerable funds to maintain them. Ms. Pease asked if there was a list of parks that needed to be developed and a priority attached to each one of them. Mr. McMullen stated that the '89 budget is to just finish parks that have been started, and all new parks have been put on hold. Northwest Tennis Court needs to be repaired, and the cost estimate to do this is about $30,000-$40,000 - to come out of park dedication fees. Ms. Sabel also stated that the cost to put in lights at City Halls and this would cost $150,000. Again, Mr. Ferris stated that the $466/per single unit is a figure that would allow Andover to be aligned with the surrounding communities. Mr. Spotts also asked if, during the past year, Andover took land or cash in lieu of land for park dedication. Mr. Ferris stated that the Park Board has almost strictly taken cash in lieu of land. Mr. Ferris also made the comment that the Park Board did not want take any more land for dedication, as the Park Board did not have the funds to develop it anyway. o Mr. Schrantz stated the developer that gives land in lieu of cash absorbs all the utility assessments, and that he is spending a lot of money. If the developer gives cash in lieu of land and the amount they pay is far less than the developer that gives land. u () ~J Andover Park and Recreation Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Six Mr. Bernard thought that the Park Board should explore a more gradual increase of the park dedication fees, as he felt the developers would be very much against this concept of raising the fee to such a high number. Also Mr. Bernard suggested the Park Board could look into grants to obtain more funds to get the parks developed. It was decided by Ron Ferris and Marc McMullen to go ahead and have the Planning Commission make a recommendation based on their presentation and forward it on to the City Council. Mr. Vistad stated that even if a motion was made tonight, the City Council would have the final approval at its meeting anyway. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Jovanovich to close the public hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. o Mr. Spotts stated that if a recommendation does go to the City Council meeting, that the following numbers should be presented at that time: Cost of development of needed parks, cost of maintaining developed parks and those have not been developed, cost of repair of parks. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Sabel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Ordinance 10, Section 9, Subsection 9.07 in response to residential park dedication fees as follows: Residential $466/Single family unit $398/Two-family unit $349/Townhouse unit $293/Multi-family unit $363/Mobile Home Unit or 10% of the fair market value of the land, whichever is greater Commercial $1,078 per industrial acre ; '\ ,--..-J Also, in section 9.07.05 to be added as per schedule present in 9.07B, it shall be the responsibility of the Park and Recreation Commission to review the dedication fees annually and to make recommendations for the potential changes. u u o Andover Park and Recreation Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Seven A public hearing was held and there was discussion on this topic. Chairperson Pease polled the Commission: Bernard - yes, with reservation; Spotts - yes; Jovanovich - yes; Pease - yes; Sabel - yes; Vistad - yes. Motion carried. This item will go to the City Council on February 21st. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 and reconvened at 8:50. SIGN ORDINANCE - DISTRICT SIGN REQUIREMENTS Jay Blake stated that the City's 1-1/2 square foot sign requirement in residential districts is too small, in comparison to other cities. Mr. Vistad agreed, and thought that the 24' x 32' would be make more sense from designing and preparing the sign, o Jay Blake recommended eliminating the 2, 3 or 4 square foot sign per front foot of building lot, and to go for some specific number for overall size. He'd like to see a number not based on the size of the building, but just based on the district. The simpler the City makes the number, the easier it would be to enforce. Mr. Vistad stated he could understand why signs based on building size is a good idea -- as the signs would be in proportion to the size of the building. Ms. Pease suggested Jay prepare a range in sizes for the different square feet for different size buildings. This could make it easier to administrate. Jay Blake will prepare some figures on this. It was also suggested by Bill Bernard to call the City of Minneapolis for this information. \ ~ One more item reviewed by Mr. Blake was the height restriction in Shopping Center and Neighborhood Business Districts. Andover was high with 10 feet, and most of the communities allowed 6 feet. General Business allowed for other communities was at 20 feet and Andover allowed <25 feet (Ground) and 10 feet (roof). Also on the shopping centers, Andover can have 35' (above roof). Most other communities allow 20-25 feet. Also, Andover allows up to 35 feet high in industrial zones, higher by 10-15 feet, more than other communities. c ) ,-,. lJ , '\ '-J Andover Planning and Recreation Commission January 24, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eight The commissioners reviewed Jay Blake's sugggestions as to recommendations for the height restrictions in SC and NB districts in Andover: Residential Gen. Businesses Shopping Center Industrial 10 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Ms. Pease asked how many this requirement of 25 feet. the 25-feet now. businesses currently do not meet Jay stated that they are all within Mr. Vistad stated, if currently there were not any signs above 20 feet, he'd like to see the size of the signs held down as far as possible. Jay will do some checking on this for the next meeting. Ms. Sabel suggested Jay review Anoka's sign ordinance (and the communities of Brooklyn Park, Blaine and Coon Rapids). " '\ \J MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded Commissioner Jovanovich to continue discussion of the Ordinance until the next Planning Commission meeting. yes. Motion carried. by Sign All voted ORDINANCE REVISIONS - 1989 PRIORITIES Mr. Blake reviewed the list of priorities for reviewing the ordinances in 1989. The list included: Ordinance 8 (Signs), Redraft of Ordinance 8, Ordinance 23 (Horses), Ordinance 29 (Diseased Trees), Ordinance 44 (Junkyard Operation), Ordinance 10 (Subdivision) - Park Dedication Fees. Also, other items to review were: Home Occupations, Planned Unit Development, Commercial Kennels, Multiple Family Districts, and Rural Shopping Areas. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Blake presented an update on the Junkyard situation. He stated that the City currently seven licensed junkyards, with one license pending, and one the City is trying to revoke its license. ,~ An economic development committee has been established -- Becky Pease is a member, there are four residents, in addition to two City Council members that are on the committee. o \ ,-) " 'J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission January 24, 1989 Page Nine The economic development committee will be meeting on Tuesday, January 31st and will be doing some organizational planning. Also, the closing procedure for another lot sale within the commercial park, to a business that distributes food additives to farmers in the western part of the U.S. He'll be building a warehouse and office site in the commercial park. Jay has a list of prospects for the commercial park. One would be space for an automobile parts manufacturing building, another request for a doctor's office, a warehouse and office, a daycare center, a restaurant in the downtown area, and an indoor/outdoor volleyball facility. ADJOURNMENT MOTION was made by Commissioner Bernard, seconded by Commissioner Vistad to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. . '\ '-J Respectfully submitted, ./JU-V;J~~ (Plan. 18) " I '-----'