Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 26, 1988 " -....., '- --) () ~_.:;.^ 'C}\ " 1 7:30 P.M. u u CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AGENDA APRIL 26, 1988 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Special Use Permit *88-02 (Anoka County) Public Hearing, Continued 4. Gammon Brothers Mining Permit Public Hearing, Continued 5. New Generation Homes Mining Permit Public Hearing, Continued 6. Ordinance 53 (Dog Ordinance) Amendment Discussion, Continued 7. Ordinance 8 (Zoning Ordinance) Amendment Public nearing, Continued 8. Ordinance 10 (Subdivision and Platting Ordinance) Amendment Discussion, Continued 9. James Benolkin Mining Permit Public Hearing 10. Rezoning *88-01 (Gaughan Co.) Public Hearing 11. Old Colony Estates Preliminary Plat Public Hearing 12. Lot Split 188-03 (Brown) 13. Timber Trails Sketch Plan 14. Adjournment u o \ , , , --" CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MINUTES APRIL 26, 1988 The Regularly Scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Marge Perry at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, April 26, 1988 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Bernard, Bosell, Jovanovich, Jacobson, Vistad, Pease None Todd Haas, Assistant City Engineer; Daryl Morey, City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was tabled to the next meeting. Special Use Permit-Anoka County, cant. Daryl Morey explained that this item was tabled in order to determine the outcome of Senator Merriam's bill which would have eliminated eight sites from consideration as potential landfills. The bill passed but in conference committee the portion which would have eliminated our site from consideration was eliminated, and our site is still being considered. Bruce wojack of Anoka County has requested that this be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. Morey recommended that it be tabled. Discussion on the time limit for referral to the Council ensued with the concensus being that if this item is dealt with at the next meeting it could go to Council on May 17. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bernard to table this item to the next meeting. Motion carried. Gammon Bros. Mininq Permit Mr. Haas noted that the applicant is present to request this item be tabled to the next meeting. Dick Gammon, Gammon Bros. - requested that the Planning Commission grant an extension of time on this item. Ms. Bosell stated that this falls into the same category as the previous item as the application was received on February 26th. The only item missing is the drawing and that has been missing since the application was received. Mr. Haas recommended that this be tabled so the applicant can bring in the drawing. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Jovanovich to refer this to the Council and ,_, explain that the applicant has requested an extension and ask the Council to ~~)refer it back to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Regular Planning April 26, 1988 - Page 2 ~J Commission Meeting Minutes ~~ New Generation Homes Mining Permit, Cont. Chairman Perry reopened the public hearing. Mr. Haas explained that a new drawing has been received and the applicant is present to discuss the proposal. Wayne Bachman, New Generation Homes - explained that the area to be mined is approximately 13 acres and was chosen as it is the more removed from the majority of home owners. The other item is a copy of a letter they wrote stating that they have reduced the size and that in order to help with the dust control they would remove the topsoil and after removal of the dirt they would put the topsoil back and seed it with rye grass. He also noted that they have no problem with a 6:1 slope instead of 4:1. They have agreed to make it clear to the contractors that traffic laws are to be strictly enforced. They also understand that the permit is only good for one year and they agree not to mine in excess of 80,000 cubic yards of dirt. COmmissioner Vistad asked how many acres they previously mined. Mr. Bachman noted it was 10 acres and Forest Lake Contracting did the mining. Mr. Vistad asked how many more acres they plan to come in with for a mining permit in the future. Mr. Bachman stated that that would depend on what they need the dirt for. The potential would be 35 acres and 30 acres. Mr. Vistad felt that they are coming in with smaller acreages so they don't have to have an EAW done. Mr. Bachman explained that all they're requesting at he didn't know if they would be coming ~~ with more. the land which is their main reason for being there. they're not doing this just so they don't have to do this time is 13 acres They plan to develop He also noted that an EAW. and Commissioner Bernard questioned why the letter says they will be mining 15 acres. Mr. Bachman explained that when they drafted the letter they said less than 15 acres and the surveyor has determined that it's 13 acres. He also noted that they plan to seed the property with rye grass, hoping it will stabliize the surface. Regarding the contractor being responsible for obeying the traffic laws, Commissioner Bernard felt that New Generation Homes should be responsible. Mr. Bachman explained that if there's a traffic law violation, it's the problem of the person driving the truck. He said that he is not prepared to take the responsibility if someone runs a stop sign. Mr. Haas stated that if there is a problem with the trucking company, the city would be notified and then we would contact New Generation Homes and they would have to work it out with the contractor. Mr. Bernard felt that the hours of operation seem to be excessively long. Mr. Bachman stated that is a point the people would like to see reduced. He stated that you have to understand the construction process. If they are " behind on jobs they are going to want to work long shift days. They tried to limit it so there would be no late night hauling. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. haas if he has any concerns over the amount of dirt coming out and what the finished grade would be. '--/ \.J Regular Planning Commi~~on Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 3 ; Mr. Haas stated that they have some concerns regarding the grading Plan. The elevation is 868 which is the same as the water table. He noted that he is requesting that the finished grade be four ~eet or higher. Another concern is that the lots should be 6~ feet above the water table and they are shown as 5~ feet. Commissioner Jacobson asked how they intend to take care of the blowing sand. Mr. Bachman felt that by lessening the area to be mined, this would help. He stated that this will be like pulling up to a stockpile with a front end loader and putting the firt on a truck. Mr. Jacobson asked if they plan to have a water truck on the site. Mr. Bachman replied that they will not. Mr. Jacobson felt that if they put seed in and don't water it, it will blow away. Mr. Haas noted that this will be treated will have to provide 4 inches of topsoil will be platted but we don't know when. to be MnDOT approved and the seed has to like any other mining permit. They and seed. We know this property He also noted that the topsoil has meet the city's rural specifications. Commissioner Pease asked what roads the trucks would be taking. Mr. Bachman stated that they will take Aztec Circle to Xenia Street to County Road 20 and over to 7th Avenue. He also noted that they are asking for a one year permit so they can move 30,000 cubic yards now, another 30,000 towards fall, and the other 20,000 as needed. Mr. Haas indicated that the Planning Commission can put a time limit on the restoration of the property. The city will be requiring a bond in case the city has to do the restoration. Chairman Perry asked if the area that was previously mined had been restored. Todd explained that their last request went directly to the Council and bypassed the Planning Commission as the dirt was used for a county project. Ms. Perry thought that this permit could be tied into the previous permit. Commissioner Bosell didn't think that we could do that. There should have been an annual review. We can put the previous permit on an agenda if it doesn't meet the requirements. Ms. Bosell felt that the watering is improtant when it's dry. She didn't have a problem with topsoil and seed. The application is missing some information. The present zoning of the property needs to be indicated along with the land use. In regard to the hours, Ms. Bosell would prefer them to start at 8:00 Monday instead of 7:00 a.m. as there is a considerable amount of traffic on 7th Avenue. She would like to see them go from 8:00 in the morning until 7:00 in the evening. She was also opposed to Saturdays. She asked Todd if having a 4:1 slope rather than 6:1 would make a difference. Mr. Haas stated that they don't have a problem with the 4:1 slope; however, they would rather see 5:1. The garage floor needs to be l~ feet above the centerline of the street. He also stated that they are proposing 4:1 at the end of each working day. The finished grade will be 5:1. , JCOmmissioner Vistad noted that when he sees a request such as this he feels that an environmental assessment should be done to see what the total affect would be on the community. '. u V Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 4 ,(New Generation Homes, Cont.) Mr. Haas explained that this request doesn't meet the requirements for an EAW. If he was platting 100 or more lots he would be required to do an EAW. Mr. Vistad didn't feel that a $2,000 bond isn't enough for 5,000 trucks going up and down 7th Avenue. Ms. Perry noted that with the shoulder of the road. the paved surface. the previous permit, the trucks were driving on We would need to be very sure that the trucks use Mr. Vistad asked what the responsibility of the contractor would be if the shoulders of the road start to break up. Mr. Haas said that he would contact the county to see how they would handle that. Ms. Bosell suggested that in the motion, the trucks could be restricted to the traveled portion of the road. If this request is for only one year, we might want to have a six month review on it. Tom Minor, 15629 Kiowa Street N.W. - read the following letter: "We are very concerned about the prospect of a gravel mine in our neighborhood. These concerns were voiced at the Planning Commission meeting 4/12/88. We are not alone in our feelings--many neighbors were there as well and feel similarly. Our concerns are the following: Safety - 7th Avenue carries a lot of traffic and the speed limit in the area involved is 55 mph. Large trucks pulling slowly onto the road and accelerating slowly will be a dangerous situation. Vehicles will be passing and driving on the shoulder to get around the trucks. However, the shoulder is often occupied by bicyclists and pedestrians. The Tom Thumb store just north of #20 attracts a large number of children walking on the roadside, especially in good weather when the trucks would be-hauling. Noise - The large trucks are noisy; whether stopping, accelerating, idling, or driving. This does not fit well into a residential neighborhood, especially an area of young children and nice homes on large lots the home- owners have bought for privacy and serenity. Dust/Blowing Sand - Any mining operation will generate large amounts of blowing sand and dust when the wind blows, as it usually does in this area. This leads to extra house cleaning for homeowners and disturbs people with allergies. Reclamation of mined area would be slow, meaning that homeowners would be subjected to these conditions for considerable time. Damage - I can personally testify that gravel debris coming off large trucks is a driving hazard. Last summer along we had three windshields chipped by these conditions. It would also be likely that the weight of the trucks would be hard on the road surfaces of both #20 and 7th Ave. I suspect at least some of this damage wouldn't show up for several years. Aesthetics - The area obviously wouldn't be as scenic with the removal of the gently rolling and attractive hills. Property values - there is no doubt that both property values and ease of selling of homes surrounding this area would be adversely affected by the tremendous volume of truck traffic resulting from these operations (est. 80,000 yds. at a maximum of 18 yds. per truck means a full 4400 trucks, or 8800 trips past the affected properties!) Advantages - None to local residents. None to the "city - the dirt is not going for any project that would benefit the city such Jas road construction. The only benefit would be to New Generation. If the Plannign Commission votes "yes" - I would recommend the following consider- ations: 1) A tax and property value assessment study; 2) Creation of an Regular Planning April 26, 1988 - Page 5 (New Generation Homes, Cont.) , / Commission Minutes <~ Meeting \ , ) escrow account for possible damages and compensation to affected homeowners; 3) Limitations to weekday operations only, no weekends; 4) Limitation to a specific time period, with no chance for a reopener; 5) Limitation to daytime only operation, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. only, to avoid high-traffic periods; 6) Limitation to a specific amount of earth removal, with no chance for a reopener; 7) Requirement that all loads must be covered; 8) Creation and listing of specific fines if New Generation did not abide by restrictions; 9) Creation of an escrow fund to cover future erosion control; 10) Some type of truck spacing requirement so that trucks are not bumper-to-bumper. We recommend that you vote to turn down New Generation's mining permit request, as a service to the citizens of Andover." Michelle Stinson, 15643 Inca - She stated that first they have to live through a dirt mine and then road construction. They are proposing a dirt mine in the middle of a residential area and she didn't think that it makes much sense. Rich Lindeen, 15468 Eldorado Street N.W. - asked how the amount of dirt being hauled out will be controlled. Mr. Haas stated that we could have the surveyor provide us with a report every so often. Mr. Lindeen asked for something that could restrict the amount of dirt being hauled out of the city. Ms. Bosell explained that New Generation Homes could do this exact thing if they platted the property and submitted a grading plan. We would not be able to stop them unless they didn't meet the grading plan. The Special Use Permit is much more controlled and that is what we want to accomplish. The intent is to take the high spot down and then Aztec Circle will match the other streets. Tony Poole, 15364 - 7th Avenue - asked how long after the excavation the property will be platted. he felt the city should set a deadline for development and that no new permits for mining be issued in this area. He also stated that he would like to see something done with this property before any more permits are issued. Mr. Haas explained that the city cannot force them to develop the property. All we can ask him to do is live with our ordinances and come into compliance. As far as coming back for another mining permit, we can't say no. Leonard Mucciacciaro, 15931 vintage Street N.W. - was surprised to see this request. He sees this as a gravel pit. He also stated that he knows a tgruck driver who told him that companies will fire their drivers if they don't go at least 60-65 mph. He felt that we should have an ironclad contract with New Generation Homes. Ron Roden, 15581 Kiowa Street N.W. - stated that is you have land you have a right to do with your property what you want. He would like to see the , elevation above the water table raised. He suggested that the applicant ) put straw on top of the grass seed to hold it down. He also suggested that signs be put up that say trucks are hauling. Mr. Roden also felt that the hours should be changed as the traffic is very heavy between 7 and 8 a.m. ......./ Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988- Minutes Page 6 (New Generation Homes, Cont.) 'J ) Another item Mr. Roden requested was to to get rid of the rocks. The dirt that to the city should be put in the park. benefit the city. have the streets swept periodically Mr. Bachman is willing to donate That would be something that would Ms. Perry didn't feel that by denying denying the property owner's rights. as the ordinance stipulates. a Special Use Permit we would be He has a right to develop the property Lyle Bradley, 15202 - 7th Avenue N.W. - stated that prevailing westerlies are such that a lot of people are going to get blasted by this. We have a lot of limitations on our rights. He noted that he has seen in Andover where developers have disturbed the land and have made no effort to seed the property. Mr. Bradley felt that if he had a youngster with an allergy problem, they would be open for a lawsuit. To help with this problem he thought the trucks should be covered. He stated that this is a poor operation and it is something Andover doesn't need. Roqer McKay, 3740 - 157th Avenue N.W. - could see where this would affect 45-60 acres around it. With the development going on in Andover, the wildlife is being pushed out. He felt that developing the area would be fine; however, he would recommend that this permit be denied. It was noted that the long term intent is to plat this property. Ms. Bosell explained that this is not going to be a gravel pit. This will not be digging a big hole. Tim Wichello, 15600 Dakota Street N.W. - stated that they already have a pit. He asked if that is where they are going to start digging. Mr. Bachman explained that they will be starting in the middle of that area but will be taking the dirt off the sides. MOTION by vistad, seconded by Pease to close the public hearing. Motion carrried. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Jovanovich'~hat the Andover Planning and zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of a Special Use Permit for mining requested by New Generation Homes on the property known as the Indian Meadows area for the following reasons: 1) it will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; 2) It will cause serious traffic congestion; 3) It may seriously depreciate surrounding property values. I do not feel that this mining permit falls within the criteria for granting a Special Use Permit because of the following reasons: 1) To grant a Sp~cial Use Permit the proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, w1~h the chance of this amount of trucks going through the area, I feel there 1S a chance of safety, morals, general welfare of the community nor will cause serious traffic congestion or hazards nor seriously depreciate surrounding 'property values per Ordinance 8, Section 5.03(B). I do not f~e~, I also, ) feel that by removing this fill, the City is basically not ga1n1ng anyth1n~ except for quite a bit of aggravation to the residents and to the surround1ng. As to the second portion, I feel it would be better to have a preliminary plat " / Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes page 7 (New Generation Homes, Cont.) \.J in this area instead of a Special Use Permit because with the preliminary plat we would be getting the development of the property into houses much sooner. As the applicant has stated that if he possibly had a preliminary plat he would probably be keeping more of the countours of the land there so it is not restricting him from the full use of the land." Discussion: Commissioner Jacobson stated: "I can appreciate the point you're trying to make in the motion and I'm sitting here toying with out- right denial or approval with some conditions that are very very stringent that he may not want to live with. But I guess I just take issue with a couple of points that you made in your motion. I'm in favor of what you're trying to do but I think some of your motion because of the way it's worded, I can't vote for it in that form. Number 1 - you don't feel that this mining permit falls under a Special Use Permit. Well, that is why you have a Special Use Permit, to consider this. So I don't think that is a valid reason for denying it. Number 2 - you said that removing this fill the city isn't gaining anything. The City doesn't gain anything with a lot of other Special Use Permits. I don't think that's a reason for denying one. And three, you would rather have a preliminary plat. That is not a reason for either approving or disapproving a Special use Permit. I appreciate what you're trying to do. For a couple of reasons that are in your motion I don't think I could vote for this particular motion the way it's worded. Do you understand what I'm saying?" Commissioner Vistad: "The only reason for mentioning about the preliminary plat was where it was brought up let him have the mining permit because he can remove the items any way with a preliminary plat. With a preliminary plat you will at least be getting more chance of having quicker houses in there then over a very long period. It was meant as just an add on as a reasonsing why I felt from the use of the land would be better used with a preliminary plat than with a mining permit." Commissioner Jacobson: "I understand what you're getting at." Chairman Perry: his motion that vote." "Perhaps it would be possible for Mr. Vistad to remove from portion and include that as a statement at the time of his Commissioner Vistad: "I would be willing to do that." Chairman Perry: "Would the second still hold?" Commissioner Jovanovich: "Yes". Chairman Perry: "So you're removing the portion referencing the preliminary plat?" Commissioner Vistad: "Correct. Will make it as a statement." Commissioner Jacobson: points and more with the reasons for denying it. the I mentioned." "I personally have way it's worded. I think there may a problem with the other two I don't think they're valid be valid reasons but not the two : \ '''--./ o Regular Planning April 26, 1988 - Page 8 ~ (New Generation ) Chairman Perry: Mr. Vistad?" Commission Meeting Minutes Homes, Cont.) "Do you have a remedy that you would like to suggest to Mr. Jacobson: "No, I guess I'd like to see how don't feel that, I'd vote no against the motion I would try another motion after if it failed. anybody else feels. I just for the reasons that I stated. If it passes, it passes." Mr. Vistad: "Just so I....Don can remention the two items again that he had objections with the motion right now." Mr. Jacobson: "The other two that you mentioned where you didn't feel a mining permit didn't fall under a special use and you then listed three or four reaons why. I guess I take exception. Mining permits are a special use and they do fall under that. You said the city doesn't gain anything granting this. I take exception to that. The city doesn't gain on a lot of other special uses either." Mr. Vistad: "I'm going to remove the portion about the city gaining anything and I'll probably leave that as a comment. Getting back to for a mining permit, I was just to clarify this particular request of mining permit I would not feel because it would be detrimental to the safety and would cause the serious depreciation of surrounding property values. That is why I felt for granting it it was not fitting within the criteria of granting a permit, a Special Use Permit. Not that all mining is not supposed to be granted - this particular request." Ms. Bosell: "Maybe Mr. Vistad mis-spoke and intended to say that the permit does not fall within the criteria of granting a Special Use Permit as set out in Ordinance 8, Section 5.03, Subsection B wherein the criteria is health, safety, morals and general welfare, existing anticipated traffic conditions including parking, the effect on the property and scenic views in the surrounding area and the effect proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. 'Cause I think that is what he's getting at is that the criteria that, under the criteria portion of the ordinance it falls short and I think that is what he intended to say and that might not have been exactly what he said." Mr. Jacobson: "You said it does not fall under the special use permit. I would be willing to vote for it if you said that the commission finds that this application does for the reasons listed." Mr. Vistad: "As d'Arcy stated?" Mr. Jacobson: I'Yes'l. Mr. Vistad: "OK. I would be willing to change it to that." Ms. Perry: "We now have a motion that has been made to the City Council recommending denial of the special use permit and your second stands?" \ Ms. Jovanovich: "Yes." ) Todd Haas: "I'm just going to follow up on what d'Arcy had talked about before. We have more controls as far as a mining permit. He comes in with a preliminary plat and approved grading plan, he may have a million cubic \ ,~ Regular Planning Commission meeting April 26, 1988- Minutes Page 9 (New Generation Homes, Cont.) '0 yards of material and he will have the right to haul the material off site and we have no way to control it. But as long as he follows the rules and laws of the state or whatever..." Ms. Bosell: "As far as our approved grading plan." Mr. Haas: "A mining permit we do have more control. I thought I would just mention that." Wayne Bachman: "If I understand the motion is being proposed for denial based on what criteria that we don't meet? I understand the concern about the health and welfare but are you intending to restrict truck traffic from County Road 20 and State Highway 7 for other types of trucks that are going to travel these public highways? Are there additional concerns in that regard that in the terms of health and safety that you have that you want to make clear?" Ms. Perry: "Your concern was with the volume of truck traffic?" Mr. Vistad: "Volume from a residential area that was already there." Mr. Haas: "All he is saying is if they come from Oak Grove. They may go to Oak Grove to look for material and the traffic is not going to change. I guess that is what he is trying to say." Mr. Vistad: "If you basically bring it in as a preliminary plat, I'm looking at the development of the land and looking for it for the wind erosion, all the other items, you're probably going to have houses up there much quicker than him coming in year after year with mining permits." Ms. Perry: "We do have a motion on the floor." Mr. Jacobson: "I would like to amend the motion that I think we forgot that a public hearing was held and there was considerable opposition to the application and the mining in that particular area." Mr. Vistad: "I will agree with that." Ms. Jovanovich: "My second still stands." Ms. Perry: "We have a motion before us which has been amended and the second stands. I will now poll the commission for a determination. Rebecca?" Ms. Pease: "I will vote no and I would like to give a reason why. I think the main concern is to control what is happending with the environment and I think you can do a better job with that with a Special Use Permit with special conditions then you can with a preliminary plat." Vistad: "yes." ) Jovanovich: "Yes" Bernard: "I guess I vote no for some specific reasons. I guess I realize the owner has some rights just likp- the landowner has some rights and that if some kind of, like I stated last week, if some kind of middle of the road ~~ '-~ Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 10 , (New Generation Homes, Cont.) situation could be cut so everyone wasn't totally disadvantaged such as a shorter period or a total of 45 days, not a year, the hours shortened something that he could live with so that he wasn't financially shackled and the citizenry weren-t' totally devoid of some quiet time, that he donate that fill that they were talking about to the neighborhood park so that the neighborhood park would be complete and some things like that. I would like to give him a chance; I would like to give everybody a chance and so that is why I vote no." Jacobson: "Yes." Bosell: "I would be a no vote and I would piggyback Rebecca's comments as well as Bill's and I think we put the city in a very precarious situation by denying this Special Use Permit request when the applicant meets our requests that we put forth in regard to the application that the city has with regards to meeting topography that would be required. He has agreed to topsoil and seed the property; he would post the roads; he would place in effect the security bond; that he would water the roadway if the need exists. I don't think we have the right reasons. Just because a preliminary plat is filed doesn't mean that homes are going to go on those lots. Mr. Bachman may choose to file a plat on that property and sell it to someone else." Perry: "Yes". Vote on Motion: Pease, Bosell. 1988. Yes - Perry, Jacobson, Vistad, Jovanovich; No - Bernard, Motion fails. This will go to the City Council on May 17, Recess 9:11 - Reconvene 9:25 Ordinance 53 Amendment Discussion Chairman Perry asked if the bits and pieces of information that we have could be combined and then bring it back to another meeting. Mr. Morey explained that the City Council was interested in a provision to prohibit exotic animals from the city. He would like to combine that with the rest of the requirements to that it is an animal ordinance. He felt that this item would be best handled at a special meeting. Ms. Bosell asked that we use only one term instead of using human, person and victim. Mr. Vistad asked that cats be addressed also. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Bernard to table this item to the next meeting or a special meeting. Motion carried. Ordinance 8 Amendment ; Mr. Morey explained that the Planning Commission recommended that some changes be made in the wording. The definitions for junk vehicles have been combined into one. The second change would corne under exterior storage which would make it a combination of not more than 2 passenger vehicles or pick up trucks. Regular Planning Commi ion Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minut_J Page 11 (Ordinance 8, Cont.) .'---./ The third change is to remove junk yards from Section 8.24. Mr. Morey stated that another area that he changed was that the City Council felt our existing ordinance allows 30 days for the removal of junk vehicles and they felt that two weeks was adequate. Mr. Morey noted that he changed it to 15 days. Commissioner Jacobson felt that the third line in Section 3.02 should not be limited to the State of Minnesota as there are vehicles from other states that are here legally. He also suggested that in Section 8.01 we should delete "pickup" and just have trucks as they are all inclusive. Also, where it says '30 feet distant', we should eliminate 'distant'. It was suggested that in the last line the word 'their' should be changed to 'i ts' . Ms. Bosell suggested that under Section 8.01(A) the word automobile should be changed to vehicle. Mr. Morey-thought we could take out trucks and only have vehicles. Ms. Bosell objected to the 30 feet. She felt it's unreasonable. She also objected to the 15 day requirement as there are circumstances where she needs more than 15 days to work with a property owner to become compliant. She felt that 30 days was workable. Chairman Perry asked that},if this is accepted by the Council, a provision be made to allow you the greater amount of time possible such as six months for violations to come into compliance so that any new incidences would be governed by the 15 days. Ms. Bosell asked how she would know if a vehicle was pre-May 1988 or post-May 1988. She also noted that she only has had two occasions where she needed more than two weeks. She recommended it stay at 30 days. Ms. Pease asked if the 30 foot requirement fits in all residential districts. Mr. Morey pointed out that it might be OK in an R-l District but not in R-4 Districts. Ms. Pease also asked whether the number of vehicles might be too stringent in all districts. Ms. Perry felt that what might be appropriate in the rural area might not be appropriate in the urban area. Mr. Vistad felt that the 10 foot requirement should stay. if you're 10 feet from the property line, you have enough houses. On a 2~ acre lot space between the Ms. Bosell noted that the State Statutes list vehicles as automobiles, pickup trucks, vans and self-propelled vehicles. She questioned why the person living in Red Oaks who has a vehicle they are storing that is both operational and licensed would have to store it 30 feet in from the property line. She noted that the problem we have is with junk cars. Chairman Perry opened the public hearing. '. MeR. Olson - stated that since the first meeting on this he has done a lot of work. He noted that Blaine has gone to court on this. He felt that the problem is that the cities have gotten too restrictive. Coon Rapids is in the process of loosening up on some of their ordinances and Blaine is also redoing their ordinances. He asked why the city is passing laws it can't enforce. .'--./ Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 12 (Ordinance 8, Cont.) \ I ~ \ / Mr. Morey felt that there could be a new vehicle that is unlicensed sitting in the rear yard that is in violation and a junk car~that is totally legal. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Pease to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Vistad to change the document that we have, specifically under Section 3, third line from the bottom of that where it talks about the operation with and by the State of Minnesota. After the words State of Minnesota, I would like to add these words "or other govern- mental unit." I think that would take care of out of state cars that are legal. Section 8.01 under Residential districts about half way through it talks about passenger automobiles; change automobiles to vehicles. At the very bottom of the 1st page where you have stricken 10 feet and inserted 30 feet I would like to change that back to the original 10 feet. On the second page, the discussion we had about the 15 versus 30 days, I would change the 15 days to 30. The very bottom line where we talked about movement under their own power, change their to its. Motion carried. Ms. Bosell noted that under definitions where it talks about abandoned vehicles, the state protects the vehicles that are on the premises of junk yards. It clearly does not apply to our lawfully existing junk yards. Under 7.02 Accessory Uses, All Residential districts, the number of vehicles has been changed to two. She wondered if that should be changed for all zoning districts. Mr. Vrstad felt that it stay at two. More than two vehicles in an R-l district can be just as unsightly as in an R-4 District. Mr. Bernard suggested that this item be discussed at the next meeting or at a special meeting. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Vistad that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Ordinance 8 as amended based upon public input and considerable discussion among the Commission that the changes are necessary in order to maintain the standards of the city. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1988. James Benolkin Mininq Permit Public Hearinq James Benolkifl, 16040 University Avenue - explained that he bought this property four years ago and at that time there was a pond being dug on the property. The man who had been digging out the pond died before he finished the work. Mr. Benolkin also stated that he was told that there was a five year mining permit so he bought some trucks so that he could haul out the dirt. I Chairman Perry asked what roads the trucks would take. Mr. Benolkin noted they would take University Avenue to 157th Avenue. Todd Haas stated that the pond is there but the rest of the excavation will , , Regular Planning Commi~ion Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 13 (Benolkin Mining Permit, Cont.) o \ exceed 400 cubic yards. The permit could be limited to 10,000 cubic yards ) or whatever the Commission feels is appropriate. Mr. Benolkin stated that the pond will be nine feet deep. He also noted that he stocked it with fish but the fish died. Commissioner Jacobson asked where the dirt will be going. Mr. Benolkin stated that he will be selling it. Steve Benolkin, 2415 Constance Boulevard - explained that the trucks that they bought are single axle. Commissioner Bosell stated that she would like to see letters of approval from the Coon Creek Watershed Board and the Corps of Engineers. She asked what the hours of oepration would be. Mr. Benolkin stated that they would be from noon until 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and possibly all day Saturday. The Saturday hours were discussed with some of the Commission members stating that they did not want hauling to occur on Saturdays. Mr. Benolkin noted that Saturday would be their busiest day as most people buy dirt on that day. At this time Chairman Perry opened the public hearing. Commissioner Vistad asked how many truck loads per day would be hauled out. Mr. Benolkin thought it would be 8 to 10 loads per day. Mr. Vistad felt hauling should be allowed on Saturdays as this is a small operation and they are using single axle trucks rather than tandems. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Jovanovich to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit requested by James Benolkin, 16040 University Avenue N.W., for mining of black dirt for a period of six months with the following conditions: 1) safety precautions be taken at the end of each working day to prevent injury to playing children, bike riders and snowmobilers; 2) the applicant will provide the city with a security bond to hold the city harmless against road damage and for restoration of the site; 3) signs be placed on both sides of the access of the property for any county or city street acting as a haul road indicating trucks hauling; 4) the amount of material to be hauled be limited to 2,000 cubic yards; 5) copies of letters from the Coon Creek Watershed Board and the Corps of Engineers; 6) the haul road will be University Avenue to 157th avenue and the vehicles used in the hauling operation do not exceed single axle 6 yard dump trucks. Discussion: Mr. Benolkin asked if the bond being proposed could be a letter of surety from his stock broker saying that he has in excess of $20,000. Mr. Jacobson stated that would be up to the City Attorney. , Commissioner Bosell asked if the maker of the motion would consider a couple ) of changes. Mr. Jacobson asked what they would be. Ms. Bosell suggested that the safety precautions that Mr. Jacobson talked about include that the slopes be maintained at 4:1 at the end of each working day. Mr. Benoklin stated that if they did that, the dirt would end up in the pond at the end of Regular Planning April 26, 1988 - Page 14 (Benolkin Mining Permit, Cont.) \ / \...~ Commission Minutes '--./ Meeting each day. Ms. Bosell asked if the final slope would then be 5:1. Mr. Benolkin stated that is correct. Ms. Bosell said that she would not want that added then as it would not be appropriate. The other item she questioned was the hours of oepration - Monday through Friday from 12:00 to 4:00. Mr. Jacobson asked about including Saturday from Noon to 4:00. he~~ normally would not agree with Saturdays if it was 16 yard axle dump trucks, but when you have two single six yarders, he it would be a problem. He thought that the hours of operation Noon to 4:00 Monday through Saturday. He stated that quadruple didn't feel should include Mr. Vistad agreed with Mr. Jacobson. Ms. Bosell asked why they would want it from Noon until 4:00 on Saturday; wouldn't it be better if it was from 8:00 to noon? Mr. Jacobson explained that it would be consistent with the rest of the week. Mr. Vistad asked why it couldn't be 8 to 4 Monday through Saturday. Mr. Jacobson stated that he would be willing to add to the motion Monday through Friday Noon to 4:00 and saturdays 8:00 until Noon. Ms. Bosell asked about watering of the roadway. She asked if that is an important issue. We considered it for other mining permits. This is going to be peat material and it's going to be quite damp. If the conditions would so dictate that the watering of roadways should be done to control the dust. Mr. Jacobson suggested the following: That the applicant be required to water the roadway if complaints by the residents are given to City Hall. Ms. Bosell recommended the language provided in the recommendation in the packet because it's consistent with the other recommendations. That language being 'watering the roadway to control dust at dry times.' Mr. Jacobson stated that he would go along with that. Mr. Vistad asked the maker of the motion if he would consider that instead of 8 to noon on Saturdays, it be from 8:00 to 8:00. Mr. Jacobson agreed. He also added that the map be attached. Ms. Jovanovich asked that they add the fa€t that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition. Vote on Motion: Yes - Jovanovich, Bernard, Vistad, Pease, Jacobson; No - Bosell, Perry. Ms. Perry stated that grossly inconsistent. Generation Homes were recommending approval she voted no as what the Commission did tonight is Most of the reasons that we used in saying that New exactly the reasons that we turned around and used for on this one. Ms. Bosell concurred with Ms. Perry. She stated that it has nothing to do with the request; it has everything to do with why we made it. Recess 10:40 - Reconvene 10:45 (Commissioners Bernard and Jovanovich left at this time.) ; Gauqhan Companies Rezoninq Mr. Haas reviewed his recommendation. He noted that sewer and water will \J Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 15 (Gaughan Companies Rezoning, Cont.) '.J \ / be available to the proeprty. As far as the Comprehensive Plan, it was shown as rural residential. However, that was in 1978. Mr. Jacobson asked when this property was purchased. Mr. Hamel stated they bought it about a year ago. Mr. Jacobson noted that he has a problem with the rezoning. He also noted that he hesitates to do anything until an EAW is completed. Ms. Bosell stated that the Metropolitan Council approved an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan to include this parcel in the MUSA boundary. The developers intend to do an EAW on this piece of property. Mr. Jacobson asked why the EAW was not done before the property is rezoned. Mr. Vistad didn't have a problem with the rezoning as sewer and water is corning in there. Mr. Hamel stated that the EAW will be completed in about 45 days. He explained that this property has already been assessed $85,000. Last Tuesday the City Council ordered the extension of utilities through this property and also ordered sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer which will add another $300,000 in assessments. Discussion centered on an EAW being completed before this property is developed. Chairman Perry noted that an amendment to Ordinance 10 is being proposed which would eliminate the need for an EAW by allowing develoeprs to preliminary plat less than 100 lots. Mr. Vistad didn't feel that it would make any difference if we have an EAW now or in 45 days. Mr. Hamel stated that an EAW would not be required if they were platting 16,000 square foot lots. He noted that they do not anticipate developing more than 55 lots at this particular time and that the Planning Commission approved the sketch plan showing how the land is going to be developed. He stated that they are simply following along with what the city wants. The city has assessed the land for urban development. He also noted that a rezoning does not require an EAW. Mr. Jacobson stated that they do a lot of EAWs at work and they are done to find out if there are any problems with the property. If there are problems, then an EIS has to be done. He thought we should start to consider more then sewer and water. Chairman Perry suggested that this be discussed further at the special meeting. Ms. Bosell objected, stating that to require an EIS you have to construct 100 or more dwelling units in an unsewered area. David Schneider noted that there is a low spot on the property where years ago Old Colony dumped. Ms. Bosell indicated that would be dealt with in the EAW. Ernest Trettle - noted that he has property to the west and the north of this parcel and has lived there since 1980. His neighbors all have larger lots and they are not going to sell. He felt that they should develop that Regular Planning CO~LJsion Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 16 (Gaughan Companies Rezoning, Cont.) ~~ \ I property into large lots. Mr. Trettle expressed concern over the railroad tracks on the east and the creek to the south, asking how long it will be before we're pulling kids out of the creek and peeling them off the tracks. He further noted that he is in the horse business and wondered if he is going to have to worry about people adjacent to him. Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard - was disturbed that this is cut and dried before the public hearing is held. He is not opposed to development as long as it's orderly. Right now in Andover it is the most disorderly that he has ever seen. He noted that Mr. Trettle has invested $70,000 to $80,000 in buildings and now you're going to ruin his business. Mr. Schneider felt that this is very unfair. He further noted that the Metro- politan Council was pressured by the City Council into extending the MUSA line. The school district said that they would put in their own utilities but the city used that as leverage to get sewer and water. Ms. Bosell explained that the zoning ordinance protects the existing farming operations. Mark Manth, 1416 Andover Boulevard - stated that when he moved to Andover he was under the impression that the city wasn't concerned with expansion. He bought his property for the privacy and if he had known this property was going to be rezoned he would not have moved here. He stated that they were there first and it was zoned R-l and now for profit they are changing it. Mr. Manth felt we have to think about keeping Andover unique. Mr. Jacobson noted that the applicant is the Gaughan Companies but the fee owner is Robert Mack. He asked if we have Mr. Mack's consent. Mr. Hamel stated that Mr. Mack has signed the application. Mr. Manth asked if there is any parkland designated in this development. Mr. Haas stated that they are still talking to the Park Board on that. Mr. Hamel explained that there are 20 acres along Coon Creek that will be dedicated to the city as well as other property, for a total of 29 acres. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Jacobson to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Mr. Jacobson stated that the city has already assessed this property for sewer and water and whether we like it or not, the Council has pre-empted a vote on this piece of property to nothing other than R-4. He felt that no matter what the Planning Commission does, the Council will rezone it to R-4. He thought this may be a fault in our planning. When we talk about extending sewer and water we should consider what else it does to us. In this case, we're kind of locked in. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Bosell that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request of the Gaughan Companies to rezone the property described as 'The East one-half of \ the Southwest one-quarter of Section 26, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, ) Minnesota' from R-l to R-4 for the following reasons: 1) it is in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended July 1, 1987 to extend the MUSA boundary; 2) sewer and water will be available in late summer or early fall. , / u Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 17 (Gaughan Companies Rezoning, Cont.) " It should be noted that a public hearing was held and there were negative comments. Motion carried on a 4 yes, 1 no (Perry) vote. Ms. Perry stated that she voted no as she would have liked to have had additional information available. She would like to have known if it were possible to have larger lots than 11,400 square feet. This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1988. Old Colony Estates Preliminary Plat Public Hearinq Mr. Haas reviewed his recommendation, noting that the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the plat and found some minor details that need to be changed. He noted that the developer will be requesting part of the development not to be approved to avoid doing an EAW. He will be doing an EAW on the area outside of Phase I. Mr. Hamel explained less than 100 lots. of their contiguous that when they came in with this they wanted to plat However, Andover ordinances require that they plat all property. Ms. Bosell noted that before the Hills of Bunker Lake was platted, the EAW and EIS were never considered in the city. Something happened j.n the Hills to trigger the need for these to be done. Byron Westlund, Woodland Development - explained that someone from the Metropolitan Council drove by the Hills of Bunker Lake and questioned whether an EAW had been done. Mr. Haas stated that there can be no construction on the site until the EAW is approved. mr. Jacobson noted that it would be two months before an EAW is approved. Mr. Westlund stated that the planning aspect can go on but the physical stuff cannot happen until the Council says that EIS is not necessary. Mr. Hamel felt that an EIS should have been done before the request was made to extend the MUSA boundary. After further discussion on the need for an EAW, the Commission tabled this item until the next meeting. Gene Brown Lot Split Mr. Morey recommended approval of this lot split. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bosell that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a lot split requested by Gene Brown to split the property described as PIN 32 32 24 42 0012 into two separate parcels for the following reasons: 1) The property is currently zoned R-4i 2) Each of the resultant lots will meet the minimum requirements \ 'J Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 18 (Gene Brown Lot Split, Cont.) . , U of the R-4 zoning district; 3) sewer stubs are available to each of the lots; water is available but is not required. Approval of the lot split is contingent upon the payment of park dedication fees and furnishing to the city the new legal descriptions prior to this being recorded. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on May 17, 1988. Timber Trails Sketch Plan Byron Westlund noted that the City Council, in their review of the sketch plan, asked for an access off of 178th Lane. Todd Haas stated that variances will be required for Block 4 as those lots are smaller than the required 2~ acres; however, they have 39,000 square feet of buildable land. Mr. Westlund explained that this property was in the platting stages 12 years ago and at that time, the roads were cut in. Chairman Perry noted that the Council pointed out that Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 may be considered by residents in the area as a park and those residents may object to their park being platted. Commissioner Jacobson stated that along Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 there is a power line easement and nothing can be built under that power line. He felt that these lots are really restricted. Discussion centered on what size lots they need to have as the property is in an R-2 area which only requires one acre lots. Chairman Perry indicated that the Council was willing to look at variances to accomplish this development because it's a difficult piece of property to develop. Mr. Jacobson noted that Block 4 will have to have a variance. It was noted that the Council wants Xenia Street to go north even if a variance is required. Pam Carlson, Woodland Development stated that their problem is that they are trying to work with the existing roads on the property. Ms. Bosell stated that the Council has been pretty specific about what they feel is acceptable. The plat should meet the ordinances in as many respects as it can. Mr. Jacobson stated that there will be 11 variances on this plat. Ms. Perry noted that she has less of a problem with granting the variances if it will be consistent throughout the plat then on single lots in a development corning in. Mr. Westlund was advised to proceed with his preliminary plat. I Ordinance 10 Amendment Discussion, Cont. MOTION by Pease, seconded by Vistad to continue this item to a special meeting. Motion carried unanimously. . J \ \ ' J Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 26, 1988 - Minutes Page 19 MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Vistad to set a special meeting for Tuesday, May 3, 1988. Motion carried. MOTION by Basel], seconded by Vistad to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, h'{~ vicki Volk Acting Recording Secretary \