Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 28, 1982 r~) ,",' ., . ! '- ~.. :'OJ '- . u u ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 AGENDA Call to order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes - September 13, 1982 1. Comm. #8-82-4 2. Comm. #9-82-1 3. Comm. #9-82-2 Northglen 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Agricultural Preserve in Urban Area Public Hearing Home Occupations C~ C~ ~ 01 ANDOVER o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Elling at 7:33 P.M., Tuesday, September 28, 1982 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Apel, Perry, Spotts Anstett, Bosell, Randklev City Engineer, Jim Schrantz; John Peterson, Good Value Homes; others Approval of Minutes September l3, 1982 MOTION by Perry, seconded by Spotts to approve the minutes of September 13, 1982 as written. Motion carried unanimously. Northglen 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat Public Hearing (Comm. #8-82-4) Acting Chairman Elling opened the Public Hearing. Clairman Elling asked if the public utilities on each lot on the original plat would pose problem with the water in the future. City Engineer Schrantz stated that the city would not tear up the streets so the water could be shut off. They will simply take the curb box off and crimp the pipe. Chairman Elling asked if Good Value had contacted Anoka Electric. John Peterson, Good Value Homes - stated that they have been able to do quite well with single family homes; however, the market for twin homes is not doing well. In their project in Blaine, they had the same thing happen. He also noted that in order to change these lots to single family, 90 percent of the members of the Homeowner's Association have to sign an amendment to the covenants. He stated that he has not talked to the telephone company as yet, but has talked to Anoka Electric. They are not sure how they want to handle this yet. Mr. Peterson presented maps to the commission showing the locations of the transformers. The most that would have to be moved is two, those being the ones between lots 6 and 7 and lots 10 and 11. Chairman Elling asked how the park dedication on this plat was originally handled. The secretary thought that it was land in addition to money. Chairman Elling went on to state that the lots do not meet the 13,000 square feet minimum requirement. Mr. Peterson stated that they will ask for a variance on the square footage. He also noted that they had to get at least 9 lots in order to make the plat feasible. Chairman Elling also noted that they will require a variance for Lots 8 and 9 for the set- ()ack. Mr. Peterson - stated that 13,000 square feet is big for a lot where there is city water and sewer. He also said that they would not be able to come in with a 13,000 square foot lot subdivision in today's market. He is going to write a letter to the city asking us to look ( " "--- . J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 2 ~?Northglen 3rd, Cont.) L.J at reducing our lot sizes in the sewered area. City Engineer Schrantz noted that by making the lots 87 feet in the back and 85 feet in the front, they would have almost 13,000 square feet per lot. Chairman Elling felt that he would like to see the majority of the lots meet the requirements and then just grant one variance for Lot 9 for the setback. City Engineer Schrantz noted that because this is part of a Planned Unit Development, you could grant the variances because overall, the rest of the lots in the plat are over 13,000 square feet. Commissioner Perry stated that in a Planned Unit Development, rather than looking at the square footage, she would prefer to look at the density being created. According to this plat we are reducing the density and she has no objections to that. Chairman Elling asked Mr. Peterson if he had given any consideration to the back of the lots that adjoin Mr. Rademacher's development. He felt that there should be some kind of barrier between the two projects. Mr. Peterson noted that it is the responsibility of the commercial developer to provide the screening. The secretary was asked to check on the screening behind Bill's Superette and r~he liquor store. '-.J MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Apel to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Perry asked what style the homes will be since these are going to be single family dwellings. Mr. Peterson noted that they will be the same as the single family homes they are nO\~ building. Commissioner Apel noted that Ordinance 8, Section 4.20, Density Zoning, would permit the lot area and the setback requirements in a PUD to be changed. Discussion centered on whether the Commission should be amending the Special Use Permit, with the following motion being proposed. MOTION by Apel, seconded by Spotts that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Special Use Permit for the Northglen Plat be amended to allow for the replatting of that portion of Northglen known as Lots 1-16, Block 2, allowing for twin homes to nine lots allowing for single family homes pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 4.18. Let it be noted that Lots 2-7 do not meet the 13,000 square foot lot area requirement and that Lots 8 and 9 do not follow the setback requirements. Ordinance 8, Section 4.20 would allow this kind of downgrading. Reasons for approval are: 1) A public hearing was held. There was no opposition. We received a phone call from Mrs. Robert Leroy, 3504 - l39th Lane, stating that the lots as proposed in the preliminary plat are acceptable to her and her husband; 2) These lots would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; 3) Approval would not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of Andover; r-)) The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made noted comments. '-Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on October 19, 1982. ( . '--J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 28, 1982 Page 3 ,- \ L-_j .- " , gricultural Preserve in Urban Area Public Hearing (Comm. #9-82-1) ---' Acting Chairman Elling opened the public hearing. Chairman Elling explained that this item was sent to the Commission by the City Council to see about allowing agricultural preserve in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. He felt that this item should be tabled until such time as we have a full commission. Ken Slyzuk, 14124 Crosstown Boulevard - felt that this item should be discussed as it has been pushed off for too long now. It was held up by the Comprehensive Plan and now that the plan has been adopted, something should be done. Mr. Slyzuk noted that he owns 80 acres near Green Acres. Chairman Elling asked Mr. Slyzuk what the water table is on his property. Mr. Slyzuk noted that in the spring it's equivalent with the bottom of the ditch. At times, it's higher than that. Chairman Elling stated that one of the first things in the Agricultural Preserve Ordinance deals with is unbuildable or land unsuitable for platting can be in agricultural preserve. One of the key things regarding land in the Urban Service Area is whether it is really unbuildable. Mr. Slyzuk noted that there is no way you can build a house on 15-20 feet of peat. He also noted that there is an October deadline for filing for Agricultural Preserve. /' ~ommissioner Perry suggested taking the following words out of Section 1: "Outside of the '-,.{etropol itan Urban Service Area". She al so suggested that in Section 4 something be added to say that land be determined unbuildable regardless of where in the city it is located. Chairman Elling also suggested allowing land which is in the Urban Service Area to be eligible for Agricultural Preserve under the Special Uses section of the ordinance. Mayor Windschitl stated that the October 10th deadline is for someone who has not come in to apply for rezoning to Agricultural Preserve. The Council wanted the properties that could not be developed to be included in ag preserve. City Engineer Schrantz suggested using the 1990 MUSA boundary line as the boundary and those properties outside of that line could be eligible. Commissioner Perry then suggested changing Section 1 to read: 'The governing body does hereby find that land lying outside the MUSA of the City of Andover and certain lands within the Metropol itan Urban Service Area, which because of theil'-11atural condition do not make development for residential, commercial or industrial feasible, for which....'. Mayor Windschitl noted that the unbuildability of land has to be a characteristic of the soil. Commissioner Apel felt we should use the 1990 MUSA line as the boundary. MOTION by Perry, seconded by Apel to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. " ~ .OTION by Perry, seconded by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of an amendment to Ordinance #57, The Agricultural Preservation Ordinance, as follows: Section 1 - delete from line 2, the words 'lying outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area'. Again in Section 1, paragraph 2, line 2, delete 'such L\ Planning and Zoning Commission 'M/eting September 28, 1982 - Minutes Page 4 C-) r ~~g Preserve, Cont.) '-) lands outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area'; and Section 4, Agricultural Preservation District, (a) Intent: amend to read 'This district is intended to contain those areas of Andover where it is necessary and desirable, because of the high quality of the soils, availability of water, and/or highly productive agricultural capacility to preserve, promote, maintain, and enhance the use of the land for agricultural purposes and to protect such land from encroachment by non-agricultural uses, structures or activities. It is also intended that those areas within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary which are determined by the City Council to be unfeasible for residential, commercial or industrial purposes be allowed the same protection.' Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on October 19, 1982. Recess 9:15 - Reconvene 9:31 Home Occupations (Comm. #9-82-2) Chairman Elling noted that the City Council sent this item to the Commission because of a man using an accessory building for a manufacturing business. He noted that Ordinance 8 does not allow a business in an accessory building. Commissioner Perry felt that our ordinance dealing with home occupations is adequate. Commissioner Spotts felt that this item should be tabled until the next meeting so we can -see what the other communities do. ~ ) -Chairman Elling felt that we should wait until we update Ordinance 8 to deal with this item. MOTION by Apel, seconded by Spotts that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commisson has reviewed the Home Occupations section of Ordinance 8 and agree that some work should be done but since we are going to revise Ordinance 8 shortly, we will table this item until that time. When Ordinance 8 is rewritten, this problem will be addressed and clarified. We have looked at Ham Lake's ordinance and see no benefit to the city by using any part of their ordinance since it's quite similar to our own. Carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on October 19, 1982. MOTION by Spotts to adjourn. Carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:52 P.M. Respectfully submitted, u~ Vicki Volk, Commission Secretary o