HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 13, 1979
o
o
o
o 0
CITY 01 ANDOVER
o
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting - March 13,1979
Agenda
Call to Order - 7:30 P.M.
Approval of Minutes
1 . C omm. # 2 - 7 8 - 5
2. Comm.# 1-79-4
3. Comm.# 2-79-5
4. Comm. # 1-79-2
5. Comm. #10-78-2
6. Comm. # 3 -79-1
7. Comm.# 3-79-2
8. Comm.# 3-79-3
9. Comm.#12-78-5
10. Comm. #12- 78-6
ll. Comm. # 1-79-5
Pond View Preliminary Plat/ James Conroy
(Continued Public Hearing)
Mike Good Sketch Plan (Continued)
Review of Zoning Map of City - Public Hearing
Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat/K. Harstad
(Continued Public Hearing)
Andover Mission Church (Continued Public Hearing)
G. Menkveld Sketch Plan -Sec. 34 - Multiple Dwellings
G. Menkveld Sketch Plan - Sec. 28- Single Family Dwellings
Revision/Ordinance No. 28 (Malt Liquor Ordinance)
Establishment of Park/Recreation Commission Ordinance
Ordinance No. 10D (Amendment/Park Dedication
(Continued)
Review of Updated Comprehensive Development Plan
o
o 0 0 0
e<<, 01 ANDOVER
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
March 13, 1979
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:30 p.m., by Chairman d'Arcy Bose11 on March 13, 1979, at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Byron Copley, Ralph Kishe1, George Lobb, Richard Okerlund,
and Larry Retzlaff
Commissioner absent: Jeannine Pyron
Also present: Dave Pi11atzke, Engineer from TKDA, and others
Approval of Minutes
February 27, 1979:
Page 4, third paragraph, insert quotes: Commissioner Retzlaff said "that his
major concern with all the development ... street maintenance, etc."
Larry Carlson said there will be a great deal of tax...
MOTION by Okerlund, Seconded by Lobb, for approval of the Minutes of February 27, 1979,
wlth the aforementioned corrections. Motion carried unanimously.
Pond View Preliminary Plat/James Conroy (Comm. #2-78-5)
Cha irman Bose 11 stated there is no new materi a 1. She has talked with Mrs. Conroy,
who stated they are still deciding what to do with the other end of this property. This
item will be removed from the Agenda until new information is received.
Mike Good Sketch Plan (Continued) (Comm. # 1-79-4)
Chairman Bose11 reported that Mr. Good was not reached and there is no address or
phone number in the file. It was noted that Mr. Good works at the Coon Rapids office
of Real Estate 10; possibly he could be reached there. The City office will inform
both Mr. Conroy and Mr. Good that they will be dropped from the Agenda until further
information is received from them.
o
Review of Zoning Map of City - Public Hearing (Comm. # 2-79-5)
Chairman Bose11 opened the public hearing. Commissioner Retzlaff reported that the
present zoning of the City was done five or six years ago, and the area that is
recommended for rezoning is everything outside of what is now known as the Urban Service
District. The Urban Service District would remain unchanged, meaning it is zoned for
an urban environment. The intent is to rezone the remaining portion of the City to an
R-1 zoning (single family dwellings, 2~-acre minimum) and the Rum River Scenic Zone,
which is essentially the area bordering the Rum River along the western portion of the
City. The City of Andover has no power over the Rum River Scenic Zone, as it is
regulated under the DNR. There are two exceptions in the R-1 rezoning portion, those
being 1) the neighborhood business on the corner of Valley Drive and Seventh where there
is an existing neighborhood business; and 2) the Light Industrial located on the corner
of County Roads 20 and 9. Commissioner Retzlaff also noted that several months ago the
Commission and City Council took action to implement 2~ acres on unplatted land outside
of the Urban Service District by an Amendment to Ordinance 10. The proposed rezoning
basically takes away some premature high density zoning in the rural area.
Jack Menkve1d, Anoka - asked what the rezoning does to property which was subdivided years
ago by metes and bounds. If it does not affect it, he has no problem with the proposed
rezoning. It was noted that if they are parcels of record at this time, they can still
be transferred and conveyed. This is basically directed towards the larger parcels that
are not recorded yet and would act to bring the zoning map into conformance with the
o
o
o
. Regular Planning and Zoning
March 13, 1979 - Minutes
Page 2
o
o
Commission Meeting
o
existing City Ordinances. There is also the protection of an existing lot if it meets
the 60 percent requirement.
It was also noted that the Scenic River District hasn't been established yet because the
document to establish such a district is still with the DNR. It was determined that
since the Scenic River issue was not dealt with in the legal notice, the Commission
could act on the R-l rezoning now, and at a later date give public notice and deal
specifically with the Scenic River District.
MOTION by Kishel, Seconded by Lobb, to close the public hearing as regards to the re-
zonlng of the land outside the Urban Service District. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Retzlaff was requested to prepare another zoning map that will delineate
the R-l district.
MOTION by Retzlaff, Seconded by Kishel, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the Andover City Council the rezoning of all land outside of the Urban
Service District except the parcels zoned Neighborhood Business on the corner of Valley
Drive and County Road 7 and the Light Industrial parcel on the corner of 20 and County
Road 9. Said rezoning would be to R-l District for the following reasons: 1) A
Public Hearing was held and no opposition was received from the residents of the
City of Andover; 2) that the rezoning of this property is compatible with the Andover
Comprehensive Development Plan; and 3) that it is not detrimental to the health, safety,
and welfare of the residents of the City of Andover.
Motion carried unanimously. This will be on the City Council meeting on April 2, 1979.
Andover Mission Church (Continued Public Hearing) (Comm. #10-78-2)
Ed Lutz, 2325 Uplander Drive - owner of 77-acre property on corner of 109 and 20. There
was an easement going through the property that the Andover Mission Church would like to
build a church on. Ms. Pat Torbenson, holder of that easement, signed a statement re-
leasing the easement for the Mission. Mr. Lutz's attorney is going to file this release
at the court house tomorrow. They are now asking for a Special Use Permit to allow
construction of a church on 5 acres. He had a rough sketch showing the building,
parking lot, access to 109, etc.
Mr. Lutz was requested to give the City a copy of the release statement of the easement
and copies of the sketch plan for the property on which the church is going to be
constructed prior to discussing this at the March 27 Commission meeting.
G. Menkveld Sketch Plan - Sec. 34 - Multiple Dwellings (Comm. #3-79-1)
Jack Menkveld reviewed the copies of the sketch plan of the proposed multiple dwellings
ln Sectlon 34 noting the following: the area is slightly over 30 acres off of Bunker
Lake Boulevard; sanitary sewer comes to the southwest corner of the property and would have
to be extended into the property; he planned on incorporating this extension in his plans;
the north 200 feet of property is zoned M-l, the balance is zoned M-2; the northerly
lots would be townhouses of 4 and 6 units; the other lots would be multifamily; he
didn't have any idea what kind of structures will be put on these lots because they will
be selling the lots to several builders after it is subdivided; the piece on the western
edge marked "City of Andover" has been set aside as a holding pond in connection with
the street/storm sewer project in Red Oaks; and the roads are 66-feet wide with curb
and gutter.
Discussion was that multiple dwellings require the installation of sanitary sewer and
water (according to City Ordinances); on the differences between townhouses and multi-
family dwellings; that this would be considered a density zoning district; the water
source would have to be combined as it is platted; Mr. Menkve1d stated if it is required,
he would be putting in his own water system and this would be shown in the preliminary;
o
o
o
o
o
o
'Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1979 - Minutes
Page 3
an extra 10 feet of buffer setback is required along the county road. The Commission
pointed out two lots that do not meet City of Andover standards: 1) the southerly lot
to the west with 417 feet frontage on Bunker Lake Boulevard and only 50 feet on the
interior street. 150 feet of frontage is required. The County Highway Department would
have to give permission to have that lot front on Bunker lake Boulevard; and 2) the
diagonal lot on bunker Lake Boulevard is a double-frontage lot, and there is some question
whether that would be allowed. The Park Board requires 10 percent of the land for
parkland (3.08 acres in this case) or equivalent in cash, and it was recommended that
Mr. Menkveld present this to the Park Board.
Engineer Pillatzke noted that the area proposed for the City of Andover pond is only
part of a larger pond which the City has not acquired at this time, but is in the process
of doing so. This is an area of limited soils with a very high ground water table; and
suggested that soil borings be taken, which may reflect the street alignment. The land
is within the Coon Creek Watershed District; therefore, their approval will be
needed along with approval from the Anoka County Highway Department. This can be
considered to be in a flood plain since it is a restricted pond outlet. The lOa-year
flood elevation is at 878.5; and with this development, the actual high water elevation
should be investigated. Mr. Menkveld stated he is looking to doing the utility extension
late this year. They will now proceed with the preliminary plat preparation.
G. Menkveld Sketch Plan - Sec. 28 - Single Family Dwellings (Comm. #3-79-2)
It was determined that the street on the east side should be called Dahlia Street (the
sketch plan shows it as Crocus Street). There is an easement deeded for the City for
Dahlia Street, but it is a non-constructed road. Dahlia will run down to 141st Lane.
The area includes approximately 10 acres, 26 urban lots proposed. This area would need
to be rezoned as it is presently zoned R-l, and Mr. Menkveld intends to coincide the
rezoning request with the preliminary plat. Lot 2 of Block 2 may present a problem
in meeting the setback requirements. Sanitary sewer is in Heather Street, and the
proposal is to extend the lateral in the proposed 141st Lane. Some soil corrections are
to be done on Lots 11 and 12 of Block 1 and Lots 13 and 14 of Block 2. The ditch no
longer runs down 141st Avenue but was relocated to the back line of the 10 existing lots
when the sanitary sewer project was done.
Co~Jeiigp~rnoted that this area was presented to the Commission previously on November
8, 1976, with a similar sketch plan during the rezoning request to R-4. It met with
mixed emotions at that time (reference Comm. #10-76-2). Mr. Menkveld stated that the
soils from 141st Lane south are quite bad, and constructing that portion of Dahlia
Street would be very expensive. Also, adding that section of the street would not add
to the traffic flow, as all traffic still has to go out 141st.
Engineer Pillatzke reported that this is a flood plain also as it is adjacent to the
county ditch. The laO-year flood elevation should be 865.5; therefore, all basement
floor elevations must be at least three feet above that. The area is located within
the Coon Creek Watershed district and their approval is necessary. Mr. Pillatzke
stated he would not advise constructing Dahlia from 141st Lane to 141st Avenue because
of the topography of the land and the unstable soils, and he felt the flow pattern
proposed is suitable for the area.
Even though the park dedication for this property was included in the dedication of the
surrounding platted land, it was recommended that Mr. Menkveld take this before the Park
Board along with any background material regarding that dedication. Mr. Menkveld
will now proceed with the preliminary plat.
Recess at 8:35; reconvene at 8:40 p.m.
o
o
o 0
o
o
'Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1979 - Minutes
Page 4
Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat/K. Harstad Continued Public Hearing (Comm. #1-79-2)
Ernie Rud, developer, noted that all items have been taken care of except those
relatlve to the definition of lot width; Lots 1 and 3 of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 4. The Park/Recreation Commission has recommended that money ($3,000) be
dedicated in lieu of land.
Bob Loftus, property owner adjacent to Keith Harstad property (to the north) asked the
posslblllty of constructing a road along the northern edge of this plat from the County
road east 300 feet for him to have access to the interior of his property, which would
-then provide for additional lots if he were to develop. The platting of Mr. Harstad's
property in this manner is, in Mr. Loftus' opinion, creating a hardspip on him and
this road would allow him to get two lots rather than one in that area. Chairman
Bosell noted that that would be causing the one lot to have a double frontage and that
is not the normal procedure in the City. The costs of constructing this 300 feet of
road for two lots might also be prohibitive.
Mr. Loftus felt this plat creates a hardship on his land when only five lots could now be
developed from his 20 acres, and he is very much opposed to it. He didn't think con-
structing 300 feet of road would be costly when it is weighed against the cost of a lot.
Chairman Bosell noted that the road construction on Mr. Loftus' property could only be
dealt with conceptually since it is outside of the Oakwood Estates plat. The feeling of
the Commission was that this probably would not be allowed because a lot with double
frontage would be created and one lot would have three road frontages.
Discussion between the Commission, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Rud was on possible alternatives
available for development of Mr. Loftus' land to the north of Oakwood Estates; that the
Commission had looked at the 20 acres when Oakwood Estates was first being proposed
to avoid making that piece landlocked, the product of which is this preliminary plat of
Oakwood Estates which gives Mr. Loftus the opportunity for creating five lots as opposed
to one; the Commission canadeal with that piece of property if Mr. Loftus would come in
with a proposed plan; and/the last Commission meeting the feasiblity of Mr. Loftus and
Mr. Harstad getting together to cooperate in determing a better way to plat was suggested,
but that had not been done.
Mr. Loftus stated it is not his intent to develop the land at this point in time. When
he discussed this with Mr. Harstad before, they had worked on putting the road through
the middle and there were seven lots on his side. In this configuration of Oakwood
Estates, there are only five lots that could be created on his property. Mr. Loftus
was told that possibly he could still work something out with Mr. Harstad or come back
before the Commission with a proposal for developing his land.
MOTION by Lohb, Seconded by Okerlund, that we close the Public Hearing. Motion carried
unanlmously.
Engineer Pillatzke reviewed the TKDA letter of March 9, 1979, with their comments and
recommendations on the Oakwood EstatsPreliminary Plat.
MOTION by Retzlaff, Seconded by Kishel, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to the Andover City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Oakwood
Estates described as follows: the north half of the south half of the northwest quarter
of Section 9, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. The Commission recommends
acceptance of the Plat for the following reasons: 1) The Anoka County Highway Department
has given their approval for access to County Road No.9. They noted that access
frontage should be on the interior street for Lot 1, Block 1; 2) The Commission finds
that the Plat is essentially in conformance with the Ordinances of the City of Andover
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan; 3) The Public Hearing was
held on the Plat. There was public opposition to the Plat as noted in the Minutes;
o
. Regular Planning and Zoning
March 13, 1979 - Minutes
Page 5
o
Commission Meeting
o
o
r~)
~ 4) The Commission recommends that money be accepted by the Council in lieu of land as
per the recommendation of the Park/Recreation Commission; 5) That the Commission recommends
a Variance for the lot width on Lots1 and 3 of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 from
Ordinance 8, Section ww and aaa due to the size and topography of the land; and 6)
That it has been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be within the City engineering
standards.
Motion carried unanimously. This will go on the April 2, 1979, City council Meeting.
o
Revision/Ordinance No. 28 (Malt Liquor Ordinance) (Comm. #3-79-3)
(Relative to Section 7 of Ordinance 28 as it deals with the establishment of an on-sale
license situation within 1,000 feet of a public school or private school and only 400
feet from a church) The City Council had referred this item to the Planning Commission
to consider changing the 400 feet from a church to 1,000 feet from a church.
Commissioner Retzlaff wondered why Andover wants to be more restrictive than the State,
as right now we are reflecting the State law. Presently the City doesn't have on-sale
liquor establishments. He stated that the reason for the distance from schools is
because they are trying to keep the influence from minors; but for the most part, churches
are full of cognizant adults. Would any number of feet established deter what it is
intending to do? He didn't think we should be more restrictive than the State. If this
were to be changed, it could prohibit a Tom Thumb on the corner from selling 3-2 beer;
and he didn't know what that would be accomplishing.
It was noted that churches are now used every night plus weekends. Also, Coon Rapids is
not more restrictive; Blaine does not deal with the issue at all; Anoka follows State
Statute; and Ham Lake did adopt a more restrictive ordinance. The question was raised
as to why this was referred to the Commission, speculating that the issue might be raised
on the corner of County Roads 9 and 116 with the shopping center rezoning across from
the church.
Mr. Lobb felt the State law probably suffices, but personally felt it should be 1,000
for both schools and churches.
Commissioner Copley stated this is a controversial issue, and felt all we can do is
address to emotions and convictions. He would prefer it be farther away or prohibited
altogether, but realized that is impractical. On an emotional and spiritual con-
viction basis, he felt if we can get 1,000 feet, we should do it.
Commissioner Okerlund stated we have been given no reason to change it. Other than the
people here tonight, no one has stated any opinions on why it should be changed. His
personal opinion is he would also like to see it 1,000 feet from any church. But he
could see no reason to change it unless someone comes up with a valid reason and not just
personal opinions. He couldn't see where it could make a difference unless there was a
problem with roudiness around an on-sale establishment, but it shouldn't bother anyone
going to church during the week.
Commissioner Kishe1 felt they should both be 1,000 feet, but it doesn't say whether it
would be from the church structure or church property.
Chairman Bose11 stated her personal opinion would be she'd be in favor of making it at
least 1,000 feet from any church to be consistent with the 1,000 feet from the public
and private schools because a church structure is used on a daily basis. But what we
are speaking of is convictions.
MOTION by Retzlaff, Seconded by Kishe1, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to the City Council no action be taken to revise Ordinance 28, Section 7,
Subsection 2 regarding the distances from on-sale liquor establishments, and that
nothing has been shown or no need for a change has been exhibited.
o
o
o
o
, .
Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 13, 1979 - Minutes
Page 6
r '-'1
'--i
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Bosell, Kishel, Okerlund, Retzlaff; NO-Copley, Lobb
Motion carried.
Commissioner Lobb stated, and Commissioner Copley concurred, that his no vote is
because it is something he feels should be done. He would like to see 1,000 feet on
both of them, but also, we have no reason yet. So he is on the fence, and that is why
he voted no.
Establishment of Park/Recreation Commission Ordinance (Comm. #12-78-5)
Chairman Bosell explained this is an Ordinance establishing the Park/Recreation
Commission. And the Park Board is asking for P & Z comments on its composition, etc.
Also, they are proposing to change their meetings to meet twice a month.
Correction: Under 1.1, Composition, last line, should read: A member may be removed
at any time by a majority vote of the City Council.
It was agreed to send this back to Wes Mand, Chairman of the Park/Recreation Commission,
with the recommendation that he present it to the City Council.
Ordinance No. 100 (Amendment/Park Dedication) (Continued) (Comm. #12-78-6)
(Rough draft dated 3/8/79) Chairman Bosell reviewed the changes made per discussion at
last meeting (See P & Z Minutes of February 27, 1979).
Under Section 9.07.1, the words "or combination thereof" have been stricken as the
Attorney has advised that the City can only demand cash or land. The developer can
voluntarily offer a combination, but we can't demand the-Combination. Section 9.07.07,
change "nine (90) days" to "sixty (60) days" per the Attorney's recommendation.
Discussion on the percentage requirement under 9.07.12 was that the intent is that the
minimum percentage of gross land areas dedicated for park purposes be 11 percent for 6
dwelling units/acre of land, 12 percent for 7 dwelling units/acre of land, 13 percent
for 8 dwelling units/acre of land, etc. Intent is when the density goes up, we require
more parkland because we have more people per acre. Change requirement of 6-over
Dwelling Units/Acre (Gross Density) to: Add one (1%) percent of dedication requirement
for each additional dwelling unit per acre over five (5) units.
MOTION by Retzlaff, Seconded by Lobb, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the City Council the approval of Ordinance 100 as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
Review of Updated Comprehensive Development Plan (Comm. #1-79-5)
Chairman Bosell asked for the Commissioners' comments on the Updated Comprehensive
Development Plan. She will schedule a meeting with Midwest Planning to review the Plan.
Discussion was on the possible impact of the recommendation to change the existing zoning
to R-l outside of the Urban Service District. This will be researched further prior to
the next meeting, as the Clerk has ~the Chairman a memo foreseeing possible
problems with the rezoning. <sec,,;-! - "\.':f<'~-["..t2- 3-;;>"/- 'l'J
MOTION by Lobb, Seconded by Copley, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
r-, Respectfully submitted,
, .
\~J
Marcella A. Peach
Recording Secretary