Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 27, 1979 o o o 0 0 e<<, 01 ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - March 27, 1979 AGENDA Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes 1. Comm. #10-78-2 2. Comm. # 2-79-5 3. Comm.# 2-79-3 4. Comm.# 3-79-4 5. Comm. # 3-79-5 6. Comm. # 3-79-6 7. Comm.# 3-79-8 8. C omm. # 3-79-7 9. Comm. # 1-79-5 '0 Andover Mission Church Special Use Permit (Continued Public Hearing) Ordinance Amendment/ Zoning in Rural Area C ountryview Estate s Preliminary Plat (Public Hearing) Jirasek Sketch Plan Faddler Lot Split Road Location-Fields Lyle Bradley-Energy Conservation Swimming Pool Ordinance Revision of Updated Comprehensive Plan o o 0 0 0 e<<, 01 ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 27, 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 27, 1979, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Comnlissioners 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 March 13, 1979: Last Page, Last Paragraph: sent (sp) MOTION by Lobb, Seconded by Kishe1, that we accept the Minutes with that spelling correction. Motion carried unanimously. o Ordinance Amendment/Zoning in Rural Area (Comm. #2-79-5) Chairman Bose11 reported that this issue is going to be dealt with by the City Attorney; therefore, it will be deleted from the Agenda. Andover Mission Church Special Use Permit (Continued Public Hearing) (Comm. #10-78-2) Chairman Bose11 re-opened the public hearing. Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard NW - spokesman for the Church, referred to the sketch copy of the plan and revlewed the letter from the County Engineer, Paul Ruud, dated March 27, 1979, stating that the County approves of an entrance to be constructed on County Rd. #109, with the understanding that the present entrance located on C.S.A.H. #20 near the junction of County Rd. #109 will be eliminated. Mr. Schneider noted that Mr. Lutz, owner of this land, is planning to divide the rest of this land into large parcels of five acres or more. Mr. Lutz will need to construct some roads and wanted the Commission's feeling on whether the road should line up with an existing roadway across #109, that being 159th Lane NW. A determination of where that road should be constructed could make a difference in where the southern end of the church property would be. If the road would have to line up with 159th, the church property boundaries would be changed somewhat. The Commission felt that the road should line up with 159th Lane NW. It was also noted that a metes and bounds subdivision can include the road in determining five acres. Ed Lutz, 2325 Uplander Drive - explained the difficulty of providing accesses when developing that property. Commissioner Retzlaff proposed he sell a few more feet of property to the church on the east to get the five acres and keep the property on the southern end to make the road align with the existing 159th Lane. Then he could build the road all on his own property. If Mr. Lutz constructs a road and the City accepts it, the City maintains the road. Mr. Schneider stated that regardless of whether the land configuration is changed a few feet in either direction, the building will still be placed approximately where it is shown on the sketch plan; a 75-foot setback; and the road entrance 300 feet or better from County Road #20. The seating capacity of the church will be from 200 to 250. Exact figures will be needed before the issuance of a building permit. There is a huge parking area of about 43,000 square feet on the north side of the building that he felt .- " o 8 Planning March 27, Page 2 o 0 and Zoning Commission 1979 - Minutes uO Meeting ((Andover Mission Church Special Use Permit, Continued) would be more than what will be needed for some time and is more than what is required in the ordinance. They had not spent a great deal of money on architectural plans prior to receiving the Special Use Permit not knowing whether or not the Permit would be approved. All the plans and specs will be drawn up by a certified architect if the Special Use Permit is approved and will meet the codes. Commenting on Mr. Lutz's proposed roadways, Mr. Pi11atzke stated as long as the street section itself conformed with the City standard of a rural street section, there should be no problem in the orderly extension of 159th Lane from an engineering standpoint. MOTION by Kishel, Seconded by Copley, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanlmously. IMOTION by Copley, Seconded by Retzlaff, to the City Council for the approval of a Speclal Use Permit for the Family of Christ Lutheran Church (reference Andover Mission Church) on the property described as follows: That part of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. For the following reasons: 1) That the project should have beneficial effect on the general welfare of the citizens of the City; 2) The proposed project should have no adverse effect on surrounding properties or scenic values and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City of Andover Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; 3) Also, that the County Engineer has given his recommendation that the entrance be moved to County State Aid Number 109 and the one at County No. 20 would be obliterated, and this would actually enhance the traffic pattern at that point and eliminate a hazardous intersection at this time; 4) A Public Hearing was held and there were no oppositions to this proposed Special Use Permit. Discussion: It was questioned how this could be proposed when the legal description of the land is not finalized. Commissioner ~is~ffl feJt this was a legal description within reasonable amount as the lot lines wou1d/~n1y-~~g~ few feet. It isn't going to change the special use intent, as this is dealing with the use as opposed to a technical point such as the legal description. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the April 17, 1979, City Council Meeting. Countryview Estates Preliminary Plat (Public Hearing) (Comm. #2-79-3) Tom O'Malley, Surveyor, represented ~rry Madison. Chairman Bose11 opened the public hearing. Mr. Pillatzke reviewed the TKDA letter of March 22, 1979, relative to comments and recommendations on the Countryview Estates Preliminary Plat. Item #1: Due to the weather and frozen ground, he recommended perculation tests and soil borings could be done prior to construction. Item #3: It was noted that the Anoka County Highway Department has provided approval regarding County Road No. 58, right of way dedication and access. Item #4: It was also noted that the Park/Recreation Commission recommendation has been received. Item #7: Minor changes should be in- corporated in the proposed ponding areas, and they will meet with either Mr. O'Malley or their engineer to satisfy the requirements of the City. This needs to be done before the Plat goes to the City Council. Item #10: It was also noted that a letter from the Minnesota Pipeline Company has been received. Item #6: Mr. Pi11atzke explained that the overall system for Municipal State Aid for the City delineates an alignment for a future control section 104 along the south line of this Plat, centered on the half section line, which would require a60-foot right of way on either side of centerline. He is recommending the dedication of right of way along the south 60 feet of Lot 3 of Block 3 and Lot 3 of Block 5, which would also result o r\ \.J o 00 o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 1979 - Minutes Page 3 (Countryview Estates Preliminary Plat, Continued) in a lot area reduction of those two lots to approximately 2.1 acres. He felt con- sideration should be given to allowing these two substandard lots or to allow the developer to change the lot lines such that three 2.4-acre lots could be developed. It was his understanding that the map showing the proposed MSAH streets in the City should be used as a comprehensive plan for major thoroughfares in the City. The proposed MSAH 104 is the only proposed east/west major thoroughfare for the north-central part of Andover. Consideration was not given to the dedication of this additional right of way when Hawk Ridge was reviewed in 1977; therefore, this may create problems, as butt lots could be created along one of the streets in Hawk Ridge should this road be constructed. He suggested the policy of the City be reviewed as to whether this and future plats will be required to dedicate right of way and suggested the Bridge and Road Commission review this prior to any decision by the P & Z. Mr. Davidson will recommend to the City Council that they refer this to the Road and Bridge Committee for review. Commissioner Kishel recommended accepting an easement across Lot 3 of Block 3 and Lot 3 of Block 5 at this time, which would take care of the roadway purposes should that road come to be, but it would still allow the lots to remain 2~ acres, as an easement could be released after several years and the owner would maintain it. 177th Avenue NW would be constructed as shown on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Pillatzke also noted another alternative would be to have the City acquire the property just south of 177th Avenue and have the developer construct the road on centerline. City participation would be needed in this case. Discussion was that construction of MSAH 104 is not scheduled to be done within the near future; that this might not be a logical location for the designated MSAH road as it is only 1/2 mile south of and would be parallel to County 58; that the portion of 177th Avenue as shown on the plat needs to be there rather than putting in cul de sacs for the traffic flow and for maintenance purposes; on the way MSAH designated roads were determined in the City; and that perhaps the entire system should be re-evaluated. It was questioned as to whether this road (MSAH 104) is actually intended to be constructed or is something for way in the future, if ever. General agreement was to see a recommendation from the Road Committee relative to a dedication or an easement for the proposed MSAH 104 roadway prior to taking action on this Plat. Item #2: Commissioner Retzlaff asked whether a letter from the Building Inspector requesting the showing of the proposed location of dwelling structures including first floor elevations should become a mandatory part of the platting process. If once this is put on a plat, could it be used as a tool by the Building Inspector to require placement of a structure only as shown on the plat? Chairman Bosell stated the purpose of this is for some logic to go into the placement of a structure; however, the Ordinance does not require it. So we can request the developer to do it. Mr. Pillatzke stated the request came directly from the Building Inspector. He personally felt it was a good idea; and noted that the Building Inspector is aware that he should not dictate where the house is placed, as we have no control over that as long as the land itself is considered buildable. It will give the property purchaser an idea of where the house could be located for orderly development of the land. Chairman Bosell stated it would be nice to have on the plat and could be helpful to the prospective buyer, but she felt that this item would really be a choice of the developer at this point in time as to whether he shows the elevation or not since it is not required by the Ordinance. John Boros, Anoka - regarding Item #2 just discussed -- he would like to see that aeleted. He has been involved with over 600 homes and has yet to have someone take the suggestion as to where he recommended the house should be. Everyone has a personal preference as to where a house should be located and ~ow. Also, being conservation minded, and because there aren't many trees on the let( ~6me of the drainage recommendations by the Engineer would remove some of those trees. There is a natural drainage and he felt it should be left alone, as we should preserve nature first. ~ ~'/iJ -71 "-,, v o o 0 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 27. 1979 - Minutes Page 4 00 (Countryview Estates Preliminary Plat, Continued) Discussion was on this item (Reference Item #7. TKDA letter). Mr. O'Malley stated the drainage easements shown on Lot 3 of Block 5, Lot 4 of Block 4. and Lot 2 of Block 3 as proposed was to follow the natural water flow. Mr. Pillatzke has recommended that he confine the drainage easements to the edge of the lots and then put in a ditch to get the water from the fields. He asked the Commission's feelings on whether or not to confine the easement to the side of the lots and construct a drainage ditch. Mr. Pillatzke explained that the easements themselves do not totally encompass the theoretical inundated areas for water storage. but they are larger than he believes to be necessary. Mr. Pillatzke's recommendation is not to change the overall drainage areas; however. because of the development, the surface characteristics will change. Therefore. he will theoretically experience a greater volume of runoff. This will inundate already developed land. Mr. Pillatzke felt a better use would be to dedicate a very small ditch rather than having half the lot dedicated as easement for that purpose. In one particular area it may require clearing some trees. A ditch would concentrate the flow of water in a smaller area; however. it would be constructed so grade would be such that erosion would not be a problem. It was suggested that possibly Mr. O'Malley could construct a low, wide-bottom ditch that would blend in with existing topography of the land. Mr. O'Malley felt that it would require a 4- to 5-foot deep ditch across the high areas to bring it down to the south end of the piat. Mr. Pillatzke noted in Lot 3 of Block 5. the easement does not totally encompass that area that would be totally inundated. Mr. O'Malley may come up with different alternatives to solve the problem. but the way it is proposed now. Mr. Pillatzke didn't think he was making the best use of the land. It was noted that Mr. O'Malley couldn't let his increased runoff flow into someone elses property. Mr. O'Malley felt he could construct a shallow pond to hold additional runoff, but didn't think there would be much additional runoff. Only a minimum amount of excavation would be required to capture additional runoff, but it would still have to flow out at the 9.04.8 feet as it is presently doing. The Commission did not agree as to whether ponding or ditching would be more desirable. Mr. O'Malley will meet with the City Engineers to resolve this situation. Mr. O'Malley asked whether he needed to construct that section of l79th Avenue west of Gladiola as part of the current platting or whether it could be dedicated right of way and not construct the road since it won't directly serve any property. That section of road is about 300 feet long. It was noted that if it is not put in at this time and the person to the west develops. the City would have to construct that and assess it against the benefited property owners. rather than the developer incurring that cost at this time. Also. by definition. Lot front of Lot 1 of Block 5 would be on l79th Avenue. General consensus of the Commission was that that portion should be constructed along with the remaining roadways in the plat. Oscar Carlson, 3555 l82nd Avenue NW - holds the contract for deed on the Laska property adJolnlng thlS proposed plat on the west. He expressed concern about ditches dumping into his property. The flow seems to go south as well as west. Also, for future use, it would be desirable to have l79th Avenue built. He wondered exactly where that would intersect his property. Chairman Bosell noted that where the cornfield stopped is where l79th is being proposed. The developer can't increase the flow onto the property that is shown to be owned by Laska; he needs to hold his runoff within the plat. MOTION by Retzlaff, Seconded by Lobb, to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting because of the engineering items that are still at hand. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 8:54; reconvene at 9:08 p.m. o o 00 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 1979 - Minutes Page 5 /-~ ~ Jirasek Sketch Plan (Comm. #3-79-4) Jim Jirasek, 13563 Crooked Lake Boulevard, represented his parents, owners of the property, rev1ewed the sketch plan on property located just south of Bunker lake Boulevard and east of Crooked Lake Boulevard. There is about 593 feet on Crooked lake Boulevard and six sanitary sewer stubs were installed for lots, assuming they would be 85 feet wide, which coincided to the City's code at that time. The land is bigger on the south end of Crooked lake Boulevard and narrows on the north. They made three 85-foot lots and two 100-foot lots with the outlot at about 128 feet. The outlot as shown on the sketch has an existing dwelling on it. Mr. Jirasek was directed to indicate another number for the "out10t", as out10ts are not allowed. Also, this needs to be reviewed by the Coon Creek Watershed Board since it is on the creek. He will now proceed with the preliminary plat preparation. Road Location - Fields (Comm. #3-79-6) Edward Fields - explained that his son John wants to build a house on the property and 1S request1ng permission to build the roan. Chairman Bose11 noted that according to the engineer's calculations, with the construction of the road, the size of the property is decreased by one acre, as metes and bounds subdivisions have to be five acres, 300 feet of frontage, exclusive of the road. Therefore, the size of the property would need to be increased to be five acres exclusive of the constructed roadway. This should not be a hardship since the surrounding property is owned by him. An alternate proposal was suggested. Parcel 6100 is an existing parcel with no road in front of it. Mr. Fields could just construct a road in front of Parcel 6100 to touch the proposed 5-acre parcel. Because the parcel is tangent to the road, it would meet the frontage requirement and a building permit would be issued, as this situation has been done in the past. There is woods towards the southern portion of the parcel where the house is proposed to be located; therefore, from the constructed road abutting the parcel to the house would be considered a long private driveway. It was noted that developing the road in this manner would make it difficult to develop anything beyond this proposed parcel. Also, the City has no obligation to maintain and plow private driveways. Engineer Pi11atzke stated that what is proposed does not provide for an orderly extension of Swallow Street as it would dead end. Discussion was then on the other option of having Mr. Fields construct the road to the end of Parcel 6100 but also grant an easement to the City along the entire length of the proposed parcel in the location of Swallow Street extension. Mr. E. Fields stated he owns the entire 40-acre parcel and is not planning to subdivide it any further at this point. He also stated he'd just as soon have the road built as it is proposed. He agreed to move the southern border far enough to make the parcel five acres exclusive of the road and agreed to grant a 66-foot easement from the temporary cu1 de sac to the southern border of the property. The City would be able to come in to maintain the road and would have an adequate turnaround for equip- ment. It was noted by the Commission that this would be a temporary cu1 de sac; however, it would be approximately 900 feet long beginning from 159th Lane south. It was determined that the proposed sketch would have to be extended another 123 feet to the south to provide a five-acre parcel exclusive of the constructed road. ') \......' --.., , \,-j (--) ,,-. o 00 o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 27, 1979 - Minutes Page 6 (Road Location - Fields, Continued) I JMOTION by Kishel, Seconded by Copley, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the road location for John Fields as illustrated on a Surveyor's Certificate which has been revised for the legal description: The north 699.51 feet of the east 354.76 feet as measured along the east and north lines respectively of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota; for the following reasons: The roadway is a logical extension of Swallow Street together with an easement to the south which will allow future development; and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; it is in conformance with the surrounding areas; on the condition that the revised plan will include an additional 123 feet across the width of the proposed building site so that it will allow a five-acre tract of land which does not include the road. Discussion: Mr. Fields stated he will provide the City with a new Surveyor's Certificate showing those revisions. Motion carried unanimously. This will be on the April 17, 1979, City Council Meeting. Lyle Bradley - Energy Conservation (Comm. #3-79-8) Lyle Bradley addressed the Commission on the City's policy regarding energy-related lssues. He is exploring the feasibility of building an earth-sheltered home. First, is there anything that has been updated in the City's codes recently to encourage, and not to discourage, people who are interested in doing things in alternate energy conservation, such as use of solar, wind generation, underground homes, etc. (Nothing at all has been done.) Mr. Bradley went on, in the future there will be problems with someone building too high to block sun from someone else, and sometimes these things can be done ahead to prevent these problems. Does anything in our code have a variance-type wording so people would not be blocked from going alternate energy, such as wind generation, if it would not effect people in the surrounding area. (There is a limit on how tall anything can be, but there is a variance provision for that.) Most of the restrictions are in earth-sheltered homes, and he knew that a number of communities have looked at such homes as nothing but basement homes. Assuming he were to decide to build an earth-sheltered home, what roadblocks would he encounter as far as City codes are concerned. He stated there are at least ten such homes in the surrounding area, none in Andover. (Commissioner's didn't foresee any roadblocks, as that would be governed by the State Building Code. Comments from the Commissioners were generally positive toward earth-sheltered homes.) Mr. Bradley also noted there is a bill in the Minnesota Legislature addressing the State Building Code and earth-sheltered homes. From his past experiences, governments generally lag behind the citizens on their view of the future, and he hoped that the Andover government would be further ahead than some of the neighboring communities. The Commission stated it would be appreciative of any information he could make available to them or a bibliography of available material. Mr. Bradley stated he has a bibliography, but if the Commission would like, he has worked with people at the University who would be willing to make a presentation on any aspect of earth-sheltered homes. Later in the meeting the Commission agreed that it would be beneficial to have a presentation from the University. Commissioner Retzlaff was directed to work with Mr. Bradley to make some arrangements. It was also agreed that this should be one of the first things on an Agenda, as the public would also be interested in earth-sheltered homes. I~ " U ('1 Pl~nning and Zoning Commissiron Meeting March 27, 1979 - Minutes Page 7 () 0 -- , , , ~J Swimming Pool Ordinance (Comm. #3-79-7) Commissioner Copley had talked with the Building Inspector, who drafted the Ordinance; and this was basically taken from State Code as it pertains to public swimming pools and compiled with ordinances from some of the surrounding communities. Points noted for further consideration were: Definition -- the size of the swimming pool governed by this Ordinance; ...200 square feet in area or over 24 inches in depth...; would also govern hot tubs. Fencing -- questioned whether or-not the fencing is too restrictive; questioned the term non-climbing type fence; impression is that safety is the whole idea. Some qualms with some of the phraseology (artificial body of water, erosion-resistent). Prior to next meeting, Chairman Bose11 will contact the League of Municipalities for information; Commissioners are to do some background work; need to look at what other Cities are doing prior to making a recommendation. Jim Elling noted there are existing codes, the national electrical code and the natlonal safety code, that regulate the construction of pools which could be referenced. Revision of Updated Comprehensive Plan (Comm. #1-79-5) Chairman Bosel1 informed the Cowmissioners that Mr. David Licht from Midwest Planning will meet with the Commission on Tuesday, April 17, 7:30 p.m., to discuss this Updated Comprehensive Plan. She also asked for the Commissioners' comments on the Plan. Faddler Lot Split (Comm. #3-79-5) Due to nonattendance by the applicant, this item was moved to the next Commission meeting. MOTION by Lobb, Seconded by Retzlaff, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:16 \~e~ec~f~l.l~~i~~d{ '~L 1.1Krc~] I'r ~Peacn ~ [,--,-<- Recording Secretary -- ,.--, , , \.j