Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 10, 2005 ~;~ (..,C- cvY l,G:1.J:u Ii fj. ),4 -() '5 . / PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 10,2005 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Kirchoff on May 10, 2005, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper, Michael Casey and Valerie Holthus. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. , ) April 26, 2005 Motion by Jasper, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SOPHIE'S SOUTH AND LOCATED SOUTH OF CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD. Mr, Vrchota stated the Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat containing 85 urban residential lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for this development at the March 8, 2005 meeting. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Chairperson Daninger arrived at 7:05 p,m. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the darker outlines areas on the map were for. Mr, Vrchota indicated they were for ponding and park land. / Commissioner Holthus asked in the letter from Jane Rose at Anoka County what were the noise standards and how were they measured. Mr. Bednarz stated this is a fairly common comment they will see from the County Highway Department. The Pollution Control Agency has sound regulations that are measured in decibels for all activity and is somewhat of a blanket comment that increased activity on a County Road caused by a new development may hit a threshold at a certain decibel rating is not going to be addressed by the County. He stated this is like a disclaimer from the County. He noted he has never seen a development not be built in Andover because of this. Commissioner Jasper asked if staff was aware of any discussions between staff and the County regarding Crosstown Boulevard becoming an urban classification or being turned over the City. Mr. Vrchota stated he has heard of preliminary discussion regarding this but nothing has been decided Commissioner Jasper asked if this were to happen, would it then change the ability to add additional accesses along Crosstown Boulevard if the classification were changed. Mr. Vrchota stated that could be possible and would be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Commissioner Vatne asked if something would be sacrificed if the right-of-way were reduced to 51.7 feet. Mr. Vrchota stated they would lose some boulevard area on the east side of the road. Commissioner Vatne asked if it would impact this development in the future to extend the road south between lots one and fifteen. Mr. Vrchota stated the only way it would impact the development was to give it another access. He believed lots one and fifteen could be adjusted to still meet City standards. Commissioner Vatne asked if grading and a drainage plan normally included with a preliminary plat. Mr. Vrchota stated they have received one but it is not included in the packet. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:13 p.m, Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard, read a letter he submitted to the Commission regarding the road connection at Avocet Street including suggestions for the development. Commissioner Greenwald arrived at 7:15 p,m. Mr. Jim Stygof, 1318 150th, stated the way they have the cul-de-sac on 152nd is not centered. He thought this would be connection to Yellowpine eventually. Mr. Vrchota stated it would be possible to connect this to Yellowpine in the future but not as part of this plan. I Mr. Stygof asked if this could be made into a cul-de-sac to curb speeding traffic through the neighborhood, He wondered if it was possible to have staff guarantee the road will not be connected to Yellowpine. Mr. Jim McLaughlin, 1424 152nd Lane NW, stated he lives at the end of the cul-de-sac at 1 52nd and if they do open up the cul-de-sac, the traffic will be overwhelming. He wondered what will happen to all of the traffic coming off of Yellowpine. He thought there should be a regular cul-de-sac that abutted up to the lots in the ghost plat. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was a park currently in Chesterton Commons or was the proposed park intended to serve that development as well. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a park on the north side of Crosstown Boulevard along with Sunshine Park. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was a tree preservation plan submitted with this. Mr. Vrchota stated there was. Commissioner Vatne asked what staff's position was on this, Mr. Vrchota stated the Engineering Department has reviewed it and he did not think there were any comments related to this from them. j Chairperson Daninger stated the petitioner indicated at the sketch plan that there will be some excavation done on the property. Mr. Vrchota showed the grading plan to the Commission, Mr. Vrchota indicated there would be some trees along the perimeter of the development and there will be a decent amount of grading on the site. Commissioner Vatne wondered if there was intention to custom grade this development because he felt there was a fair amount of oak stands on the property. Mr. Todd Ganz, Merit Development, explained where the grading will be done on the property and which areas will have the trees preserved on the property. Commissioner Jasper wondered why the cul-de-sac has changed. Mr. Ganz stated their drawing of the cul-de-sac has not changed. Their cul-de-sac always ran to the west end of the property abutting the property line. Mr. Holasek's drawing of his plat was the change that was shown to the Commission. Chairperson Daninger stated the reason a cul-de-sac goes to the edge of the property is for potential future connection. Chairperson Daninger asked how many lots were on the preliminary sketch plan given to staff from Mr. Holasek versus the preliminary plat submitted. Mr, Vrchota stated he was not sure because they just received it from Mr. Holasek. Commissioner Holthus thought there were three or four lots less on Mr. Holasek's drawing, Commissioner Greenwald asked if there was not a way they would have a connection on Avocet. Mr. Vrchota stated in the packet there was a letter from the County Highway Department indicating they will allow one access between the railroad and Yellowpine Street. Commissioner Greenwald thought there should be a road there. Mr. Vrchota stated this did not meet the County's spacing guidelines for what they consider a safe stretch of roadway. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the County is seriously considering turning that part of Crosstown Boulevard over to the City. Mr. Vrchota indicated the County and City have entered into preliminary discussions about that, certainly no decisions have been made, there would need to be a number of improvements made to Crosstown Boulevard in order for that to happen. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the City's requirements for roads was less stringent that the County's requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated the City's guidelines in a lot of cases do not apply to County roads. Commissioner Greenwald asked if Crosstown Boulevard was a City road already, would they have a problem connecting Avocet. Mr. Bednarz stated he could not answer that at this time. He thought the City Engineer would be able to answer this question. Commissioner Greenwald stated if the City would have the ability of making a road connection at Avocet if Crosstown Boulevard was turned back to the City, they should at least make it a temporary access for future connection. He thought there needed to be more than one connection into the development. Commissioner Kirchoff stated typically when any jurisdiction turns a road back to another jurisdiction, they generally have to make all improvements on that road usually before they turn it back and it costs money to upgrade a road like that. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was in favor of Crosstown Boulevard turning into a City road because it will probably be a main road in Andover, He would like to see the speed limit reduced and Avocet connected. Commissioner Jasper stated on Xeon they are taking the fifty-one foot right-of-way. He wondered what the reason was for not taking the entire sixty-six feet out of this plat. Mr. Vrchota stated that is so it lines up properly with Xeon Street on the other side of Crosstown Boulevard. If they were to have the full sixty-six feet, it would be shifted a bit to the southeast and not line up correctly. / Commissioner Casey asked if they did put the Avocet Street in and under the City jurisdiction, would that still be too close or would that be adequate enough. Mr. Vrchota stated that is something the Engineering Department would need to look at to answer. / Chairperson Daninger stated the preliminary plat shows a cul-de-sac going up to the edge of the property, he wondered if the Commission was in consensus with that, Commissioner Greenwald thought from the first time they had a public hearing until know they had a lot of discussion about that connection and in his opinion that will never connect to the development to the south. He thought this should be done right. Mr. Vrchota stated on the very south edge of the plat, there is a forty-five foot drainage and utility easement and that is where the sanitary sewer will be coming into the development and traditionally those do go in under the City street. If they are talking about shortening up the cul-de-sac and adding another lot, the drainage and utility easement will be cutting right through there. That is another reason why the cul-de-sac is positioned the way it is. Commissioner Holthus indicated her concern with having only one entrance into the development. Until the southern development gets developed, there is only Xeon Street. There is another unknown they are dealing with which is when the property to the south will be developed, / Chairperson Daninger agreed there needed to be two accesses to this development for emergency purposes. He did not mind the cul-de-sac going all the way to the end of the property, just not to limit their options. He would like to see lot ten be an emergency exit and maybe in the future another connection into the development. Commissioner Jasper agreed and thought it should be reserved the road can go through there and if a road does not go through there then it should be set up so there can be an emergency entrance into the development. . " Chairperson Daninger thought the information regarding access to the park were some great ideas. Commissioner Vatne did not think there was any discussion regarding frontage on the collector street and is a big issue for him. He thought there may be a change to the transportation plan in the future but they do not know if that is going to happen and this is a safety issue. He thought without addressing this, it may mean less density but he was comfortable with less and without addressing that, he did not feel comfortable moving it along. Chairperson Daninger stated everyone refers to having their driveway on an access road, current ordinance indicates driveways are not supposed to be there. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution in addition the connection north of 1520d and Avocet Street, block 1, lot ten should be a dedicated street or emergency access and to add a variance to allow homes to front the collector street. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, I-nays (V atne), O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 17,2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SILVER MEADOWS WEST AND LOCATED AT 16134 VALLEYDRIVENW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat containing 15 rural residential lots. The Commission previously reviewed a sketch plan for this project. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if there had been any revisions to this plan since they first saw this, Mr. Bednarz stated there have been changes to the grading plan, how the site can be developed, in terms of property lines, fairly minimal. The other change was to add the emergency access. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. " Ms. Diane Holst, 4276 1 65th Avenue, wondered if there were going to be covenants in this development. She asked if the temporary cul-de-sac adjacent to her property will be paved and if it will be maintained by the City. She wanted to make sure the cul-de-sac would be held back from the property line so as not to disturb the trees there. She also wanted to make sure the two properties adjacent to the cul-de-sac would be 2.5 acres. She wondered if the property below them could be accessed from Valley Drive if developed or with access going through their property in case they do not develop. Mr, Bednarz stated whether covenants are established is the choice of the developer. He stated from previous discussions the cul-de-sac will be held back from the property line and he thought that was reflected in the grading plan. He noted the street will be paved, owned and maintained by the City. He stated the lots will remain at 2.5 acres independent of the road right of way. He indicated the City does not typically use eminent domain to take property for a private development. He thought access for future development to the east could come from both Valley Drive and and 1 65th Avenue in the future but whether they could be connected would depend on how much property was involved and the wetland. Motion by Casey, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Vatne asked where the emergency exit location will be. Mr. Bednarz showed where it will be on the map, Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Commissioner Jasper thought they talked about this before and they discussed cul-de- sac's should not be more than 500 feet, the Ordinance states this and the City Council reaffirmed this. They have one at 900 feet and one at 1250 feet. When it came before the Commission when last reviewed, the Chairperson himself indicated this should be revised and perhaps instead of trying to get as many lots as possible at 2.5 acres, use larger four acre lots to address the issue so perhaps the cul-de-sacs could be shortened and it could be more in conformance with the designs of the City and this has not been done. They are all 2.5 acre lots with extensively longer cul-de-sac's than are called for. He stated another thing that was asked at the time by the Chairperson in his summary was why the cul-de-sac was not a through street other than cost. He noted they still do not have an answer to that. They are being asked to do variances from City Code for street length with no other reason than to get more homes on the property. He did not think this was the right plat for this property. He indicated he will vote no on this item. Chairperson Daninger asked if the reason the road is not connected is because they do not want to destroy the wetlands, Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct; there is a DNR wetland which carries some of the most restrictive regulations in the State. That is why the road is not connected. / Chairperson Daninger asked if it was correct that there was no change in the lots, only the grading was changed from the sketch plan. Mr. Jerry Foss stated they originally proposed a 17 lot development. Because of the twenty-seven foot wide easement required from the County on the north side and septic requirements they are down to 15 lots. He stated the property is 66 acres and the average lot is 4.5 acres in size. The long cul-de-sac was required by the County because they did not want the road coming out onto 7th Avenue for several reasons, He stated that with the emergency access, this was the compromise that was reached between them. Commissioner Vatne wanted to clarify that Commissioner Jasper's points are well taken and they struggle over this repeatedly and he looks at this himself and there has been mitigation on the longer cul-de-sac with at least the emergency access onto 7th, the shorter cul-de-sac is ghost platted up for potential development and they have approved some of those before. It continues to be a struggle though. He stated in his mind, there has been an effort to keep the cul-de-sac's as short as can be. He indicated he would be in favor of this. Commissioner Jasper explained what a ghost plat is used for in a plat. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, 5-nays (Jasper, Casey), O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 17, 2005 City Council meeting. Chairperson Daninger asked how many times they have used an emergency access. He also wondered if they have ever had an issue with the longer cul-de-sacs. He thought staff should ask the Fire Chief this and let the Commission know. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FORA SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS KENSINGTON ESTATES 7TIl ADDITION AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B OF KENSINGTON ESTATES 4TIl ADDITION. Mr. Cross explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan with Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a 6.4-acre site adjacent to the WDE landfill. The site is unique in its shape and also by the fact that there is a 200-foot-no- build buffer around the adjacent landfill that significantly reduces the usable amount of land for this development. The applicant has proposed a Planned Unit Development to facilitate development on the site. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission, i Commissioner Vatne asked if they were to remove a couple of the large lots, on average, does the square footage go down, Mr. Cross stated one lot was over fourteen thousand square feet and ten are below seven thousand five hundred so six of them are between ninety-six hundred and eleven thousand three hundred so if they lost the largest lot there, the average would drop. Commissioner Greenwald stated when they have situations like this, is it the applicant that comes to the City to see if they can make a development a PUD or does the City decide this. Mr. Cross stated this is a decision that is made entirely by the applicant. Commissioner Greenwald stated when he first looked at this he wondered if the value of the PUD homes would be comparable to the existing homes. Mr. Cross did not think the homes would be less of a value than the existing homes. Chairperson Daninger asked which came first, the two hundred foot buffer or the sketch plan in 1997, Mr. Cross referred the question to the property owner. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote, Ms. Bonnie Hyatt, 2067 142nd Avenue, stated her concern was with the traffic in the area. She indicated there already was a lot of traffic and a lot of children in the area. \ , j Mr. Kevin Snell, 2054 142nd Lane, wondered if it was common to go out of City restrictions and build smaller homes. Chairperson Daninger stated it was common to have the request but not common to do. Mr, Greg Dillinberg, 2066 142nd Lane, stated his concern was the small lots and the drainage from the dump with the road going through there. Chairperson Daninger stated the drainage will be addressed in the Preliminary Plat review. Motion by Casey, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:31 p.m, Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Jerry Windschitl, 15550 Linnet Street NW, stated in designing the PUD, they were looking at proposing some fairly large single family homes between 1400 and 1600 square feet. He thought they exceeded the size of the homes there right now. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if this will be association maintained. Mr. Windschitl stated it would be. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he looked at lot 6 and he wondered how the house and driveway would layout on the cul-de-sac, Mr, Windschitl stated the house would be straight in with the driveway going in at an angle. The house would be setback further but would be in alignment. Commissioner Holthus stated she was concerned about the removal of trees and she wondered how Mr. Windschitl would preserve the trees on the property. Mr. Windschitl stated an attempt was made to try to go through the site. This site has fairly significant Oak Wilt issue with it and the City Forester came through and tagged a number oflarge trees he wanted taken off ofthe site. Where trees that could be saved along the street alignment or in the lots, an attempt was made to save the trees. He stated they did have to remove a large number of trees because the Forester requested it. Commissioner Holthus wondered what Outlot B is. Mr. Windschitl stated this is a legal from the prior plat and will disappear when replatted, Commissioner Holthus wondered what was being done with Outlot A to make someone want to walk there. Mr. Windschitl stated at present it is shown as a common area for the PUD and will be discussed further with the Park Board. Commissioner Holthus asked in Item B, it notes there would be remote gas probes and sensors installed. She wondered if this would be visible. Mr. Windschitl did not think they would but were required for monitoring. Commissioner Vatne thought most of the concern from staffwas in regards to the spacing in between the lots. He wondered if there were different ways to lay them out to get them back to the ten foot recommendation. Mr. Windschitl stated there is a desire in the neighborhood for the two roads to end in cul-de-sacs. That is probably the neighborhoods preference where each one would end with the cul-de-sacs. The horseshoe is a staff desire and works well and they do not have a problem with it. There was a look at the bottom cul-de-sac being moved further westward as to a layout and some of it would depend on how you would use the outlot if redesigned. Outlot A would change. The outlot can be part of a lot but it cannot be built on. The Commission discussed the layout of the development and reviewed the plans. Commissioner Jasper asked for a history on the property in regards to the buffer. Mr. Windschitl stated they owned the property and the WDE imposed the buffer on all of the property surrounding the WDE site. Commissioner Vatne thought they should do a little more in the common areas to make this a PUD. Mr. Windschitl indicated he did not have a problem doing this, Commissioner Greenwald stated in the 1987 sketch plan it looked like it kept the road outside ofthe buffer area, could they put the road inside the buffer area. Staff indicated they could. Commissioner Greenwald noted he hand sketched regular size lots on the plan instead of PUD size lots and if they leave the roads the way this sketch plan shows, he thought they could get ten lots in there. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would rather see the R-4 instead of the PUD with this property. Commissioner Kirchoff stated if they look at the sketch plan without it being a PUD then the outlot becomes nothing again, Commissioner Greenwald stated it would with the PUD also. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the outlot would not be maintained and controlled as a common area. Chairperson Daninger stated the advantage; the workable solution of a PUD is that more lots can be put in the development. Commissioner Greenwald thought they were changing what they have in the area, He would not be very happy if he were someone next to this development. Commissioner Jasper agreed, He thought this was inconsistent with the neighborhood in which it abuts. He thought there were ways to run the road to give them several lots and to run the road so that Outlot A can be incorporated into a lot where they would have a build-able area outside of the area and part of the yard can be inside the buffer. He thought this would be more consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Jasper stated he liked the looped street in the development. Chairperson Daninger asked Commissioner Holthus if Outlot A would be desirable to the Park Commission. Commissioner Holthus thought the Park Commission would probably take cash in lieu ofland. '. / Commissioner Holthus stated she had a concern when she looked at the table regarding the PUD development and specifications and how three out of four ofthe specs are so inconsistent with the R-4 standard because the lots are so small. Commissioner Kirchoff stated if there was a way to get a little more distance between the homes to get the ten foot distance they may be able to use part of Outlot A to do that. He would like to see that be attempted. Chairperson Daninger asked if anyone was in favor of the PUD. Commissioner Vatne indicated he was. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he could support the PUD. Commissioner Vatne thought the location lends itself to a PUD. Abutting a landfill for greater density but maybe not this much. He was concerned about some of the spacing but he thought this was the right location for a PUD. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would be in favor of this because of the common maintenance with and Association, Commissioner Greenwald asked how close Osage Street NW could get to the property line, Mr. Cross stated there is no set limit. Commissioner Greenwald stated they could move the road further over to spread the lots out. Mr. Cross thought this would be up to the developer, j Mr. Cross stated the PCA agreement did specify that construction of a street per the easement that would be acceptable. The language in the easement agreement states that any design that substantially conforms to that exhibit in the easement agreement is ok. This appeared to conform enough because the PCA did not comment on this when they responded in the email. The Commission discussed the road easement with staff along with suggestions for lot enlargement. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission is somewhat ok with the PUD but considerably less lots, The PUD to help control the outlots. He stated he did not want the flavor of the neighborhood to change. There has to be some sort of agreement such as sticking with the R-4. He did not mind the looped street because he did not think there would be too much traffic going through there. He thought they needed to summarize this more, either an R-4 or if a PUD they need to make it reasonable too. Commissioner Vatne thought he heard the applicant say that there was discovery now that in fact it is tighter than what it needs to be so there was going to be another look taken at the level of density or at least the spacing on the lots themselves: A lot of details in a PUD have yet to be identified. He thought this is what needed to really be looked at in the Preliminary Plat. , . / Chairperson Daninger stated they would be in favor of a POD but with considerably less lots, going from 17 to 10. Commissioner Jasper stated he would prefer it as R-4. He thought it made it more consistent with the neighborhood. He would not say he was absolutely against a POD but ifhe was to approve a PUD it would have significantly fewer lots with larger lots. Chairperson Daninger agreed and indicated he would rather it stay R-4. Commissioner Casey indicated he would like it to remain R-4, Commissioner Kirchoff noted either was fine with him. Commissioner Holthus stated POD was fine with her but she wanted larger lots and more details about the Outlot. Commissioner Greenwald agreed with Commissioner Jasper and thought they should stick with R-4. Commissioner Vatne thought this should be a PUD. He noted there was a proposal for R-4 in 1987 and he wondered it never went forward. It mayor may not have been pursued or marketable. Chairperson Daninger summarized the Commission thoughts for the applicant. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 17, 2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN KNOWN AS APEL SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1781157TH LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing 22 traditional single family and 14 smaller building sites for detached single family with a larger common area maintained by an association. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if the topography did not allow for access onto Hanson Boulevard, Mr, Bednarz stated that was correct and showed the wetland on a map. Commissioner Holthus asked on the street that runs along the south, which cul-de-sac is where the street ends now. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map the cul-de-sac's in the development. Commissioner Holthus wondered why the cul-de-sac on the east would be there instead of a street that goes just to the two drives. Mr. Bednarz stated the cul-de-sac would be public and be maintained by the City. The driveways would be private and maintained by an association. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the existing western cul-de-sac would be removed when the new cul-de-sac was built. Mr. Bednarz stated it would. Chairperson Daninger stated the letter from Mr, Minks asks for confirmation that costs for streets would be shared by all properties that benefit. He asked if the Putnam property was involved in the sketch plan, Bednarz stated that it was not. He commented that with Linnet Street as shown, the center line would be the shared property line for Cardinal Ridge and the Putnam property. Commissioner Vatne stated it looked like the park was in the wetland area, Mr. Bednarz showed the park in relation to the wetlands on a map. Commissioner Vatne asked if in the PUD request, is it the group of units that are inside of the western edge. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map they were the eastern units the western units were typical R-4 lots. Commissioner Jasper asked when they have done some of these projects, they have tried to connect them to undeveloped land so that the road connections are available in the future, he wondered ifit made sense to run Jay Street all the way to the north to the property line so that the property to the north, when it develops has an access there. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map where the wetland property is and explained that if the street were to be brought up to the property line, they may be able to see a lot split or two but keep in mind this is the MUSA boundary and that wetland consumes most of the property to the north, / Motion by Jasper, seconded by Vatne, to open the public hearing at 9:21 p.m, Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Jerry Putnam, 1869 157th Lane NW, stated he owned the property between the two proposed developments and had several concerns and questions, One concern was the value of the homes compared to the current homes in the area. The second concern was the discussion about a second access to the development and Linnet Street. Chairperson Daninger asked if Linnet Street went through, it would go through the center of a house. Mr. Bednarz stated Mr. Putnam was talking about the street farther east. Mr. Putnam stated he has not been approached to sell anything. He is aware of the road easement. He stated if they were talking about the Linnet extension that would be Mr. Allen's property which is north of his. The discussion about getting through the Hanson, they are not talking about highway construction level bridges, but they are talking about residential grade roads and it is possible to put a bridge over a portion of the wetland to gain that access to Hanson, Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 9:30 p,m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. / Mr. Jesse Westlund, Woodland Development, stated to address the question about the cul-de-sac and where the existing cul-de-sac is, the reason they extended the cul-de-sac was to minimize the length of the private drives they are proposing to the units. He stated as far as the parkland goes, they attended the May 5th Park Commission meeting and proposed the park in the area seen to provide a buffer area between the single family homes and the detached townhomes. The Commission felt that area may not be big enough for what they would like to see as far as a park in the area. They are working with City staff to get the dimensions of playground equipment, basketball courts, etc. and put that in a more centralized area on their plat. Mr, Westlund noted the extension of Killdeer Street to the north; he thought Mr. Putnam answered that fairly well. Extending that to the north to continue does extend outside the City's MUSA line and would go through the residents' home. In regards to the connections in and out of the plat, they recognize they only have one access in and out of the plat. They have ghost platted a proposed 158th Street through Mr. Putnam's property which is a possible future connection. Mr. Westlund indicated Mr. Putnam asked the question on home values for the detached townhomes that they were proposing. These were done in the Woodland Creek Townhome Plat. The townhome main floor is 1650 square feet and ifthey finish the basement and add on a four season porch, they square footage would be at 3500 square feet. They use maintenance free steel siding, brick fronts, Anderson Windows, Timberline twenty-five year warranty shingles and they have sold in Andover and Ham Lake from between $300,000 and $500,000 apiece. He indicated these will add value to the area. Mr. Westlund stated they recognize that the drainage on their property has to stay on their property. He thought this will be addressed at the preliminary plat time. Mr. Westlund explained as far as the low area Mr. Putnam was concerned about, that the proposed Killdeer Street will run through, they recognize that they have to look at the engineering aspect of that and comply with the City Ordinance for that street. He disagreed with Mr. Putnam as far as assessments go. Mr. Putnam stated that their street will not add value to his property. Because of this street Mr. Putnam could develop ten to twelve single family lots with the alignment of the street ifhe chooses to do so. , \ Mr. Westlund stated the biggest concern is what the County has to say in regards to accessing Hanson Boulevard. He noted this has been turned into Jane Rose at the County and it is being reviewed. Their first inclination is they will not get access granted onto Hanson Boulevard due to the spacing of existing accesses and because Hanson is already overburdened with traffic. The reason they are proposing a PUD with detached townhomes is because the build-able areas, the upland areas that are set apart from the main upland area, is in the City's MUSA boundary. They have been working with Coon Creek Watershed and the Army Corp of Engineers due to the amount of wetland on the east half of that property they cannot meet the lot size requirements the City has set for the R-4 and the Coon Creek Watershed and Army Corp will not allow them to fill wetland for lots. They will allow wetland fill for streets and or private drives so this was one of the ways they could utilize their build-able land on the project without impacting a great amount of wetland. / Commissioner Jasper stated the single family part is fine and he would have liked to have seen a connection to the north but he now understands why that does not make sense. The PUD part to the east he hates. First there are very small private drives that generally are not a good idea because they turn into substandard city streets. They also have the smallest lots in Andover. He thought these lots were way too substandard. He noted he would like this more if it did have a connection to Hanson Boulevard instead of the one access and it also solves the problem for the neighbor and everyone to the west having another access. He thought it was a good idea to connect this sketch plan to the Cardinal sketch plan because should the neighbor decide at some point to develop, it makes complete sense. Chairperson Daninger concurred. Commissioner Holthus stated they just had a discussion about Kensington Estates and they decided those lots were too small and these lots are smaller than Kensington Estates. She thought they needed to be consistent. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there are build-able R-4 single family lots in the proposed PUD area. Mr. Bednarz stated there are not. He thought there could be with some more wetland fill but probably not as many. The Commission discussed how R-4 could be put into the PUD. J Commissioner Vatne thought in the table the metrics are not there and the lots are too tight in the PUD itself. Chairperson Daninger stated he was hearing from the Commission the PUD lots were too small and they needed to put a second access through. Commissioner Vatne stated the proposed 158th Street through Mr. Putnam's property is a ghost plan but does not have any impact on this sketch plan nor on the Cardinal Ridge plan other than it makes more sense to have that connection through Cardinal Ridge if Mr. Putnam develops, He indicated another concern was the lengthy cul-de-sac in this development. Chairperson Daninger stated if they suggest 158th coming all the way from Nightingale that would give them two accesses into that, Commissioner Greenwald stated he agreed with Commission Jasper regarding the Hanson connection, Motion by Jasper, Seconded by Casey to recess at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes,rO-nays, O-absent vote. The Commissioner reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Greenwald thought the Hanson connection should be reviewed closer. He agreed with Commissioner Vatne on the lots, he thought they were way too small on the PUD side. He agreed with the typical R-410ts. The Commission discussed the connection of 1 58th to Cardinal Ridge. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there would be trouble getting 158th to connect to Nightingale. Commissioner Greenwald did not think there would be because there is one across there now. Mr. Bednarz stated technically it meets the spacing requirements the City has in their ordinance. The City Engineer has express some concern about overlapping turn lanes if they end up with turn lanes at both intersections in the future. They like to have deceleration/acceleration lanes that go several hundred feet. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if on lots 10-12 they could create larger lots and have fewer homes there. Mr. Westlund stated on lots 10-12, there is a requirement as far as a setback or spacing from a wetland and they cannot meet that in those areas. Commissioner Jasper asked how it can be met with a townhome if it cannot be met with a single family home. Mr. Bednarz explained he did not want the Commission to get too wrapped up in the lot size. What the applicant has stated is very true and complicated by if they did a straight R-4 development without a PUD, they would have a sixty foot wide right of way and then from the edge of the right-of-way they need 116 Y2 feet before they hit a wetland edge. He indicated single family homes would not fit. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if they have run into land they cannot develop. Commissioner Kirchoff thought this was true but some of these turn out to be really nice lots for some people. Commissioner Vatne thought it was just a little too tight with that many units on those little clusters ofIand that can be developed. Commissioner Vatne asked for clarification on 1 58th regarding lots 14 and 5 and if they should be transitioned to roadway to put a crossroad of 158th through that. Chairperson Daninger stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper thought that was a good idea because he did not think they needed to run 158th all the way through the sketch plan. Chairperson Daninger stated he would like to see 158th run from Nightingale to Killdeer. Chairperson Daninger noted the Commission liked what they saw other than the fact that they are not comfortable with the PUD. ! Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 17, 2005 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE 1. 11. 111. lV. V. VI. City Code 12-5-4 City Code 12-5-10 City Code 12-13 1 B City Code 9-9-11 City Code 9-4-4 City Code 12-8-7B.3 Code Text Amendments Public Hearing Process Animals (Continued) Housing Maintenance Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs Bulk Fuel (continued) Motion by Casey, seconded by Greenwald, to table the Workshop items. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they took an item to the City Council's Worksession in regards to tree preservation and they did express some interest in exploring what they can do in providing more specific requirements than what the City has now. Staff will be putting together some items and the Planning Commission will be involved in reviewing it once done. Mr. Bednarz informed the Commission that the bowling alley is under construction south of Tanners. Commissioner Greenwald stated the Andover Marketplace broke ground too. Mr. Bednarz stated the grading for Andover Station North is underway. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if the signal light on Jay Street and Hanson Boulevard will go in immediately once Jay Street comes through. Mr. Bednarz stated the light will go in once the County redoes Hanson. He understood the County is trying to get fmancing the bridge at Hanson and Highway 10. Commissioner Jasper asked if the Commission was the "Planning Commission" or the "Planning and Zoning Commission." Mr. Bednarz stated it was either one or both. The have a Planning and Zoning Commission that in that definition says Planning Commission. He stated "Planning and Zoning Commission" is a term out of the 1970 Model Code. Commissioner Jasper stated the only reason he asked was because it was being used inconsistently in some of the ordinances they have seen and he thought they should pick . '\ one and stick with it. .' ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.