Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK - July 14, 2015ANLb Y 6 W © 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda July 14, 2015 Andover City Hall Conference Rooms A & B 6.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Recap of the June 23, 2015 Joint Meeting with City Council a) Subordinate Classroom Structures b) PUD Requirements c) Site Visits d) Fencing Along Hanson Boulevard NW 3. Other Business 4. Adjournment x SOMME-E-0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING — JULY 14, 2015 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on July 14, 2015, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: 0 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Cleven, Bert Koehler, Kyle Nemeth and Jeff Sims (arrived at 6:08 p.m.). Steve Peterson and Lynae Gudmundson Community Development Director Dave Carlberg City Planner Stephanie Hanson Others RECAP OF THE JUNE 23, 2015 JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL Chairperson Daninger asked for feedback from the Commissioners on the Joint Council meeting. Commissioner Koehler stated he would like to see more of an agenda driven meeting where they get something out of the meeting. He thought the discussion was good but thought there should have been a goal. He liked the meeting and it gave him food for thought but he would have liked to have seen a little more direction. Commissioner Nemeth stated he was a little disappointed in getting into the PUD topic and thought the meeting was taken off topic. Commissioner Cleven appreciated the feedback from the Council but thought it went a little too long and they really did not get any direction from the Council. Commissioner Sims arrived at 6:08 p.m. Chairperson Daninger stated he has been to a few of the joint meetings and some of the meetings have been giving the Commission good feedback and direction and other meetings he has been to the feedback was not so good. His take away was that they need to discuss the items as a group and make their own decisions. Commissioner Cleven agreed. [] Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes —July 14, 2015 Page 2 a. Subordinate Classroom Structures Mr. Carlberg stated he would like to find out how the Commission feels about these structures. Commissioner Nemeth thought these have a certain life span. He did not believe allowing them to stay from 1990 -2015 is good for safety or for the look. He thought they might want to work on ways to replace the structures with permanent buildings if possible or get rid of them altogether. He would like to see some kind of sunset clause put on these structures. Commissioner Cleven stated when they take the temporary structures and are replacing windows in them or changing the interior structure of it then he thought that was becoming more of a permanent structure than a temporary one. Commissioner Nemeth agreed, especially when sidewalks are being added and other permanent features are being added. Commissioner Koehler stated on the flip side they do not want them to be eyesores. He wondered if they are concerned less with the nature of it and more with the safety of it. He stated if they are concerned about the safety of it how do they know when a building needs to be removed. He stated at the end of the day, whatever they choose it may not be safe or the building could be there another twenty years so they need to make some decisions. What are they after, are they after a timeframe or after safety issues. Commissioner Nemeth thought that was where staff came in to play and maybe some research needed to be done. He thought staff should check with other cities to see what their codes are. He did not think the structures were as safe as they once were because of the change in codes. Commissioner Cleven stated they cannot base the structure on the City Code because all the inspector is going to do is look for the high points. They are not going to know what is happening behind the wall or if they are overloading the circuits. Mr. Carlberg stated that could be said of any structure in Andover. He stated when the building inspectors go in they are looking at all of the life safety issues. He thought the structures are as safe as they can be and are on a program to be inspected. He stated the City has not taken a strong stand indicating they need to get rid of the structures. He states that as long as the organization keeps getting the approval for an extension why would they put it in their financial plan to replace them. He stated that an IUP is supposed to be a shorter process, five years maximum so he thought the Planning Commission needed to think about what the next step would be in getting these structures less permanent and making churches and other entities start programming and building the additions that they are supposed to do. Commissioner Koehler asked if the Building Official can put what they feel is a life span on it or list the codes it adheres to at the time and then each year show how Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes — July 14, 2015 Page 3 ® many codes it now varies from and when they hit a certain percentage that building is not going to get approved again or they could go with the timeframe for replacement. Commission Cleven stated some of the temporary structure might have been used for the purpose they were placed there but now they are using them for storage areas. He thought if the purpose changes then they should be removed. He thought they should indicate at 5 years for the time a subordinate building should be in place which would give the organization ample time to get a plan in place for replacement and then after the five years, they might give them a year or so additional extension if needed, but personally he was against giving an extension. Commissioner Nemeth thought Councilmember Knight had a good point in that the schools are mainly doing it with the population and enrollment cycles. Mr. Nemeth stated with an IUP, if the use changes the structure is done and needs to be removed. Chairperson Daninger stated when they see these come through it is a very emotional decision because it is churches and school and they always look for safety. He believed they need to make a decision as a Planning and Zoning Commission. He thought they need to look at other cities on how they handle them. As a group they need to make a decision whether they want them or not. Commissioner Koehler stated he was suggesting the Code be one idea but what other © non - subjective things can be used to determine if a structure should be granted an extension of time or not. He stated that would take the pressure off the City Council. Commissioner Cleven stated most codes change every three years. If they have already started planning for a permanent structure then they might give a year extension but if there are not any plans at all then they should not be given an extension. Commissioner Koehler indicated he liked that idea regarding the one -year extension and agreed. He thought they needed to leave themselves a little leeway but did not want to automatically approve these for another five years. Mr. Carlberg stated the Commission could tell the applicant they will be getting a set number of years for an extension but the applicant needs to have a plan in place for a permanent structure or else the subordinate structure will not be extended again. He stated the problem is a message like that has never been sent to the applicant in a firm manner. He stated it is time they get firm and do it to give the applicant enough time to make a plan. Commissioner Koehler thought they could do a planned methodology. He stated the idea is to make them productive and help them grow. It is not to stifle them. Chairperson Daninger thought the consensus of the Commission was to come up with a firm plan for existing and future subordinate classrooms. Commissioner Koehler stated they have to come up with some objective and not subjective reason for removal of the structures. Mr. Carlberg thought they will always be dealing with the © existing structures and how to address them because he did not think there would be any new applications for them with the IUP in place. X Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes — July 14, 2015 Page 4 Commissioner Sims asked what the distinction was between permanent and portable. Mr. Carlberg indicated subordinate structures do not have full foundations and may be anchored by block or some type of tie downs on a paved area but they do not have frost footings. Commissioner Sims wondered what would have to be done to get the structure to permanent status. Mr. Carlberg did not think they could because that would require taking the building off and making a foundation which would be a new building. Commissioner Cleven stated people are starting to come up with temporary, affordable and portable senior housing units and he wondered if Andover would allow them. Mr. Carlberg stated they would have to change the code because their standard is a 960 square foot home and these are smaller and on wheels. Commissioner Nemeth asked if they could get some information from staff regarding codes and does the Fire Department have some sort of life span for these. b. PUD Requirements Mr. Carlberg asked the Commission what they thought about PUD's and are the developers giving enough for what they are getting. © The Commission quickly discussed with staff previous PUD developments in the City. Chairperson Daninger stated a PUD is supposed to be an advantage to both the City and the applicant. One of the things he struggles with is if the Commission asks for a lot of stuff and it becomes too expensive then they lose the opportunity. He stated it is a fine balance. Commissioner Koehler stated if it is too expensive to the builder, that is one thing but the City has to consider the maintenance costs. Mr. Carlberg stated there should not be any cost to the City. The problem is if it is an association the concern is if they become defunct or if it is a bad association. They cannot rely on an association to take care of everything. Commissioner Nemeth asked what the Commission should do with the developers. He wondered if they should push the developers to save a stand of trees or to see additional trees or other things be added to the PUD. Mr. Carlberg stated that is what the Planning Commission needed to figure out but he thought that was a start. Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not like to see a PUD come through if the development only wants five additional homes but if the developer only asks for a © variance than the Planning Commission cannot dictate what should be kept or added Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes —July 14, 2015 Page 5 © to a development. Mr. Carlberg indicated they have not really pushed hard on PUD requirements but the developers have not really wanted a lot. Commissioner Koehler asked if they were doing a PUD, could they require the developer to do some improvements outside of the development. Mr. Carlberg stated they could not. Commissioner Cleven asked if they could require additional trees be planted on each lot. Mr. Carlberg stated they could and have done that in the past. Commissioner Koehler asked if there is a cost the City could add to the developer such as a wider road for a trail way within the development. Mr. Carlberg stated they do require trails on main roads in developments to get to parks and regional trails. He indicated the City does not require sidewalks within developments because that could be an added maintenance cost to the City. Commissioner Koehler stated he was not asking for a sidewalk but for a wider street to allow people to walk and bike along the road. Mr. Carlberg thought as they add more collector streets through developments there will be a trail on one side or another and would likely not have it on the side of a street. He stated developers would like to have more trees in their developments because that adds value to the properties but part of the problem is with all of the regulations on drainage and meeting low floor separations the trees have to be removed. © Commissioner Koehler thought they needed to come up with a list of things the Commission would like to see being discussed with a developer when they come in. c. Site Visits This item was not discussed. d. Fencing Along Hanson Boulevard NW This item was not discussed. OTHER BUSINESS. There was none. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Cleven, seconded by Sims, to adjourn the meeting at 6:58 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gudmundson, Peterson) vote. Respectfully Submitted, © Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.