Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK January 9, 2001 (2) oJY ~ 'd--/lo/d .~. CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Workshop- Tuesday, January 9, 2001 Conference Room A Call to Order - 8:30 PM - Immediately Following Special City Council Workshop/Brimeyer Presentation I. Buildability Requirements/Multi-Family 2. Discuss New Subdivision Geotechnical Requirements/Ordinance 10 3. . TrailslW alkway Discussion 4. Other Business Adjournment ~()/,V ~ d-~\p/(j CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP - JANUARY 9, 1001 MINUTES A Special Workshop of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Mike Gamache on January 9, 2001, 8:46, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Don Jacobson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel, Julie Trude Councilmembers absent: None Also present: City Engineer, Scott Erickson Finance Director, Jim Dickinson Building Official, Dave Almgren Acting Administrator, Dave Carlberg Others BUILDABIUTY REQUIREMENTSIMULTI-FAMILY Mr. Almgren reviewed the history relating to the ordinance requirement of a 100-foot building pad on lots. It started when problems arose in Creekridge where the back yards ended up being trenches within a few feet of the house. He and the City Engineer/Administrator at the time then came up with the requirement that the fll'st 100 feet of a lot from side-to-side should be buildable. That was approved in 1988 and has been enforced ever since with very few variances. Mr. Carlberg referred to the drawings before the Council to demonstrate how the 100-foot buildability requirement provides 15 feet of usable rear yard on single family lots when the house is set back 35 feet in the rront. Now developers are saying it is an aesthetic issue and that townhome developments should be brought closer to the street with more private streets. When multi-family PUDs are done, it is to development standards and not to development requirements. A 25-foot rront-yard setback is a change in the industry for multiple housing, which preserves the wetlands and other natural features. All communities Staff researched allow encroachments in their PUD developments. He noted the Council has previously approved variances for front-yard setbacks in Shadowbrook (with private streets), Grey Oaks, White Pines and Aztec Estates (with public streets). Councilmember Trude pointed out the people in Shadowbrook town home area are frustrated with the bottle neck in the roads, not anticipating that their homes would be as close and streets so narrow. It is a problem with parking. Residents are saying not to pack them in as tight as Coon Rapids, for example. Mr. Almgren agreed, people move to Andover because they love the open spaces. Councilmember Knight was concerned with setting a precedent and not allowing these in the future without being arbitrary. Special Andover City Council Workshop Minutes - January 9, 2001 Page 2 (Buildability Requirements/Multi-Family, Continued) There was a very lengthy discussion on development standards for multi-family developments, on the changes already made in the City's policy from 35-foot front yard setbacks to 25-foot setbacks with private streets, to 25-foot front yard setbacks with narrower public streets to the reduced front yard setback with normal public streets and the concerns with the variances to the development requirements. Deliberations were on what should and should not be allowed. Steve Johnston, proposed Nature's Run development, stated he did not know what they would do with the plat if the Council will not vary the front-yard setbacks and buidability requirements. There isn't enough width through the property to accommodate the normal street width plus meet the setback requirements. They may end up losing some units. The tightest area is on the east side along Hanson Boulevard. He argued the buildable back yard area is not an issue in this development because the size and location of the buildings are known up front. They are asking to vary the distance between the curb and the building to 25 feet instead of 35 feet. That leaves enough room to park a car on the street plus in the driveway. Mr. Johnston continued the reason for the variance in the front yard and the reduction in buildable area to 82 feet is because of the ponds in the back yard. When the ponds bounce and flood, the water creeps up the slope over the area covered with easement to the 100-year flood. The 100 feet would go to the wetland line. Pulling the buildings 10 more feet to the front allows a bigger back yard. Mr. Erickson explained the reason for requiring public streets even in these developments is so the City is sure they will be maintained. Parking on the narrower street was also an issue. The Council generally agreed with the policy to require public streets. Discussion continued on the issues of variances for front yard setbacks and buildability. While open spaces is desired, it was pointed out that these are town homes as opposed to three-story buildings in similar developments in other cities. It was also pointed out that in the proposed Nature's Run plat, requiring a 30- or 35-foot front yard setback does not resolve the 100-foot buildability issue. Mr. Carlberg pointed out that in the past variances have been given in the buildability requirement if there are wetlands behind the units. Several Councilmembers were concerned with the number of variances that would be needed on buildability for this plat. It was also suggested that some standard should be set for multiple family PUDs so changes are not being made for every plat. Mr. Johnston explained they relied on the Council's general approval of the sketch plan to develop the preliminary plat. All of these items were shown in the sketch plan and should have been addressed at that time, not now. He asked that in the future, the Council take more time in reviewing the sketch plan to provide direction to the developer. When he developed the area off Jay Street with town homes, they met the 35-foot setback because they were integrating into an existing neighborhood with the same setbacks. In this case, they are an island with no other homes or streets. No one will go into the development except those who live there and guests. It is a cul-de-sac, not a throughway. Special Andover City Council Workshop Minutes - January 9, 2001 Page 3 (Buildability Requirements/Multi-Family, Continued) Bill Hupp, owner of the land, stated the wetlands will dry up over time. On 40 acres, they will be preserving a lot of natural habitat. In talking with others, this is a different market. People want to be closer together, to have that small town feeling. They don't want wide streets or big front yards. On this 40 acres, the density is 1.5 per acre, but now the talk is about .6 per acre. Mr. Johnston emphasized many of the wetlands around here are drying up because the ground water is drying up. Adding more impervious surface allows less water to soak into the ground. If they wait ten years, they may be able to develop even more land. From a design standpoint, he thinks it is a mistake to pull the buildings back 30 or 35 feet from the curb, but he will do it if the Council requires it. The reason most of the lots are being filled is to raise the pad in front for the first floor and garage to provide a full walk-out basement in the back. Councilmember Knight argued this is a time of drought, feeling the ground water will rise when it returns to normal. A resident at 1846 Andover Boulevard stated his basement is four feet above the water table. He also pointed out that when it rains, the water backs up in the rear yards because it is blocked by the road built by the City over the sewer line. Culverts were installed, but they are not effective. The Council asked that that issue be reviewed by Staff. In further discussion and comparison of this proposal with the others in the City that have already been approved, Mr. Carlberg stated the Aztec Estates plat approved by the Council in December had 20-foot setbacks ITom the right of way, which is 35 feet back &am the curb. Only two lots had eight- foot variances from the IOO-foot buildable pad requirement. The Council wanted consistency among the PUDs and suggested the Nature's Run plat be revised to be consistent with Aztec Estates. The preference was not to vary on the front-yard setback. They were also concerned with the 82-foot buildable pads being proposed and suggested the number oflots needing variances and amount of variances needed be reduced. Mr. Erickson suggested possibly some town house criteria needs to be established Mr. Carlberg stated with a 20-foot setback from the right of way and some variances on 90-foot buildable pads within Nature's Run, it would be very similar to Aztec Estates. It is really an issue of the wetlands. The City has more control under this project than with the standard single family project, as it knows exactly what the project will be, the exact placement and the value of the units. Whether it is town homes or single family homes, the area will need to be cleared for housing. Mr. Johnston stated they would look at their plat again in an attempt to be comparable to the Aztec Estates plat, though he would much rather have the Council ask them to beef up the landscaping or other amenities. By requiring the wider &ant-yard setback, he did not feel a better neighborhood is being created; but he will do it if it gets the project approved. He again pointed out that Andover's sketch plan review is more extensive than other cities and asked the Council to give them more than a cursory review because they base the preliminary design on the sketch plan. Also, adding more criteria to these types of developments stifles the creativity of the project. Special Andover City Council Workshop Minutes - January 9, 2001 Page 4 (Buildability Requirements/Multi-Family, Continued) Mr. Carlberg also noted that the Council must act on Nature's Run at the January 16 meeting because of the deadlines unless the developer requests an extension. Staff will work with the developer to see what can be accomplished. They may need an additional two weeks to look at the impact to their project. The Council was not as concerned with the time line, recognizing the issue of town home requirements has been a City issue, not that of the developer. DISCUSS NEW SUBDIVISION GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/ORDINANCE 10 Councilmember Jacobson expressed concerns with the current ordinance which allows the use of geotechnical reviews submitted by the developer's geotechnical engineer and approved by another engineer hired by the City. As he interprets the ordinance, the City must accept their recommendations. He'd prefer to see the ordinance changed to say the Council "may" accept their opinion but could also deny it if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Councilmember Orttel questioned what criteria would be used to reject a geotechnical report. Mr. Erickson felt it would be difficult to enforce the change proposed by Councilmember Jacobson with no criteria in place. Using geotechnical information, grading can be minimized. Using mottled soils means the entire site must be raised and trees are lost. He felt geotechnical reviews must either be allowed or not, not pick and choose. Mr. Almgren stated they have seen no issues of water tables since the geotechnical review has been implemented. There was no consensus to change the ordinance regarding geotechnical reviews. TRAILSIWALKWAY DISCUSSION Councilmember Trude stated in talking with residents, they do not want sidewalks or trails across their front yards in the urban area. They have garages and driveways, and they don't want to add more impervious surfaces, preferring green spaces instead. In Shadowbrook, the children play on the streets when there is no traffic. They are an isolated development with no through traffic. The trails to connect regions of the City is desirable, but there is no demand for them to go by people who have purchased homes. Councilmember Jacobson reported Dave Blackstad could not attend the meeting but asked that his opinion be noted. Mr. Blackstad felt all regional trails should be the same width. If the developer wants to put in concrete sidewalks that are narrower, he would not object. The Park Board should not be required to increase the width of internal trails and pay for the difference. Councilmember Jacobson suggested a narrow trail be used for access ifthere is a park in the area. Special Andover City Council Workshop Minutes - January 9, 2001 Page 5 (TrailsIWalkway Discussion, Continued) Discussion was then on the neighborhoods south of Constance Boulevard between Hanson Boulevard and the railroad tracks. Mr. Erickson pointed out the location of a proposed regional park and the streets that will be major collector streets through those developments. The suggestion was to provide sidewalks/trails along the major collector streets to access the park and the regional trail systems along the county roads. Mr. Carlberg noted potential buyers don't want sidewalks in front or in back yards. The reason for doing this is to access the other parks. The proposed trail from Constance Boulevard south to Crosstown Boulevard would replace the proposed trail along the railroad tracks. It is felt it will be difficult to get a trail along the railroad tracks because of the wetlands and the likely inability to put it on the railroad track easement. They anticipate people will use the trails to come to the schools, the parks at City Hall, etc. Hoarse Graser, developer of White Pines Estates, felt trails are symbolic of subregional traffic connecting major activity centers, which means funneling traffic outside single family residential neighborhoods. Those trails don't belong in someone's ITont yard. Sidewalks in front of homes should be five feet wide to provide access to the regional trail system. An eight-foot sidewalk, especially a blacktop one, is worrisome. He would have to discount those lots if that is required. When traffic is introduced into someone's space, they feel violated and insecure. And people don't feel comfortable using them either. That can even occur with a trail between two houses if there is not enough space. If people don't feel comfortable using the trails, the entire trail system breaks down. Bill Hupp also stated the issue of trails by him (Andover Boulevard) is a security issue for their children. They are also worried about the trails in the back yard. The City must be careful when placing the trails. The Council deliberated the issue of concrete versus bituminous trails. It was pointed out that concrete trails are more aesthetically pleasing in the neighborhoods but that bituminous trails are more user friendly. It was also noted that widening the streets and striping them for trails does not address walkers and makes it inconvenient for the homeowners because parking is not allowed on the trail side of the streets. If placed in ITont of lots, it was felt they should be five feet wide concrete sidewalks. At this point, the Council agreed not to require sidewalks or trails within developments; however, access front the streets should be provided to parks. It was also felt that sidewalks along the collector streets may be warranted in the future, so the right of way for them should be preserved at this time. If residents want them in the future, they can petition for them and be assessed. If it is a safety issue, Staff is to look at requiring sidewalks/trails. It was also noted that scenic trails should not necessarily be only along county roads, but larger setbacks can be taken along major streets. Special Andover City Council Workshop Minutes - January 9, 2001 Page 6 Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trude, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at II: 11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~\~~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary