Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP May 22, 2001 (}!9'\N..[;t, ()..D '0J"ltthn G? \5/ õ{ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW.· ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 Special Joint City CouncilJPlanning and Zoning Commission Meeting Tuesday, May 22,2001 Call to Order - 7 :00 PM Discussion Items 1. Tree Preservation Policy 2. Wetland Buffer Ordinance 3. Buildability Requirements 4. 2002 Residentíal Development Projects 5. Andover Station Update Other Business Adjournment --- p- o . CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - M4Y 11,2001 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Mike Gamache on May 22, 2001, 7:02 p.m., 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: Building Official, Dave Almgren City Engineer, Scott Erickson Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg City Administrator, John Erar Others 2001 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Mr. Carlberg provided information on the development projects for years 2002 and 2003 and reported on the lot inventory. Staff met with property owners ofland scheduled for development in the years 2002 and 2003 to explain the development guidelines. Development projects expected to take place in 2002 must have preliminary plat approval by July I, 2001. It appears only one property will be developing next year. The City's budget is based on 330 new homes per year, but there are close to 900 units available for development, which should provide sufficient lot inventory over the next two years even with the slow down in platting. About a third of those units are town home units. One issue is the development to the north and east. A deep trunk sewer line was constructed in Winslow Hills to service that area; however, Winslow Holasek, the property owner adjacent to that deep trunk sewer line, has indicated he wishes to continue farming and does not want to develop at this time. That effectively shuts down development in the northeast area for now unless Mr. Holasek is willing to provide easement to extend the sewer line. Mr. Carlberg also stated that Rosella Sonsteby has not indicated an interest in developing her property located in the southwest area of the City. That area is already zoned for high density housing with some commercial. The City is looking at installing a lift station in the Aztec Estates development project to serve her property. The City has not yet received permission to enter her property to determine the depth needed for the lift station. The Special Use Permit for the Grey Oaks PUD is for one year, and there has been considerable progress. The streets and utilities are in, and it is up to the developer when he wants to build the units. Mr. Carlberg continued there is also a possibility of a different developer for the Hupp property, who may reduce the number of units. If so, an amended Special Use Permit for the PUD would be required. Because that area does not fall within the federal wetlands jurisdiction, there is no .- .,- r - . . . Andover Special City Council Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2001 Page 2 (2002 Residential Development Projects, Continued) requirement for an archeological survey to determine whether or not there are Indian burial mounds in the general area. The approval of all permits wiIl be required before any development can take place on the Hupp property, no matter who is developing it. Mr. Carlberg also noted the proposed development of the Peterson property south of CoRd 20 and the park that is being proposed in that vicinity. The Council discussed the development area to the north and east and what to do if the Holasek property is not developed in the near future so the trunk sewer line can be extended. It was generaIly felt it would be too expensive to provide a lift station for that area and that for now there is sufficient land that can be developed outside of that area. Possibly there will be shift in development to the west. Mr. Carlberg stated in the future they wiIl meet with property owners earlier in the year to discuss future development. That wiIl give them more time to meet the time lines for development. Mr. Erar felt the slow down in plat development in the City provides time for the Staff to work on finalizing the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the City underwrote the costs of the utilities in Grey Oaks by issuing bonds, so there may be a financial consideration that the City has to be prepared to deal with if that development does not go forward. He suggested the Council should discuss the financial mechanisms that the City utilizes to underwrite private businesses. The only way the City can recover is through the assessments against the plat over time. If the development does not occur, it could be some time before the City is reimbursed. TypicaIly in cities he is familiar with, the developers underwrite those improvements themselves. It is a liability issue. If the City issues the bonds, it is guaranteeing the debt. There are no projects in jeopardy, but it is a concern he felt should be discussed. He will bring the item to the Council as a part of a goal setting session. The Council agreed. ANDOVER STATION UPDATE Mr. Carlberg expressed the Stafrs frustration that an agreement has not yet been signed with a major developer for Andover Station. The attorney for the developer responded today on the comments the City had made regarding the purchase agreement. While the response has not yet been reviewed, it appears there is nothing major that can't be resolved. It is possible they will be ready to sign the documents within a week or so. The Economic Development Authority wiIl meet to review the documents before the City enters into the agreement. Mr. Erar stated the EDA and Council have also talked about this being a unique development with a high-end grocery as the anchor. He asked the direction the Council would consider if a high-end grocer retailer could not be attracted to this site. Would the City consider a chain grocer that would also offer more services if it were reflective of the visual standards? Or would the Council prefer to wait until a high-end grocer is willing to come in, which probably would mean the entire development would be delayed? The City has set a vision for the site. To maintain that bar may mean a longer time rrame for development. .- - - -- --- f'-----;w - -. ... - . .-- _.-- Andover Special City Council Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2001 Page 3 (Andover Station Update, Continued) Council discussion noted their feedback from the community is a desire for a high-end grocer. There was also a concern of an empty box if a high-end grocer cannot make it economically at this location. The concern was not wanting to hold up the project but also not wanting to cheapen the vision for the site. They asked Staff to research whether there are other high-end grocery chains. Mr. Carlberg also reported 116 LLC has discussed opening a steak house as their next project as soon as the bank is completed. That steak house would be located in the area west of the theater. The Courtyards of Andover has been doing very well. There was a brief discussion regarding the weekly management report. Several Councilmembers indicated they were not receiving the e-mails. Mr. Erar stated he would check on that immediately. The Council recessed at 8:lS; reconvened at 8:26 p.m. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission arrived at the meeting at 8:30: Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, Larry Dalien, Mark Hedin, Tim Kirchoff and Rex Greenwald; City Planner, Courtney Bednarz. TREE PRESERVATION POLICY Mr. Carlberg reviewed the history of the Tree Preservation Policy, Ordinance No. 214 and the changes made to it since it was first adopted in July 1992. The policy came about as a result of the significant tree loss in the Shadowbrook subdivision plus several other developments. Since then the concept of custom grading has been utilized by several developers to minimize the loss of trees. Custom grading is optional, not mandatory. Councilmember Knight felt that many of the developments are being stripped naked. He handed out a copy of the tree policy of the City of Minnestrista, which has a lot of replacement requirements. Any time more than 30 percent of the trees are lost; there are replacement requirements to bring it up to IS trees per acre. It seems on the west side of Minneapolis they are more trees conscious. Mr. Carlberg stated the topography has to lend itself to custom grading. To balance the site with dirt, developments such as Aztec Estates and Natures Runs grade the high knoll, so they can't preserve those trees. Generally trees are only removed to balance the site with dirt. The developers try to keep the trees because they increase value to the lots. Councilmember Jacobson felt the entire policy is too cumbersome. It applies to everyone, not just developers. He felt it needs to be reduced drastically to make it easier to implement. Councilmember Orttel thought Minnestrista requires trees in the boulevards. Staff does not want trees in the boulevards in Andover. He also pointed out that the current ordinance and policy were worked on by Staff and reviewed by the Attorney. It is there for the developer, and he would hate to see it shrunk down to nothing. Andover Special City Council Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2001 Page 4 (Free Preservation Policy, Continued) Mr. Carlberg stated at one time there was a requirement that a tree be planted in the front yards of lots. It was taken out because the Council felt the City was dictating when it should be the homeowner's responsibility. There was also the concern of whether or not the homeowner wanted the trees and that it would drive up the price of the lot. When the ordinance was recodified in 1995, one of the requirements was to plant one tree for each parcel. Within a few weeks that requirement was removed. He also explained that under the current policy the developer determines which trees are to be saved. Then those trees are protected. But if one of the protected trees is damaged, the developer is required to replace it two for one. Discussion by the Council and Commissioners was that trees can be planted for little cost and they are guaranteed for one year by the landscaper. Even if not put in by the developer, most homeowners do plant trees and neighborhoods do look very nice after a few years. Mr. Erar stated the City's existing policy on preservation is very strict, which does tend to increase the cost of development and the cost oflots significantly. Mr. Carlberg also noted that in developments such as Aztec Estates and Natures Run, the City can dictate which trees to preserve and what plantings to put where because those are being developed as planned unit developments. There was discussion on requiring the developer to plant one or two trees per lot. A concern with that is not wanting to have the same type of tree planted in the same locations on every lot in a development. A suggestion was to provide a chart of the trees that grow in specific soils and require a variety. Another concern is the possibility of the planted trees being destroyed during the construction of the house. Possibly that could be remedied by requiring the builder to plant the trees. Still another issue is that some people simply do not want trees in their yard, though a counter argument was that the City already requires a lawn. Possibly in those cases the trees could be planted in some common park area instead. Mr. Carlberg suggested bringing back the 1997 documents with the provision for the planting of trees for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review. They can look at from one to four plantings on an individual lot. Staff can also research the tree planting requirements of other communities. The Commission recommendation will be brought back for Council consideration. BUILDABIUTY REQUIREMENTSIWETLAND BUFFER ORDINANCE Mr. Erickson reviewed sketches oflots showing the IOO-foot buildable pad, the 35-foot setback from the front property line, side and rear yard setbacks, wetland delineation and the 16.5-foot wetland buffer area. One sketch was drawn to meet current requirements; the other increased the 100-foot buildable area to preserve the wetland buffer area. For the most part, the 100- foot buildable pad is working. The problem they are running up against is where variances are granted. He also showed pictures of lots where variances were given which significantly reduces the amount of usable back yard. The wetland buffer area is so run off from the lots would filter out before getting to the wetland. Restrictions can be made on the buffer area, but then the City would have to enforce them, which is a tremendous undertaking. Andover Special City Council Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2001 Page 5 (Buildability Requirements/Wetland Buffer Ordinance, Continued) Mr. Carlberg noted there are two issues: I) The issue of build ability and usable back yard. The 100- foot buildable pad was required to have at least 15 feet of back yard. 2) The issue of the wetland buffer area. What is the value of the ordinance if the homeowner can do anything with it once the builder is gone? Mr. Erickson emphasized the buffer strip is only a protection during construction. After that it is back yard. Councilmember Trude stated when the homeowners maintain that buffer area, they tend to encroach onto the wetland. The watershed must then issue a cease and desist order, or they can do so if the activity in the buffer area will impact the wetland. Mr. Erar stated the goal is to provide a clear distinction between human activities and the natural area. Under the current requirements, granting a variance to the buildable area automatically creates a need for a variance to the wetland buffer area. The option is to provide an additional distance from the human activity to the buffer area, which is shown on the second sketch. Discussion was on whether or not variances should be given to the 100- foot buildable area, on wanting to provide sufficient back yard areas on the lots and on whether or not the wetland buffer area should be permanently preserved. The sentiment was that variances to the 100-foot buildable area should be rare to provide usable back yard for the house, though those present stopped short of wanting to simply forbid such variances, not wanting to be so inflexible. Possibly the number of variances to the wetland buffer area should be limited. Different scenarios of wetland and buffer configurations were considered, and a concern was raised of being so rigid that a variance wouldn't be granted for a small encroachment off to the side even though the majority of the back yard met the buffer requirement. The question then was to what degree should variances be allowed and under what guidelines. Variances of not more than 5 to 30 percent were mentioned, but the discussion was then on what basis should the variance be granted. Councilmember Orttel commented houses have grown tremendously in size, but the City has lowered the lot size. Councilmember Jacobson pointed out that on developed lots, the buildable pad is desirable because the size, style and location of the home are not known. However, in the planned unit developments, the exact style and size of home is known as well as the location. In those cases, is the 100-foot buildable area necessary? Should the City be applying the requirements of single family lots to PUDs? He liked the second option with the larger usable back yard, though he wanted to see the ramifications for requiring larger buildable areas. Mr. Bednarz stated once the lot is developed, the wetland buffer is gone, whether it is 100 feet or includes the 16.5 feet. In Brooklyn Park, they would try to get 30 feet of flat rear yard usable space in each yard. That language requiring usable back yard is in Andover's ordinance as well, but it is not clearly defined. Mayor Gamache did not feel 15 feet of back yard is sufficient, suggesting the second sketch shown to include 116.5 feet for buildability and wetland buffer be the standard. He wanted to get away from cramming as many homes as possible in an area. Councilmember Trude agreed, feeling in the long run it will protect the wetland. Some cities do not allow sodding within so many feet of the pond. She also suggested that there be more education for the residents regarding the protection of the wetlands through the newsletter, cable TV, etc. Mr. Erar pointed out that the conflict between the City's high value on open spaces yet allowing development on approximately ~ ~ I Andover Special City Council Meeting Minutes - May 22, 2001 Page 6 (Buildability RequirementslWetland Buffer Ordinance, Continued) 8,000 square feet oflot, which is considered high density. He also felt increasing the buildable area as suggested in the second sketch would not increase the cost of the lots that much. The developers will make the product the City Council and community wants with respect to what the market will bear. Councilmember Orttel noted the cost to developers begins with the price of the land, so not allowing as many variances is a big change in their net results. Because there are few plats next year, this may be a good time to make a change. The consensus was to have the Planning and Zoning Commission consider a change in the requirements to increase the buildability requirements similar to the second sketch, which includes the buffer area. A suggestion was the I6.5-foot buffer area would not necessarily be in a straight line but from any comer of the house. Also, it should be more difficult to get variances than in the past. No variances would be allowed for 100-foot buildability, and only 5 percent in linear feet would be allowed in variances to the 116.5-foot buildable area. There was disagreement on whether or not the administrative variances in the Wetlands Buffer Ordinance should remain as is. Mr. Erar suggested there might be some middle ground allowing Staff to administratively recommend approval of variances to the wetland buffer by placing them on the plat. That provides disclosure to the City Council, which is not currently being done. The Planning Commission was also asked to consider whether or not the buildability requirements that are applied to single family lots should also be applied to PUD townhome developments or should there be different standards for them. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trude, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Marc la A. Peach Recording Secretary