Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP October 10, 2000 ,c&'v\U;t .r;u¿; 'lð-t.Lttin II-fj {P . -. '. ',CITY of ANDOVER , " Special Joint City CounciIlrlanning and Zoning CommissionMeeting Tuesday, October 10,2000 Call to Oider ~ 6:00 PM Discussion Items 1. ' , Communal Septiés (Item will be presented at meeting) , 2. ,- Planned Unit Development Ordinance 3. Comprehensive Plan Update (Item to be presented at the meetirig) 4. Other Business ' ,Adjournment' , ~ Q/.V , Wu:f:tu, J . q . ()C> CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL JOINT ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 10, 2000 MINUTES A Joint Andover City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on October 10, 2000, 6:05 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Tony Howard, Don Jacobson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Councilmembers absent: None Planning and Zoning members present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Doug Falk, Mark Hedin, Tim Kirchoff Also present: City Planner, John Hinzman Acting City Administrator, Dave Carlberg Others COMMUNAL SEPTlCS Mr. Carlberg asked for direction on the issue of communal septic systems. The current ordinance does not aIlow them; so if the intent is to aIlow them in some instances, the ordinance would need to be amended. Merit Development has approached the City with a proposal for a five-lot subdivision with a communal septic system. The intent is the lots would switch over to municipal sewer when it becomes available. The concern is designing the sewer service so it can be converted to City standards to work with the City's system. The elevations of the City's system in that area is not yet known. There is also the potential that when the City system is available there, the residents would not want to convert because they would already have a functioning system. He didn't feel communal systems could be allowed by variance because there is no hardship. Discussion raised the issue of potentially increasing density where communal septic systems would be allowed, which is a concern in the rural areas. While it is known that they work, another concern was how they would be maintained and the ability and authority of associations to maintain them. Communal septic systems would allow the clustering of homes, which would drastically change the look of the rural area. Most felt that is not what the people want, nor did the Council and Planning Commission want to increase the rural density. If this is made available, the feeling was there would be a lot of demand for it to maxiinize density, Councilmember Howard felt soils correction can be done in many areas for septic systems. Whether or not to allow communal septic systems will depend on how many houses the City wants in the rural portion of the City. Commissioner Dalien didn't see any reason to change, as there isn't a need at this time. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested a wait and see attitude. Commissioner Hedin liked the Special Joint Meeting of the Andover City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 10, 2000 Page 2 (Communal Septics, Continued) idea but didn't like the premise that it has to be done because of a lack ofland. He'd be more accepting of retaining the 2.5-acre lot size so density is not concentrated. Councilmember Orttel opposed communal septics, feeling they would be used to get more density on land that won't support that amount of houses. There is no benefit to the City. Commissioner Apel agreed, and Councilmember Knight stated he opposed the concept. Councilmember Jacobson liked the idea of clustering, but did not want communal septic systems to drive the clustering. He'd prefer to wait a year or two to see if there is a real demand. Mayor McKelvey stated he is not in favor of them, especially the one being proposed in the MUSA. He felt it would be a large problem extending sewer into areas with communal systems. Commissioner Daninger agreed. Councilmember Orttel stated the City used to allow one-acre lots in the intermittent zone. That allowed immediate use of the land, and possibly communal septic systems could be used short-term in the urban area. There is not a lot of private land owners left. If a person has 40 acres with only one house on it, when the land is within 20 years of development, the county starts assessing development land values for taxes. That is a concern for people, and this may be a way to resolve that issue once the I-for-40 issue is resolved. Maybe it is something to consider in the transition zone. At this point, the general consensus was to make no change to the ordinance. Communal septic systems are not allowed in the City. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Mr. Hinzman reviewed some of the major changes being proposed to the PUD Ordinance. The major issue is deÌ1sity because unbuildable land could be credited for density. The Purpose in Section 1 is now more concrete and the Section on Page 4, Section 8, Density, has been strengthened. Those areas that are not buildable can no longer be considered for density increases. Page 4, Section 8, Density: It was suggested in line two, add "parks, roadways, major draina~e and utility easements, and ..." Further in the paragraph, after discussion on the four categories of features that must be met to increase density, it was generally agreed the fourth criteria should be stricken and that the sentence would then read: "Density increases of up to five (5%) percent may be allowed for each category listed below (15% maximum total) at the discretion of the City." Page 5, Section 8, Item b: There was discussion on what "high quality" open space means. A concern is not having to accept swamps. Mr. Hinzman stated the open space would be at the City's discretion. There may be instances where lowland is desirable, but the intent is to get something the City wants. If the City doesn't want it, there is no obligation to accept it. Page 5, Section 8, Item d: Councilmember Orttel questioned the proposal to require at least 15% of the housing in the rural area to be multiple. Mr. Hinzman stated the intent of the Planning ---- Special Joint Meeting of the Andover City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 10, 2000 Page 3 (Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Continued) Commission was that multiple housing would be an urban use only. The reason 15% was used is that is the housing goal over the next 10 years agreed to with the Metropolitan Council. Multiple zoning will now be done with contract zoning. Mr. Carlberg thought the discussion was that PUD's would not be allowed in the rural area. Councilmember Orttel felt increasing density and asking for more open space only intensifies the problem. At this point, the general consensus was to delete Item d and allow for a total density increase of 15 percent (Page 4, Section 8... see above). Page 1, Section 1: Mr. Carlberg stated in the past, all items were required of the PUD. Given that, it was agreed to change the last sentence of the first paragraph to: "...Planned Unit Developments shall accomplish all ofthe following: " Page I, Item 7: Correct "(PUD is not a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)" Page 2, Section 4, Item 5: Mr. Hinzman explained the only thing the PUD ordinance would preclude is R-4 development as strictly single family. That is the current definition. Correct the first sentence in Item 5, "Common open space to meet the minimum density requirements..." There was some discussion on what would constitute acceptable open space, some concerned that this could end up in litigation. Councilmember Orttel stated this would be a contract, so there would be no ability to litigate until a contract is reached and someone has breached it. He didn't feel wetlands should be totally eliminated, as there may be some instances where it would be desirable. He also noted that the Planning Department in some cities actually lays out the streets, ponding, etc., and the developer must conform to that plan. Possibly as the City gets more developed, it may come to that as well. The City does have the ability to tell the developer what they want in terms of open spaces, parks, etc. Page 3, Subsection 3: Fourth and fifth lines, change to: "private infutstructure..." and "...shall assess or char~e individual property owners..." Page 3, Subsection 4: Councilmember Jacobson recommended the word "covenants and" be added in the third line to include covenants and applicable rules and regulations of the City. Others felt that covenants should not be included because the City doesn't have the right to enforce covenants unless it is written in that the City is a party to it. It was agreed the City Attorney should review the item and make a recommendation. Page 6, 15, 2, b: Councilmember Jacobson felt that Item lIon Page 5 conflicted with this section regarding private internal streets. Councilmember OrtteI felt the only reason private internal streets have been allowed is to allow housing to be built closer to the street. He wondered if that should be allowed. It bothers him that this is used to get more houses in the City. Also, what happens to them since the City doesn't maintain them? Because of the concern with private streets, it was agreed to strike the last portion of subsection b relating to private streets. The item is to read, "No building shall be located less than 20 feet from the back of the curb line along those streets." Special Joint Meeting of the Andover City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 10, 2000 Page 4 (Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Continued) (Commissioner Hedin left at this time, 7:20 p.m.) Page 7, 3, c: Councilmember Jacobson was concerned that there be extra screening and landscaping between commercial and residential areas. The City owes it to the people living there first to make sure they are adequately protected. He suggested a s.entence be added that "Additional caution shall be taken for multiples or commercial districts abutting existing residents." Mr. Hinzman noted the Andover Review committee does the site plan review and looks closely at screening. Councilmember Orttel noted the State laws are strict with requiring a 4/5 vote on a rezoning, yet the rezoning can be subverted with a PUD that only requires a 3/5 vote. He wondered if the zoning portion of the PUD can be written to require a super majority in order to pass it. The other problem is much of the PUD is so subjective, it may be difficult to get a 4/5 vote. He felt it deserves discussion and real sensitive treatment when getting into this. Possibly only a 4/5 vote should be required when dealing with some commercial or even multiple development. Staff was asked to check with the City Attorney to see if requiring a 4/5 vote in some instances is possible. Page 8, Item 18: Councilmember Jacobson felt the developers are already constructing the improvements oftrails, parks, etc. Mr. Carlberg explained in Grey Oaks, for instance, all of the site improvements are being done in the first phase. If that would not be done, the City would require an escrow for the unfinished items. No change was made, Mr. Carlberg stated after legal counsel review, a public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled. The Council agreed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Hinzman reported the transportation issues have been resolved with the Metropolitan Council Staff. Much of the information on the sewer and housing issues are being obtained. On the issue ofland use, there is a difference between the Metropolitan Council policy and the City's document in the 2020/2040 area for future urban expansion. The City has made the 2040 line the same as the 2020 line. Metropolitan Council Staffhas taken issue with that. The other issue is the 1/10 in the rural area. There has been no conclusion on that issue. Mr. Carlberg stated the Metropolitan Council Staff has said there is still a considerable amount of land to be developed in the rural area and that it needs to be held a 1/10 development. Councilmember Orttel understood Ham Lake is developing one-acre lots. Where are they with a Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Carlberg didn't think they had to have a comprehensive plan, but he will look into it. .. , Special Joint Meeting of the Andover City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - October 10, 2000 Page 5 (Comprehensive Plan Update, Continued) Councilmember Orttel thought the City could look at not extending the sewer any more, so a comprehensive plan would not be needed. Then the City could look at developing one-acre lots in the rural area. Mr. Hinzman stated the City has MUSA allowed to 2005. Unless the land use is changed, there is no need to get Metropolitan Council approval for sewer extension within the MUSA. The Comprehensive Plan was established with transitional housing districts to try to limit the approval process by the Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Orttcl suggested undertaking a long-term study ofthe City's rural land use versus the 2040 housing issue. Without an approved plan, it would imply to him that no more municipal sewer would be extended beyond 2005. Councilmember Jacobson stated beyond that point the City could allow private septic systems on one-acre lots and run municipal water to them. Councilmember Orttel suggested looking into it as an option. The general consensus was that the 2020 and 2040 line would remain as previously agreed to. OTHER BUSINESS Metropolitan Council Operations town meeting - Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will not present the City's position at the meeting. He suggested individual Councilmembers may comment on their views of the Metropolitan Council. The Council agreed. Planning Commission Chairperson - Mr. Carlberg stated Jay Squires has reconsidered his resignation and will continue to serve as Chair of the P & z. City/Township Officials meeting - Mr. Carlberg stated he faxed copies of the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting. The cost would be $15. There were no Councilmembers attending that meeting. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Howard, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/ ~~.~ ;;l Recording Secretary