Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 11, 2004 u () C I T Y o F ,r '\ NDOVE \,) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8.923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 11,2004 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 D.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 2004 3. Resolution Modifying Development District No. I and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-4. , 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04-02) to amend City Code \ 13-3 Planned Unit Developments. \ ) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04-03) to establish regulations for temporary structures. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04-01) amending City Code 12-14-10 D. 8. regulating lighting in off street parking areas. 7. Work Session: a. Comprehensive Plan Update 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment '- -) - u (') L~~ 5'\NóbVE~ ~ < uYl dt:u1 ~-d-5-0i ~ ') PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - May 11, 2004 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Kirchoff on May 11,2004, 7:02 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), and Jonathan Jasper. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Casey. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others <) APPRO V AL OF MINUTES. April 27, 2004 Motion by Jasper, seconded by Greenwald, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, O-present, 3-absent (Casey, Daninger, and Vatne) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (04-02) TO AMEND CITY CODE 13-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. Mr. Bednarz explained the City Planning staff have reviewed the Planned Unit Development ordinance and found that it is inadequate for use in reviewing new requests for a Planned Unit Development approval. Mr. Bednarz stated that after looking at various other cities and how theirs was structured, staff concluded that a new PUD ordinance should be patterned after one that is simple and straight-forward. Commissioner Vatne arrived at 7:05 p.m. ~-) u () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 - Page 2 / ì \. / Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this was the way they have been doing things prior. Mr. Bednarz stated the land use district governs the density that is allowed for a project. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Casey and Daninger)vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Casey and Daninger) vote. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he read through this and what impressed him was it seemed a lot shorter in volume than the previous ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated this covered everything needed in the ordinance. Commissioner Greenwald asked where they addressed density. Mr. Bednarz explained where in the information this was listed. He stated this ties it to the underlying land use district, which is how they presently set the land use for density. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this fell under contract development. Mr. Bednarz Î) stated in situations where there is a rezoning of property there is a contract between the \...- City and the developer to ensure that when the rezoning is done the product that is going to be constructed fits into what the City's perception is. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated it was not specifically tied to a P.U.D. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance Amendment (04-02) to amend City Code 13-3 Planned Unit Developments. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Casey and Daninger)vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June I, 2004 City Council meeting. RESOLUTION MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-4. Mr. Bednarz explained the Andover Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the City of Andover are considering a proposal to adopt a modification to the development program for Development District Number I, to establish Tax Increment Financing District Number 1-4 (TIP District No. 1-4) and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan ~J (the "TIP Plan"). \J 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 :/ \, Page 3 '--j Mr. Bednarz stated TIP District No. 1-4 will be a redevelopment tax increment fmancing district which has a maximum life of 26 years of tax increment (or a shorter period as determined by the City Council). Tax increments collected from TIP District No. 1-4 will enable the City of Andover to facilitate the demolition of several substandard buildings. New buildings will be constructed that will serve primarily as office and warehouse facilities for service businesses, within the City of Andover. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIP District. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the plan on June I, 2004. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff summarized the reason for the modification. Ms. Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers Associates, was at the meeting to answer questions regarding the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Commissioner Vatne asked for clarification on the service related industry. Mr. Bednarz stated the informal proposal is to build a building with one of the spaces as a manufacturing use. He stated there will be other potential tenant finish space in the building and the uses for those areas have not been identified at this point. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if the City had to go to the State to get the enabling C) legislation for each TIP District. Ms. Eldridge stated the City Council has the authority to establish a Tax Increment District if it qualifies. This particular type of district is a redevelopment district. Ms. Eldridge discussed the redevelopment district with the Commission and how the TIP District affects this. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this was one parcel or multiple parcels. Ms. Eldridge stated she thought this was six parcels that they are considering. Mr. Bednarz stated there are two, possibly three owners. Commissioner Jasper stated looking at the proposal, the TIP District shows $831,000 and only $100,000 of which is for site improvements and $400,000 is for interest. Ms. Eldridge stated the line items in a TIP plan can be reallocated; they cannot spend over that amount. Commissioner Jasper asked if they do not know what the costs are that will be involved, how is the number $831,000 picked and calculated. Ms. Eldridge stated it is calculated from the tax increment that would be produced over the 26 years. She stated they have five years to do these projects. Chairperson Daninger arrived at 7:20 p.m. / \ \J Ms. Eldridge explained to the Commission the process of tax increment obligations for the TIP District. - l) () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-May 11,2004 , \ Page 4 "j Commissioner Jasper asked if their purpose is to determine whether the Till plan conformed to the development and redevelopment and the Comprehensive Plan, how do they make the determination whether this conforms or not. Mr. Bednarz stated the land use district is industrial, the zoning is light industrial and together those classifications allow manufacturing, warehousing and similar types of light industrial uses and based on the proposal they have which would be for a multi-tenant building with one use proposed to be manufacturing, those other uses would be reviewed for their eligibility at the time that someone wants to move in based on their land use and zoning regulations. Commissioner V atne asked for further clarification on light industrial. Mr. Bednarz explained that general manufacturing uses are allowed in that district. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this conformed to their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bednarz stated it did. Commissioner Vatne stated until substandard is identified, this mayor may not become a reality. He assumed from the definition, it talks about redevelopment and he thought this item would be structurally substandard. Ms. Eldridge stated this was true. ~~) Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the properties were all in favor of doing this. Mr. Bednarz stated the initial owner on the comer of Round Lake Boulevard and I 62nd Lane is very much in favor of this and the other property owners have been contacted and he did not believe they were at the level of analysis that the initial site is at. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not get the TIP and did not understand the timing of it. None of the findings have been made that the land needs or could use it so it seems premature to do this but what they have to comment on today, it seems clear. Chairperson Daninger agreed. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to adopt the attached resolution that indicates the Planning Commission has determined the Program Modification and TIP Plan conform to the general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey)vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 1, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (04-03) TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. / '\ ~) Mr. Bednarz explained that on February 24, 2004, the City Council reviewed general information provided to them regarding "temporary structures". Council directed that the r ! l--.J Ü Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 \ Page 5 J '- _/ staff and Planning Commission review regulations for temporary structures. In reviewing what could be done to establish some type of performance criteria, staff thought that the standards for temporary buildings should include; duration of how long they may stay on a given property; materials that they may be made of; lighting and landscaping and location where they may be placed on a site. In discussing this topic at the Planning Commission workshop on April 27, 2004, there was a great deal of discussion regarding allowing temporary structures subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated it was his understanding this would be broken into two different areas, one would be the temporary structures that includes greenhouses and then there are the temporary structures for school houses. He wondered what the difference was. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a difference between a classroom and a greenhouse. A greenhouse is only functional a few months out of the year. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if school structures were the only ones that can be permanent. Mr. Bednarz stated as proposed in the Ordinance language, through the Conditional Use Permit process the Commission and Council will have the ability to interact with the School District or a Church with classrooms on the length of time those , -\ classrooms would be in use. \.J Commissioner Greenwald asked where in the Ordinance is the long term plan for replacement that Councilmember Jacobson suggested organizations do. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not know if there is a specific line item dealing with that. It is something they could add if the Commission is interested. Commissioner Gamache stated as of right now the Ordinance stated this needed to be reviewed every year or two. Mr. Bednarz stated Churches have a Conditional Use Permit to operate general and then to build a temporary classroom or addition would be an amendment to that permit. Usually there is a specific date as to when the structure will be removed. Mr. Bednarz stated they could set a specific date for it to be reviewed. Commissioner Greenwald thought this would be a good idea. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what would happen to the temporary structure if a property were to sell. Mr. Bednarz stated under the proposed amendment, they could put a condition of approval stating there would need to be a review or removal of the temporary structure upon sale of the property. Commissioner Greenwald thought trailers could be allowed as temporary sales offices /- '\ but there should be a time limit. Commissioner Gamache did not think allowing trailers ~) would be a problem because they are usually kept in good shape. u () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 ì Page 6 \. ..J Commissioner Jasper thought they could add temporary sales office into item "K" and strike item "J". Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Chairperson Daninger reviewed the language the Commission changed. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to approve Ordinance Amendment (04-03), to establish regulations for temporary structures with the changes listed below: F. Add "Remove or Review". K. The Construction Trailers, Greenhouses and Temporary Sales Offices shall be allowed only through the Commercial Site Plan process". M. Add Long term plan in writing. ~~) N. Add "Upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property, the Conditional Use Permit has to be brought up for renewal or remove the temporary structure" Strike Item J from the Ordinance. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June I, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (04-01) AMENDING CITY CODE 12-14-10 D.8. REGULATING LIGHTING IN OFF STREET PARKING AREAS. Mr. Bednarz explained City Code 12-14-10 D.8. requires parking lots to be illuminated a minimum of one footcandle as measured at ground level. With the intent of limiting light pollution, Staff is proposing to modify the existing city code in accordance with recommendations from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission. ~-) Commissioner Greenwald stated one of the items he brought up was the pole height. Mr. Bednarz stated they removed prohibition on pole height or setting an arbitrary pole height. - u U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-May 11,2004 / '\ Page 7 , \. .j Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if the Sheriff's Department should sign off on this because this Ordinance is more for safety than anything else. Commissioner Jasper concurred. Discussion ensued in regards to the Ordinance. Commissioner Jasper stated this proposal serves no purpose. He thought the Ordinance in Andover already covered this and the reason they were reviewing this for change was because of a couple of complaints of light pollution. He stated this ordinance change does not address that issue. It does not set maximums, it sets minimums. He stated they have talked at some length about shielding and he would encourage the Commission to ~',-) leave the Ordinance regarding foot candles and add a shielding provision. He thought there should be new minimums which differentiate between different uses. Discussion continued in regards to shielding versus the minimum foot candles. Motion by Greenwald, to table this item to allow staff to re-wordsmith this. Motion failed for lack of second. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the way this is prepared. Commissioner Gamache disagreed because he is comfortable with the way Commissioner Jasper wanted to amend the existing ordinance. Chairperson Daninger stated he was comfortable with the way it was written. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was not comfortable with either way, but would be against this as written. Commissioner Vatne stated he was comfortable with the way it is written. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not like it as written. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to not adopt staff's proposed resolution, instead adopt a resolution that would add to the existing ordinance the language that any lighting in off street parking areas shall be fully shielded with a total cut off angle equal to or less than 90 degrees and that illumination from light fixtures shall be measured at one foot above ground level on a forty-five degree angle plain. Motion moved forward on a 3-ayes, 3-nays (Kirchoff, Vatne, and Daninger), I-absent (Casey) vote. í-,\ Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council a favorable \.J recommendation to approve Ordinance Amendment (04-01), amending City Code 12-14- - u U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 \ Page 8 , " / 10 D.8. regulating lighting in off street parking areas. Motion carried on a 3-ayes, 3-nays (Jasper, Gamache, and Greenwald), I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 1,2004 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: a. Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Bednarz explained prohibiting driveways on all collector streets per Chapter 11-3-2 of the City Code is not practical given the wide range of subdivision designs and topography in Andover. While it makes sense to prohibit them on busy, high-capacity streets, lots should be allowed to put driveways on streets that are considered collector streets because of their function in the City's road system and not because of their high traffic count. Changing the Transportation Plan's defmition to include two different classes of Collector Streets will solve this problem. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission. ;~) Commissioner Jasper wondered if the thinking of the original defmition of one thousand daily trips was in error because nothing has changed regarding the safety of having driveways on a street that carries one thousand trips. Mr. Bednarz stated based on the Engineering Department in Andover and in other cities, one thousand trips per day are not a collector street. Discussion ensued in regards to what would be considered a collector street and anticipated traffic volumes. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the idea that it does free up the ability of the low volume roads to be able to have driveways on it. He stated this gives the City and developers more options. He asked if there was any ordinance requiring a turn-around for road access. Mr. Bednarz stated there was not. Commissioner Jasper asked if the numbers would be based on existing traffic volumes or those proposed for 2020. What would be the benchmark. Mr. Bednarz stated the language would have to be tied to the plan and to a specific number if there are a variety of numbers on the plan in the Ordinance. They would propose the Commission take scenario three for discussion purposes. Commissioner Vatne wondered how this Ordinance address some of the more recent (~) developments they have seen which have some issues where it is a proposed collector street downstream and they know the traffic is going to be minimal today but sometime (--J () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 , , '\ Page 9 <_J in the future the level could increase. This gives them the split so they can differentiate between major and minor. Commissioner Vatne stated he liked the split because it makes sense and will be useful in the future. He stated he had a problem with the language because it is fairly subjective. Commissioner Jasper stated Class A and Class B, Major and Minor, do not address the thousand minimum that the report address. He thought this would be incorporated into the definitions. Consensus of the Commission was to go with Scenario three. B. Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan - Railroad Grade Crossings Mr. Bednarz stated the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends grade separated crossings at 4 public street railroad crossings within the City. Based on a recent City Council decision, this list should be reviewed and consider reducing the number of crossings on it. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission. ~J Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did remember that when they fIrst started planning this, they looked at throwing everything out there to make the crossings but the reality is it will take a while to get even the Bunker Lake Boulevard crossing. Commissioner Greenwald agreed with that everything but Bunker Lake Boulevard be removed from the plan. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered about 161 st Avenue. The Commissioner discussed the different intersections. Commissioner Jasper disagreed with what has been discussed by staff and the Council because the crossings are going to keep getting busier and if they develop they will get even busier. He thought this was a serious issue and is inclined to put in more separated crossings. Commissioner Gamache concurred but if they are not going to do grade separated on some of the railroad crossings, he would like to see them explore something like what has been done on Egret and Hanson. He stated they need to do something to the railroad crossings to make them safer. Chairperson Daninger asked why they would not want all of these have grade separation. Mr. Bednarz stated the issue is they would like to be more specific regarding railroad crossings in the City so that at the time development is proposed in the area, they are ; clear on what should be proposed on the plat. " ') \~./ The Commission continued to discuss the railroad crossings in the City. 10 ( ) ,-/ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 11, 2004 /-.... Page 10 \ _J Commissioner Gamache stated if they do not designate right-of-way when developing developments, they cannot do this in the future and this is the only shot at doing this. If they do not do it, they could never do it. Commissioner Jasper stated he would take the four that have been designated and put grade separated crossings there. Commissioner Vatne agreed to the maximum. He thought in this case, there are critical safety issues downstream. Commissioner Greenwald stated there are other ways to do safety on major roadways. He thought the primary reasons for doing this is safety and traffic flow and he thought they should only do Bunker Lake Boulevard. Commissioner Gamache thought this was a one time shot and if there is ever a possibility they want to do this in the future, they should do it now. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the idea of sticking with Bunker Lake Boulevard because in looking at the volumes of the other roads, in order to get a grade separated I' - -, crossing built, it involves the Federal Railroad Association and they have to have \J justification to spend any time on it and he thought it would be hard to get them to agree to this on the other roads because it does not meet the warrants. Chairperson Daninger thought they should keep these as grade separated crossings. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary (-) TžmeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ~