Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 13, 2003 0 ü ~ CulJ l~Hm 6'~ l-6''b ~~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MAY13, 2003 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on May 13, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others Ü APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 22, 2002 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-present, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: OlUJINANCE AMENDMENT (03-03) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 106 BOULEVARD ENCROACHMENTS. Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Boulevard Use ordinance to ensure permanent encroachments and improvements shall remain outside of the boulevard as defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Mr. McKay stated currently, Section 3, b. of the Boulevard Use ordinance allows encroachments beyond the property lines, and clearly within the Boulevard. The distance from the road curb to the property line is typically at least thirteen and a half feet of the () back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban areas or sixteen and a half feet to twenty-one feet of the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in rural areas. 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 Page 2 /' "- , j ",----/, Mr. McKay noted staff would still like to allow specimen trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area and outside of eight feet from the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban or rural area to remain if possible. They would also ; , continue to reserve the right to require removal of any existing tree within the boulevard area if it is deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. Also, temporary improvements such as mailboxes and sprinkler systems would be allowed, again, as long as they are not deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. Mr. McKay stated given the above concerns, staff believes to reduce the number of residential complaints regarding Boulevard use and enhance the aesthetic aspects of completed residential subdivisions, that Ordinance No.1 06 be amended to require any permanent improvements and encroachments to be outside of the boulevard area, defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if structures in the areas now would be grandfathered in. Mr. McKay stated this was not the intent. The intent was to enforce removal of these items that were a safety hazard within the boulevard. Commissioner Vatne stated on the staffreport it states in Section IE it states "trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area" so everything existing on the /~ boulevard before construction would take place would be ok but everything else after ~ ' ,-) would be a candidate for removal. Mr. McKay stated if there is something that is considered landscape, would be reviewed on a case by case basis. Commission Gamache asked if they were considering a brick mailbox a temporary or permanent structure and would they be able to go to the resident with concerns. Mr. McKay stated it would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis but it would be considered a permanent improvement. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the resident complaints were extraordinary to get the Commission to review the Ordinance. Mr. McKay stated there was one complaint every couple of weeks. Commissioner Greenwald asked for information on City Ordinance 8. Mr. McKay reviewed the Ordinance with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the complaints were because of site or because of aesthetics. Mr. McKay stated he believed it was because of site than aesthetics. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would like to know how many complaints were because of site. ,-~ \.J 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-May 13,2003 Page 3 ! ,~ V Chairperson Daninger stated the Ordinance was the safety issue of site but he did not know if staff could narrow down the complaints. Mr. McKay stated the site triangle only refers to comer lots and it does not include a person coming out of a driveway and not being able to see. Commissioner Greenwald stated his concern was they were updating the wrong Ordinance. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought staff was referring to a safety issue and a property damage issue. Commissioner Gamache stated if there is damage, the property owner may try to hold the City responsible for it. Commissioner Jasper stated the Ordinance as it currently exists states improvements cannot impair, interfere or otherwise affectsnowplowing, the City is not responsible for damage, and the owner will hold the City from any damage. This is already in the Ordinance. He explained that the change would be to state that the owner cannot do an improvement within that thirteen and a half feet but the Ordinance also states the owner has to cut and maintain shrubs so it assumes you can have trees and shrubs. He asked if the problem is that people cannot see, then they have a tree or bush that has not been properly maintained. i Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. I Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Ü There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. ¡ , City Planner Bednarz stated one of the primary reasons for amending the Ordinance was the situation they currently have under Section IB where any improvements being temporary or permanent may be allowed. It has been a rather gray area. Discussion ensued in regards to the current Ordinance wording and the proposed additions to it. Commissioner Greenwald stated that if they cannot have anything within thirteen and a half feet from the boulevard, this does not improve the look of Andover. Commissioner Kirchoff concurred. Chairperson Daninger recapped what the current Ordinance said. Commissioner Gamache asked if the items would be legal non-conforming or are they going to make them conform. Mr. Bechlarz stated if they are improvements that impair or threaten to damage City vehicles, they will be removed. Commissioner Jasper stated if 0 the item is a potential for harming they could be removed under the existing Ordinance. - o (J ; Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 . Page 4 f"'. I I ; '---./ Discussion continued on why the Ordinance should be revised. ! Mr. McKay stated one of the reasons they want to change the Ordinance is because of the i number of people who want to improve the boulevard area and the complaining about ; items that are placed within the boulevard by some residents. The purpose of this would ' be for residents in the future, before improvements are made, be able to look at distances : and other specifics rather than have no guidance at all. Commissioner Greenwald stated he thought most of the complaints were when the houses were built, the item was placed along the boulevard and now the item has grown and is now a sight distance problem. He stated he thought they should be looking at another Ordinance or get more information on what the complaints are before moving on. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed with Commissioner Greenwald. Chairperson Daninger stated if there is a site hazard already, they have an Ordinance to deal with it already. He stated he does not know if the complaints there would need to be handled more because the gray area is gone and it becomes a site hazard. Commissioner Greenwald stated he does not like the idea that they should say residents cannot put anything in that area. He stated they will be changing the aesthetics in the City by changing the Ordinance. /-~ì . ~-) Commissioner Gamache stated he did not like the idea of not being able to improve the I first thirteen and a half feet of land because it would not look good. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he has always been aware of that if there would need to be some utility work done, he would lose the landscaping there because of the easement. Chairperson Daninger asked if the intent was to let the residents know the items in the boulevard were non-conforming or is it the intent to handle the complaints as a complaint basis. Mr. McKay stated they would still handle the complaints as they came in rather than notify everyone with landscaping. He stated the definition difference between "temporary" and "permanent" improvements is that temporary improvements can be something within the boulevard such as landscaping or a small bush or shrub which would not cause a site problem or safety hazard. He stated items like this would be allowed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Vatne stated it seems to him that the majority of the concerns, eight feet back puts a homeowner clear for snowplowing. Corners, site triangles could be a problem so they might want to evaluate this. Mr. McKay stated the site triangle is not proposed to be changed. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would like to see a list of complaints to see what they are. ,-~ -\ ,_/ 0 n 1,......... Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 Page 5 r~' 1 ; ....- j Mr. Bednarz stated he thought there needed to be more work done on this and more information from the other departments. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to table this item until the May 27th Planning Commission meeting and have staff review this. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would like a list of at least ten complaints and a cross-reference of Ordinance No.8. He stated if possible, he would like to know what some of the neighboring cities have done with distances and information from some other departments. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03-04) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS. City Planner Bednarz explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review an ordinance amendment that would allow lot splits on for lots that are close, but do not meet all of the requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provision (without a variance) under certain circumstance. " I ,~ Mr. Bednarz stated this request was initiated from the lot split request at 1415 Andover \ Boulevard that included proposed variances to lot depth for both lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split. However, the City Council denied the lot split citing a lack of hardship for the variances to lot depth. As a part of the discussion, the Council discussed establishing a method to approve similar lot splits provided the lot met two of the three size requirements and was within 90% of the third (lot width, depth and area). Mr. Bednarz explained the City Attorney has indicated that the proposed ordinance amendment will not damage the minimum district provisions section of Ordinance 8 , provided it is worded specifically enough to limit how it is applied. i Mr. Bednarz stated if the City is going to go ahead with this process, do they want to set this up to be a firm ninety percent of the third requirement or do they want to allow some flexibility there because there will still be situations close to that. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the ninety-percent came specifically from the City Council. Mr. Bednarz stated it did. Commissioner Kirchoff asked why this would only be limited to urban areas. Mr. Bednarz stated this was a comment that was brought up over the past couple of weeks "- about one way this could be structured. He stated he is not in agreement with that and he ) \- , thinks it should apply to both rural and urban lots. - () U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 f' Page 6 V Commissioner Jasper asked how the new Ordinance corresponded to Section 4.04 that is discussed in the comments that say that if they meet sixty percent of the requirement. Mr. Bednarz stated he put that in there as an example of a similar provision where there is , a percentage of a requirement that still allows use of a property. , Commissioner Jasper asked if there was any concern about serial lot splits where the ; I owner would split a small part of the land and then keeping splitting the land to make ! many small parcels. Mr. Bednarz stated typically a resident can only do one lot split ! every three years and if someone does apply for a lot split, it still requires a public hearing and the Planning Commission and City Council will have reviews also. Commissioner Gamache stated they are trying to build this on hardship cases. Mr. Daninger stated that this ordinance amendment would remove hardship from the equation. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. John Moore, 16030 Macah Street N.W., stated his lot split was denied by the Planning Commission and then he went to the City Council and it took four meetings to (-", decide to deny his request. '''J Mr. Moore stated he has lived in Andover for five years and he has noticed a neighbor of his was granted a lot split that did not conform at all. He also had another neighbor whose lot split was held up and this neighbor had everything in conformance but he had to prove that he had buildable area on his two and a half acres. This was a five acre parcel also. Mr. Moore stated his thought on this would be the only way they should object a land split is by acreage. He feels that in order to not goof up the projections in the future that one of the requirements of the three should not be allowed to be touched at all. It should always be the acreage because the taxes are being determined on the acreage and the planning for future developments and usage is all figured by acreage but the rest of it is covered under the building code. He stated he cannot build a house on the property without proving he has buildable area. Mr. Moore stated they need to do something to give the City Council a little leeway so that so much time is not spent on the decision making. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. ,-') Commissioner Greenwald stated there were three things he thought of; there is not such a '''-..J thing as a typical lot in Andover anymore. He stated the acreage is hard to divide and to 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 0 Page 7 I do this only by acreage is tough. He stated they still need to make sure the land is buildable, and that they are following distances. He noted that if the City Council is ! comfortable with ninety percent and the split is ninety percent that would be good but if it is a foot and a half off then it will not work. He stated there are too many other issues that would come into play. ! Commissioner Jasper asked when they have width and depth requirements and they have a trapezoidal lot, which measurement is used to determine if it conforms. Mr. Bednarz stated for lot depth, it is front lot line to rear lot line and for lot area it is the area within the property lines and for lot width, it is not measured at the front property line, it is ! measured at the front setback. Commissioner Jasper asked for lot depth, if they do not have parallel lines on the lot, at what point is it measured. Mr. Bednarz stated they take an average of the two side lot lines and one measurement through the middle of the lot. Commissioner Greenwald stated they are a new growing community and as long as he has been on the Commission they have reviewed every item thoroughly and they do not always look at the past as the only point to move forward. Chairperson Daninger stated all other areas need to be exhausted. U Commissioner Jasper was concerned that the provision could be abused and suggested that if a property could meet all of the requirements it should be required to do so. He suggest changing the wording in section 6.02(a) to read "Lot splits shall be allowed with lot sizes that de can not conform to the minimum district.. ." Chairperson Daninger agreed. Chairperson Daninger asked what the Commission thought about the ninety percent. Commissioner Jasper stated he would not want to make it more than ninety percent. Commissioner Gamache stated he was comfortable with the ninety percent in extreme cases and the one word change would work. Discussion ensued in regards to allowing ninety-percent for lot splits. Commissioner Vatne stated he came from a different direction on this. He stated as he went through the pros and cons, he thought the City Council had said specifically infill issues which prevent efficient use of land. That makes this a desirable change and he agrees but he thinks the cons outweigh it. He stated they are looking to change the language on the lot sizes to accommodate a few exceptions. These were exceptions back when the standards were in place and people knew that they were exceptions so they are looking to grandfather in to make more efficient use of the land. He stated they will be adding some complexity to the way the City standards are in existence today. He 0 explained that the people who are already there in the neighborhoods who met the requirements, developed their lots, and are living there now see that somebody coming in is able to do something on a piece of property that was not in compliance before. He 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 í '" Page 8 0 ; stated he has a great concern for the residents in the neighborhood and did not think the benefits outweighed the costs to make the changes. Commissioner Gamache stated in a lot of the neighborhoods, the residents have already split their lots except for a few. He stated the changing of the community makes availability for more residents with the rural look in two and a half acre lots. He stated he thought it was a good thing and they need to make some concessions to close some of this up. ! Commissioner Vatne stated a ten percent adjustment is not going to allow a lot in that were not going to get in, it is a small percentage and he does not think it merits a change in the language and lot proposal. Chairperson Daninger stated he would have to agree with Commissioner Vatne. Commissioner Kirchoff stated on item three, his only concern was the lot split should be applied throughout the entire City. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed but it a lot split was only allowed every three years, he would not be concerned with it. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would still like this to be Citywide instead of urban versus rural. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed and thought it was more important than the rural area. ,~\ Commissioner Kirchoff stated a pro to changing the Ordinance would be saving staff a U lot of time and Council time. Commissioner Greenwald stated he is still looking at a hardship for a lot split and this would be reducing the standard on it a little bit but if they left this the way it was, they could consider the hardship and allow a variance. Commissioner Gamache stated it would take away a couple of variance hearings a year. Commissioner Greenwald asked if this is worth doing it. Commissioner Gamache stated they would be saving money on staff time. Commissioner Jasper stated he understood this to be that the City Council takes these very literally. Commissioner Gamache stated the City Council is trying to make it easier for some of the residents to split their property and if they granted a hardship on it, it comes down to legal issues and a neighbor could legally fight it. Commissioner Greenwald stated changing this to ninety percent does not change the hardship issue. Commissioner Greenwald stated his concern is a two and a half acre lot is more buildable than a four acre lot. Commissioner Kirchoff stated this still had to meet two of the three requirements. Mr. Moore stated the reason he does not have the front lot width is because his property 0 is on a curve but he could not convince the Council this was a hardship. To him this was a hardship because the road had to be put in that way for a reason. 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 Page 9 ,/- ", i " . _/ Commissioner Greenwald stated he still thought there were going to have to be variances. ; Commissioner Gamache stated as the City grows, they are seeing a few variances a year and this may make their job a little easier. Commissioner Vatne stated he would anticipate those at eighty-five percent would still need a variance. Commissioner Gamache stated this would be residents who would still need a variance under the current Ordinance. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the proposed Ordinance Amendment because it will allow flexibility for infilllots and striking the "do" in 6.02A and changing it to can. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, 3-nays (Vatne, Greenwald, Daninger), O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he passed out a copy of an article in theAnoka Union (-- \ regarding the Community Development Block Grant process through Anoka County. He \.._j stated Andover was fortunate enough to have a project funded for about $47,000 and this will be focused on rental rehabilitation and potentially utility improvements. Mr. Bednarz also mentioned that there would be an open house residential development meeting on May 22 from 5:00 p:m. -7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He stated it would be an informal open house for property owners in the current stage of development to try to answer any questions they have if they are considering developing their property. This is also an opportunity to look at the city's sewer staging plan. Mr. Bednarz stated the Community Center Task Force has been meeting on Thursdays. June 10, 2003 is the current date for the Council to make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with that project. He stated at this point they are looking at the floor plan and the site and trying to arrive at something that is going to give a fairly solid cost estimate and this will be brought back to the Council sometime before June 10, 2003. Commissioner Jasper asked if they would have a ftrm agreement with the YMCA by then. Mr. Bednarz believed they would. Commissioner Vatne asked if the project was still moving forward with the Hockey Arena as part of the total facility. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and the June 10th date was agreed upon with the Hockey Association because they may make alternate ,,--.., plans after that date if it does not seem like this project will go ahead. ,,-J - 0 l) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 13, 2003 Page 10 í-- , " , . Mr. Bednarz stated they also met with Ryan Companies and United Properties to talk - j about the remainder of commercial land on the south side of Bunker at Andover Station. , He stated they are looking at a retail concept there with a large retail merchandiser and ; four smaller retail pads so they will probably be reviewing the plat with the commission sometime this spring or early summer. Commissioner Gamache asked if they were still looking at some more restaurants around the pond. Mr. Bednarz stated yes, and they will need to look at reconfiguring the pond and adding an interior access road all the way through and trying to save corner sites wherever possible. Commissioner Vatne asked if the Rural Reserve was moving forward. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council selected the area and directed staff to evaluate how to utilize the rest of the Bluebird trunk capacity nòrth of County Road 20 between Hanson and the rail line. He stated the council's decision is being reviewed by the Met Council and by the ¡ end of May, they are expecting its response. , Commissioner Kirchoff asked when the water treatment plant would be done. Mr. Bednarz stated he expected to be completed sometime this year. ADJOURNMENT. : Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion '- carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. r ----, . \ t -~ -