Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 9, 2002 o ,--) o u CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARDNW. ANDOVER, MiNNESOTA 55304 · (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 " " PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 9,2002 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on April 9, 2002, 7:03 p.m., atthe Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. " Commissioners present: Chairperson JaySquires, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, Douglas Falk, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, and Dean Daninger. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Community Development Director, Will Neumeister " Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Planning Intern, Jason Angell Utility Supervisor, Brian Kraabel Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Commissioner Greenwald stated he had a change on page five, regarding the motion. He stated it was four ayes and one nay. He stated he would like to make the change for record that he was the one nay. . Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, 7-present, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02-01) TO CREATE TWO RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR MATT AND TARA KUKER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16055 MAKAH STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a split into two 21i-acre" lots. This proposal was before them before and tabled because additional information was needed. That information has been provided. The lot was buildable to the City's o rurallot standards. He stated the driveway ofthe subject property would be on the NW o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 2 :~ corner of the site and would have access to County Road 7 and the house would be situated towards the north half of the property. He stated it does meet the minimum lot width; lot area requirement and no variances are involved. He stated staff was recommending approval on this matter. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the policy was on additional access to a County road. Mr. Bednarz stated sometimes with plated property, the County will request that access to the County roads not be provided for the whole plat or for a portion of it. In this case, the property can meet the cities requirements as far as the lot minimums for size and area. He stated they did check with the City Attorney about whether or not access to a lot that meets the cities requirements could be denied just because they would not want another access there, his opinion was no, if the lot can meet the cities requirements, access does need to be granted. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Matt Kuker stated this was his property they were asking to split and extended his appreciation to the Planning Commission and Staff for their work to get the lot split. o Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Chairman Squires stated a letter was received from some neighbors that oppose the lot split request. Commissioner Daninger asked the reason this property was delayed was because the applicant did not show the buildability of the property and he wanted to confirm this was the reason it took so long to get to this point. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and it had to be established where the lowest floor in the house could be in relation to the elevation of the wetland to ensure that the basement would not flood. Additional information was needed and had been provided. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he read the letter where the neighbors were against this. He asked Mr. Kuker if the pond was on his land. Mr. Kuker stated the south edge of the property is into the pond part way and towards the south end, it is all pond. He stated it only bordered two properties besides his. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that people who wrote the letter would have the opportunity to buy the property. Mr. Kuker stated that was true. Mr. Bednarz showed a map stating where the new lot would be located and where the opposed property owner's property was located. '0 o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 3 :~ Commissioner Hedin asked Mr. Bednarz in distance where the house on the north property sat in relation to the pond. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not certain regarding the exact distance from the property line. Commissioner Hedin stated he would like an X to mark where the house would be on the new property and asked if the neighbors could still see the pond. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map where the new house would be located on the site. Commissioner Kirchoff stated on Parcel A and Parcel B, according to the report, they were both 2 Y:z acres but looking at the engineering design, it showed 2.3 and 2.7 acres. Mr. Kuker stated that was the original drawing, but the City stated they would rather have two 2 Y:z acre lots. Mr. Bednarz stated the new proposal took the property line out to the south ofthe property so that both of the properties were 2 Y:z acres in size. He stated there was a simple error initially in the square footage and a notation on the plan was not changed to indicate that change, both lots are 2 Y:z acres in size. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the property lines would be straight. Mr. Bednarz stated that they would not be straight. ~) Commissioner Greenwald stated that as long as staff felt they met the conditions of the resolution, there would be no reason not to make a motion to approve this. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split request in the form of Resolution No. _. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 7, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN REVIEW TO CREATE 16 URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND COUNTY ROAD 20 (161sT A VENUE NW) FOR PENTA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. ~.J Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval of 16 proposed lots located at the southeast corner of Hanson Blvd and County Road 20. Staff had worked with property owners to the east to establish a scenario he is comfortable with. He stated they explored a through street that would eliminate the north cul-de-sac. The third scenario had four lots fronting on Crane Street. He stated they had looked at all the options they could identify for the property to the east and the applicant and the owner of the property to east are comfortable with the cul-de-sac design. He stated there might be some slight adjustments to that as they go through the sketch plan process for that property but it appears the development there could be accommodated. As regards to the property to the Regular Andover PlanQ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 4 1,\ U south; the only access to this property would be through the proposed sketch. Existing houses on the south end of the property, the County road intersection to the west and also existing development to the east eliminate other options. Extending the cul-de-sac to the south is the only feasible way to develop this property. Mr. Bednarz showed a map where the subject property was located. He stated the proposal would be to bring the extension of I 60th Avenue into the development and have a cul-de-sac on the north end, a temporary cul-de-sac on the south end and eventually this could continue to the south. He stated an outlot was proposed on the southwest corner of the plat that was intended to be preserved to add to a property to the south to aid the lot width of a future plot plan to the south. Mr. Bednarz stated that staff, in looking at what the dimensions of the lots could be, believe that it was possible to achieve an eight lot design on the south property without the outlot being necessary. He stated the outlot is not buildable and they do have a provision in Ordinance 10 that prohibits unbuildable lots that do not meet the minimum lot requirements from being created. He stated Staff was recommending the area from Outlot A be added specifically to Lot 10 which narrows through the area where a building pad would be located and possibly spreading the remainder of that through the narrow lots on the west side of the development. o Commissioner Kirchoff asked if he meant taking Outlot A and putting it with 10 or should it be 12. Mr. Bednarz stated Lot 10 needs the most additional width, Lot 12 is sufficiently wide to support a decent building pad, Lot 10 because it narrows, as you get deeper into the lot, may encounter come difficulty in a three-car garage scenario or some of the larger houses being built throughout the community. He stated they were recommending some additional width be provided from Outlot A to Lot 10 and some could be spread throughout the other lots as well. Commissioner Daninger asked what the length of the temporary cul-de-sac was going to the south. Mr. Bednarz stated he would need to check the number and it was in the staff report. Chairman Squires stated it was 870 feet and if it was all the way to the edge of the property line. Mr. Bednarz stated it was measured to the end of the future permanent cul- de-sac. Commissioner Hedin asked if it would require a variance on that cul-de-sac. Mr. Bednarz stated both cul-de-sacs, as proposed, would be longer than five hundred feet in length from that connecting street, so both cul-de-sacs would require a variance to that requirement. :~ Commissioner Hedin asked why the street was not put all the way through to the south so they did not have a variance on that. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not involved in the review of the Chesterton Commons North plat but one of the considerations was the o 0 Regular Andover Planmng and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 5 .~ ownership of the property and it was platted under different ownership through a different proposal. Unfortunately, at the time the proposed lots fronting on 1 59th Avenue were approved, the potential for access to 1 59th was eliminated. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there were houses along 159th. Mr. Bednarz stated he was correct. Commissioner Falk asked what the lot width was of Lot 10. Mr. Bednarz stated the lot width met the eighty-foot width requirement at the setback line. He stated staffs concern was the angle of the property reduces the width as they move further into the lot. He stated typically they would have a cul-de-sac lot where it would be pie shaped and would continue to get wider as it went back, this was the reverse of that where it gets more narrow and he thought when they take only one measurement at the setback line of eighty feet, that provision doesn't really consider this scenario. Commissioner Falk asked how much room would be left for the back of the house. Mr. Bednarz stated it was going to be tighter as they went farther back and that is why they were recommending it be widened with the area from Outlot A. <J Chairman Squires asked if the City Ordinances allow them to approve lots as part of a platting process that is unbuildable. Mr. Bednarz stated that it does not. Chairman Squires asked how they would handle Lots 9 and 10 as this request goes through the process and they do not know weather those lots would be buildable. Due to the amount of fill that would be necessary Mr. Bednarz stated the step that needed to be taken was the Watershed Management Organization review of the plat and to determine whether or not they would be able to fill as indicated on the sketch. That would come back with the detailed grating, drainage and erosion control plan and have an answer to this question at the preliminary plat stage. Commissioner Greenwald stated they were looking at the fact that they may need to cut the lots down and eliminate a lot or two to make that outlot. Commissioner Greenwald stated the configuration is what they were looking at. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct and they had put the applicant on notice as to what the steps would be to move the sketch forward as proposed with review by the Watershed Management Organization. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mike Quigley, representing Penta Development, stated moving I 60th to the north to eliminate 80 feet would not work because there were lots platted all along 1 60th right to the property line, with homes on them. '0 Commissioner Daninger asked about the area farther to the west. He wondered if the lot line could be curved to the north. Mr. Quigley stated they could not meet the radiuses of o Regular Andover PlanQ and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 6 '\ \.j the City's street requirements. Mr. Quigley stated in response to Outlot A, he received the staff report and they left the outlot there strictly to accommodate the development to the south. He stated information he received from staff stated they believed that could be accommodated with the removal of the Outlot And he stated they did not have any problems with that and he concurred with the recommendation to add that to Lot 10. Mr. Quigley stated in regards to the wetland fill areas on Lots 9 and 10, those two areas were not a natural wetland, those were manmade ponds. He stated they had preliminary discussions with the Watershed District and they did not anticipate any problems because they were not a natural wetland. o Mr. Alan Theise stated he was the property owner to the south. He stated when they bought the property they were told they would be able to sell it to a developer. He wanted to make sure their rights were intact and they would be able to sell the property to a developer, still have access to I 60th and still be able to get out. He stated they were concerned that they would not be able to sell their property because the County would not allow them access to Hanson. He stated this was the first time they had seen that plat and noted they had provided access to his property. He stated that was the reason they were there was to protect their rights. He stated they had lived on the property for eight years and he did see the owner dig this out farther, but there are wetlands in there with cattails. His concern was if that would be replaced somewhere else in the County. He wanted to know if there was a law that stated if a wetland was filled in, it had to be replaced somewhere else. Chairman Squires stated this law was administrated by the Coon Creek Watershed District and they make the decision as to whether State law requires the replacement or not. Commissioner Greenwald asked Mr. Bednarz where Mr. Theise lived. Mr. Bednarz used a map to show where they lived. Commissioner Gamache asked ifMr. Theise's driveway went out to Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Theise stated his driveway did go to the County Road. Commissioner Hedin asked if he was comfortable with the plans. Mr. Theise stated he was very comfortable that they would have access to get out, so they could sell their property and not lose value or be landlocked and not able to sell their property to a developer. Commissioner Falk stated he would not have access to Hanson; they would go right to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Theise stated this was correct. Motion by Falk, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. ~-) Commissioner Falk asked ifthere were any existing easements on the property. Mr. Bednarz stated there are easements or rights-of-way for Hanson Boulevard and County Regular Andover PlanQg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 7 / , \J Road 20. He stated they would be looking at additional right-of-way for County Road 20 and they would be establishing easements on each of the individual lots. Commissioner Greenwald asked what variances would they need to give. Mr. Bednarz stated they did look at this very closely to make sure the lots will meet the minimums if they say they would at this phase. Staffwas confident they would meet all the minimum width and area requirements and he did not see any additional variances for the lots. He stated they would not be recommending variances for lots if they did come up at the preliminary plat level. Therefore the only variances within the plat are for the length of the 2 cul-de-sacs. Chairman Squires stated they had approved longer cul-de-sacs in the past with the preliminary plat. He stated in the first instance, it becomes more difficult when there is development around the area and their alternatives are severely limited by the existing road network that had been established and the problem of the wetlands around them. He stated there were not a lot of alternatives to cul-de-sacs of some sort. , ') "--" Commissioner Daninger asked if they had ever requested a wider street for emergency vehicles. Mr. Bednarz stated Ordinance 10 provides the standards for streets as far as rights-of-way as well as the actual paved surface of the roadway and they are under different classifications from a local roadway to a collector street to an arterial street. For a local street they look for a sixty-foot wide right-of-way and a thirty-three foot street between curbs. He stated this provides for parking on both sides of the street and two travel lanes with plenty of width for an emergency vehicle to get in or out. The cul-de- sac with a 120 foot diameter right-of-way in approximately a ninety-three foot wide paved surface provides plenty of room for an emergency vehicle to turn around. Motion by Falk, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the sketch plan as prepared by staff. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Chairman Squires stated this is not a technical formal approval. Mr. Bednarz stated they would make sure to keep the adjacent property owners in the loop when they get to the preliminary plat stage. He stated that would be when they would have the detailed information and a good sense of how it would layout. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 7,2002 City Council meeting. , '\ \._) Regular Andover Plan~ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 8 ,,- ') '-..j PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS STUDY PREPARED TO EVALUATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT FOR VARIOUS PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF ANDOVER. Mr. Neumeister explained that the applicant was seeking approval of the neighborhood business study to evaluate the neighborhood business-zoning district for various properties throughout the City. He stated that at the last meeting there was discussion that there was a need to provide a buffer to the surrounding residential areas and one of the thoughts staff had was they needed to establish a land use category of limited commercial which would establish an office park to act as a buffer in certain areas. He stated along the same lines, there were some sites that seemed appropriate to designate with a dual land use designation. :J Mr. Neumeister stated the third item discussed was some places in the ordinance in limited business that they needed to make some changes to remove the words "service stations" and "24 hour continuous operations" as special uses in the limited business zoning districts. He stated the fourth item discussed had to do with sites that were currently zoned as neighborhood business district that already had service stations and they did not want to put them out of business or make them a non-conforming use. What they would suggest was that this become a special use permit in the neighborhood zoning district a minimum two-acre lot size. He stated the fifth item discussed various adjustments to the whole body of the report talking about land use and zoning recommendations. Chairman Squires stated since it was a public hearing they should run through the geographic location of the sites on the map and then summarize the recommendation on each of the sites. This would give everyone a sense of what is on the table. Mr. Neumeister stated site A-I, was 5.5 acres and site A-2 was 5.2 acres. He stated the recommendation of the study was the development of sites A-I and A-2 with commercial uses might present land use compatibility challenges based upon their physical characteristics, traffic generation, and surrounding land uses. He stated in order to address compatibility with the surrounding residential uses, the City may consider re- designating the sites for dual land use designations on a given piece of property. A medium density residential land use would serve to buffer the existing residential uses to the east from traffic on Hanson Boulevard and planned intensive commercial uses to the west as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan's stated objectives. ~J Mr. Neumeister stated that site B-1 was 1.6 acres and site B-2 was 1.4 acres. He stated the recommendation would be that the general location, utilities, and access for development of Sites B-1 and B-2 with neighborhood commercial uses had been planned for as part of the approval of the Grey Oaks subdivision. He stated no change to the Land Use map or Zoning Map designations for Sites B-1 and B-2 were recommended. Regular Andover PlanQg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 9 \ , ) Mr. Neumeister explained that site C-I was 2.8 Acres in size and the recommendation was the area surrounding Site C-l had developed with an urban single-family character. The introduction of a commercial use on this site could be incompatible within this area due to its existing character and lack of physical features to create a transition. Staff recommended that the Land Use Plan be amended to designate Site C-I for Urban Residential Medium Density Use to ensure full utilization of the site, provided that the site design provides proper orientation and transition to the adjacent single-family residences. Overall density should be near the lower end of range prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan for medium density uses and developed under the City's M-I Multiple Dwelling Low Density Zoning District to ensure compatibility. The site could be designated URL and allow the zoning to remain R-4. Mr. Neumeister stated site D-l was 5.2 Acres in size. He stated the development potential of Site D-l was severely limited due to the large wetland area adjacent to the property and design of streets serving the property. Development of a commercial use on the property was not recommended given the residential character of the area immediately to the west and access issues related to streets serving the property. ') ".J Mr. Neumeister stated the proximity of neighborhood commercial and general commercial uses limited the market for commercial use of Site D-I because of business interchange within a larger commercial node or business interception of patrons traveling on Bunker Lake Boulevard or north on Crosstown Boulevard. The City should amend the Land Use map to designate the property for Urban Residential Medium Density Land Uses and rezone the property to a M-2, Multiple Dwelling District. Mr. Neumeister stated that site E-I was 5.4 Acres in size. He stated that with planned extension of sanitary sewer and water service, Site E-l would be prime for development. Planned development of low and medium density residential land uses to the north and east of Site E-l would create market demand for Neighborhood Business uses intended to service the immediate area, as well as traffic going farther north on ih Avenue. Mr. Neumeister stated that site F-l was 7.0 acres in size. He stated there should be no change in land use designation or zoning district. Mr. Neumeister stated site G-l was .86 acres in size and the recommendation was a change to the zoning ordinance, to add language that would limit the Special Use of "service stations" in the Neighborhood Business district to only sites that were two acres or larger in size. There are a few existing service/fuel stations in the Neighborhood Business district that would be non-conforming if the special use were removed entirely from Neighborhood Business. The addition of the two-acre minimum would prevent site G-l from becoming a service/fuel station and still allow the existing ones to remain conforming. .'\ \~/ Commissioner Greenwald asked if the neighborhood commercial vs. neighborhood business ever mixed. Chairman Squires stated neighborhood commercial is the o Regular Andover PlanQ and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 10 r ''1 . J \...., Comprehensive Plan designation and the neighborhood business is the zoning map designation so they are in two different documents and they would never cross over. Commissioner Greenwald asked what could they put on Site B. Mr. Bednarz stated it was important to note the City owned this property and it has a significant amount of wetland on it. He stated any type of development there would be limited and would take a pretty extensive watershed review. Chairman Squires stated he did not see them putting anything on the site because he did not see any developable property. Mr. Bednarz stated the most they would see there would be some type of public utility structure. Commissioner Greenwald explained that the recommendation on this neighborhood business district site was to go from neighborhood commercial to urban residential. Mr. Neumeister stated that was correct. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they changed it to public, could this be a public park. Mr. Bednarz stated that it could be considered for that, because the lot was not considered developable. , ) \J Commissioner Greenwald asked about the economic development potential. Mr. Neumeister stated the land use guiding should not depend on economics. In this case, there is very little that can be done with the property. Mr. Neumeister stated there was a question brought up at a previous meeting about the surrounding communities and what commercial areas existed there. He stated they had prepared a map that showed a two-mile radius around Andover. Mr. Neumeister showed a map of the different commercial areas in Andover. Commissioner Hedin asked what category were industrial parks. Mr. Neumeister stated they did not show that on the map because it was its own designation. " I ,_,J Chairman Squires asked if item four in the staff summary suggested that the proposal was to amend the zoning ordinance to exclude service stations as special uses in the Neighborhood Business zone. He stated that when he looked at page eight of the report, it appeared the recommendation was to allow them in the Neighborhood Business zone as a conditional rather than a permitted use providing that they were two acres in size or larger. Mr. Neumeister stated that he was suggesting they still leave retail trade and services as a use under the permitted category, but take out service/fuel stations from the definition at least in that they highlight for this particular zoning district that they would not allow fuel/service stations because they cannot change the definition that is currently including them. So, if they took it out for all of them and then make it a special use, provided the site was two acres or larger, it would allow the City to fit existing uses Regular Andover PlanQ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page II " '\ \. / within the existing districts and not make them nonconforming. He stated this was the only logical way of doing what is needed. Chairman Squires stated they had a meeting with the City Council and came to a general consensus and the direction from the Council was they should be decreasing the intensity of neighborhood business areas that they have currently. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Dave Harris, Creekside Homes, stated he was there regarding the property that was located on 141 st and Crosstown. He stated the property was not 2.8 acres as written, it was 3.98 acres. He stated the lot width would be the portion that was the widest and the widest fronts on Crosstown. He stated the width should be five hundred feet plus, and the depth should be the narrow part going back from Crosstown. He stated those numbers did not work with the project. He stated he was proposing with the owner to build 32 townhomes. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the width or the depth changed. Mr. Harris stated that the width was a little wider and the depth was also a little wider if they reversed the two. He stated if would be about 173,000 square feet. '\ ,_.....' Chairman Squires stated the width and depth dimensions were pretty close and someone just made an error in computing the acreage. Mr. Harris stated he thought it was a little bigger than what was stated. Chairman Squires stated he did not think this would materially change the decision being made. Commissioner Greenwald asked Mr. Harris ifhe came to the public hearing to make that correction and to say that his plans fit with the plan change. Mr. Harris stated he had a purchase agreement with the property owner and identified his intention to build town homes on the site. He stated he had two neighborhood meetings and thought that nearly all of the people would like to see town homes in lieu of commercial on the property. He stated zoning it for single-family under R-4 would make it difficult because the lots would be in excess of $1 00,000 apiece to build and he did not think they would sell at that number. Mr. Bednarz stated that it was important to note in response to the neighborhood meeting, the majority would like to see residential versus commercial on the site but there was still work to be done. Secondly, to rezone the property to R-4 would be appropriate even in a scenario where they would entertain a townhouse development because of the process they have. To rezone the property to an M-I or M-2, which are the medium density districts, the City enters into a contract with the developer that specifies the specifics of the development. He stated they typically do not zone the property to M-l or M-2 until they have a development they are comfortable with and they can enter into a contract with the developer on how it would be developed. \ ) '-.......- () 0 Regular Andover Planmng and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 12 u Chairman Squires stated if they had the two options ofR-4 or M-I. and Mr. Harris was in the process of development there might be an opportunity to coordinate that. Mr. Bednarz stated they would have a public hearing for the rezoning as a separate item. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Daninger stated that from the workshop, one of the things they wanted to see was the chart and he agreed with staffs recommendation. He stated the consultant gave two recommendations and it appeared that they picked one. ' Commissioner Gamache asked if it was brought up that there might be other areas in the City that were not identified and they might want to look at. Mr. Neumeister stated he was referring to the rural business. He stated the consensus ofthe staff was that as those areas mature and develop, there could be a comprehensive plan amendment and then ultimately a rezoning to the proper category at that time. c~ Mr. Bednarz stated that when they look at the areas that are undeveloped now and potentially could have a commercial site in the future, it is a question of timing as to when those areas are identified. At this point, the staff position was that there was some pretty large undefined, undeveloped land and the transportation system and future improvements are a question as well as how roads would be brought to these areas. It is Staffs opinion that it is too early to put designations out there in an undefined rural area. The Chairman asked that staff bring back the land use and zoning changes for the May 14th Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE 8. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ADD OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORES AS A SPECIAL USE TO SECTION 7.03 OF ORDINANCE 8 AND ESTABLISH CRITERIA THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE NUMBER OF LIQUOR LICENSES ALLOWED IN THE CITY, THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO LOCATE IN, AND ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE MINIMUM SIZE AND VALUATION FOR THIS TYPE OF USE. Mr. Neumeister explained that the EDA discussed the issue of off-sale liquor licenses. Direction was given for the staff to prepare information for the Planning Commission to discuss establishing criteria for issuance of new off-sale liquor licenses. Mr. Neumeister stated there was some research done by the City Clerk that showed other cities and how they regulated it. He stated some cities regulate it by so many licenses per many thousands of residents. Other cities set up a radius restriction. He stated each city has a little different approach as to how they are handling this and it is not regulated. o Mr. Neumeister stated that the there were five criteria being proposed for the off-sale liquor license. The first criteria was a minimum size of a liquor store for a tenant space Regular Andover PlanQ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 13 u in a retail shopping center should be 3,000 square feet. The second criteria was a minimum size of a liquor store for a freestanding building should be 15,000 square feet. The third criteria was the minimum per square foot valuation of the shell and interior finished for either a tenant in a multi-tenant building or a free-standing building shall be no less that $57 per square foot. The fourth criteria was the architectural quality and materials for these buildings shall adhere to five standards. Mr. Neumeister read the standards and the fifth criteria was signs may not be attached to or painted on windows with the exception of open hours signage. Chairman Squires stated the number of licenses would be a change to Ordinance 235. He asked where the six came from. Mr. Neumeister stated it was basically some general conversation that the City had two liquor stores already and two more going in to the WDE site and the Andover Station site would still allow two more in the future. ~ Commissioner Greenwald stated there were a couple of statements he needed some clarification on from the EDA meeting. He stated Councilmember Orttel stated, "if the Planning Commission had a problem with this, they could have a deed restriction, this would not be an ordinance correction." He stated a response shortly after that was in regard to the dollar valuation of square foot minimum. He noted that the only city surveyed that had that was Chanhassen, which has so many liquor stores and super markets and he felt that was not a good comparison to Andover. He stated Mr. . Neumeister's statement was "City Attorney had indicated the cities by law were allowed a great deal of discretion on setting their liquor license including the dollar valuation or square foot minimum. He indicated that they should deal with existing ones by grand fathering them in but if the existing ones wanted to upgrade they would need to upgrade their current standards." He asked if an addition would cause a need to upgrade? Mr. Neumeister responded "Yes it would". Commissioner Greenwald stated that later on Councilmember Jacobson stated and he agreed with this "he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to really think this over and not just rely on the EDA's recommendation." Commissioner Greenwald stated he was not at this meeting and asked what the thinking was at that point. Mr. Neumeister stated recalled that the EDA wanted to know from the Planning Commission if this was the right tact to take, if they were or were not in agreement with setting a valuation, setting minimums, the numbers. And, they did not want their discussion to taint the Planning Commission's discussion. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would like to see a lot more into this before they make any specific changes in valuation, numbers or anything. o Chairman Squires asked what more he would like to see regarding this and if he would want more study. Commissioner Greenwald stated according to the EDA the only city that had a minimum valuation was Chanhassen and in his opinion, it was not a good comparison to Andover. Regular Andover PlannQ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 14 ()-- : Commissioner Greenwald asked the reason this was brought to the table. Commissioner Kirchoff stated there was not a limit to the number of liquor stores there could be in the City. Mr. Neumeister confirmed this. Commissioner Hedin stated that out of the three points, he had a problem with the first two. He stated they addressed any problems they had nicely. He stated he was against limiting the number of liquor stores in the City. He stated they should let the market decide how many Andover can support. Commissioner Gamache asked if they want to pigeonhole themselves into a number like six or seven. He noted that as the community grows, when they have six, the market may bear eight liquor stores fifteen years from now. Then they would be back trying to expand it again. Commissioner Hedin stated they were creating a monopoly for the two they already have and the one going into Andover Station. He stated they should not make any changes at this time. u Commissioner Daninger asked if they had any other specific business that they put those types of restrictions on, not the limit because he stated supply equals demand. He stated there were reasons to limit it so there would not potentially be a liquor store everywhere. He stated his question was if there are other specific retail stores they had done this to beside liquor stores. Mr. Neumeister stated there were none as far as he knew. Chairman Squires stated he did not see the rationale for imposing different building construction standards on liquor stores versus other businesses. He stated he did support the limit on the number of licenses for liquor stores. He stated it was very common for cities to impose limitations on the number to be able to control them. He stated that by having a number they avoid the situation of being unpleasantly surprised by what happens when there is no number. Commissioner Falk stated he agreed with that. He would like to see a number there to combat the problem and head it off as much as possible in the future. Commissioner Daninger asked how many. Chairman Squires stated they should start with six. Commissioner Hedin suggested they establish a license based on the population instead of a number. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought that made sense. He stated by doing it this way, it would not need to be looked at again in the future, the number would increase with the number in population. u Commissioner Greenwald stated they could also do this by a radius restriction, which would really restrict it. Commissioner Hedin stated that they could see a liquor store on u 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 15 ~J one corner and a specialty wine store on another corner. Commissioner Greenwald stated that was why he was against the minimum requirements. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the cost of a liquor license was per year. Mr. Neumeister stated the cost was $200.00 per year. Commissioner Daninger stated he wanted to make sure there was enough room for growth and allow for them to be able to reevaluate or adjust it in the future. Chairman Squires stated it was also important not to be surprised. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Daninger, that this should be based on the number of people. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was a limit or a size restriction on any other business. Mr. Bednarz stated that there was none specifically. He did not believe there was a specific standard for a minimum size for a commercial building. Chairman Squires asked if off-sale liquor was only allowed in the SC and GB zones now or was it a recommendation staff was making. Mr. Neumeister stated it was only a recommendation and there was no distinction between off-sale and on-sale in the ordinance. ~-) Chairman Squires proposed they adopt a standard that would grant one license per six thousand residents based on the most recent census, that they accept staff s recommendation to make off-sale establishments special uses in the SC and GB zones, but that they not go with the recommendation to have special valuation or architectural standards that apply only to liquor stores. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the most recent census meant every ten years. Chairman Squires stated he would change this to current population. Chairman Squires asked if there was a way to calculate the current population between that period. Mr. Bednarz stated there was. Commissioner Hedin stated he was still against the limit on the number. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was against this also. Commissioner Hedin stated he was against the number, either population or strict number, and was also against limiting it just to the SC and GB zones. He stated the Council had a lot of power through the special use permit to determine weather they want the liquor stores or not. Commissioner Hedin asked why they needed to put a limit on the number when the City Attorney stated that there was not a problem if they had one more. Chairman Squires stated they could rely on the opinion of the City Attorney but it was not a legal opinion, it was the opinion of one person. ~) C) C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 16 ; \ () Commissioner Gamache stated that if they do not limit it, they couldn't turn down a liquor license for no reason. Commissioner Hedin stated that through the special use permit process, they would not get ten applications at one time. If they would get up to five or six, then they could revisit this ifthey felt there was a need for more in the City. Commissioner Falk asked why not do this now instead of coming to that point. Commissioner Hedin asked why the City should limit it to five or six places now if someone has a good place to put one in the future. Commissioner Gamache stated they could always change that number later, but if they do not have that number now, they open themselves up to a liquor store on every comer. The City Council does not have grounds to deny the special use permit just because they feel they have too many liquor stores in the City already; that is not grounds to deny the permit. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they were allowed to do a municipal liquor license in the City at this time. Mr. Neumeister stated there was some discussion regarding this but he did not recall what that was. Commissioner Hedin stated he believed that if they had a municipal liquor store, the City would have to outlaw all other liquor stores. :~ ) Chairman Squires stated he would like staff to propose architectural standards that uniformly apply to all businesses. Mr. Neumeister stated that they could do that and they already have it, but it is worded in the negative way. Commissioner Hedin asked if they already had this, why would they need a duplicate copy in that part ofthe ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated they have it in the purpose statement of visual standards 8.20. Commissioner Hedin stated this did not only apply to liquor stores, this applied to all businesses. Chairman Squires stated his proposal again. Commissioner Falk asked where Chairman Squires came up with the number of 6,000. Chairman Squires stated it is between the Blaine and Ham Lake numbers. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would rather see fifty citizen fighting a special use permit for another liquor store because a citizen has a voice and they are taking the voice away. He stated that is not right and is why he did not think there should be a limit at all on the number based upon residence. Chairman Squires asked how many commissioners supported the proposal, four agreed, three disagreed. Commissioner Daninger stated this discussion should give guidance to the City Council to explore ideas and the Commission has done its job. /.) o (J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 9, 2002 Page 17 r' , .I OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned the variance for the front yard setback for Kurt Dahlman. There was a question about whether the building code or the zoning ordinance regulated the expansion of that structure. He stated staff took the position that it was the building code. He stated he needed to correct that statement, the section that would limit that expansion comes from the zoning ordinance and is a section that limits structural alterations. Chairman Squires stated that there was not anything in the building code. Mr. Bednarz stated they still need a building permit but the building code specifically would not prohibit that, it is the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if they were able to move forward with that and make the addition. Mr. Bednarz stated they were still working out the details with the County about the vacation of the easement. He stated they had not heard the final word from the County Board on that issue, but it looked positive. Mr. Neumeister stated they would not have a meeting on the April 23, 2002 because they did not have any other business on the agenda. " \ ) ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ,. -', '. ) --'