Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP February 9, 1983 - 01 ANDOVER ~ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 9, 1983 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on February 9, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW for the purpose of interviewing applicants for appointment to the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission and the Andover Park and Recreation Commission plus meeting with the Planning Commission and consultant to discuss minimum lot sizes in the City. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson, d'Arcy Bosell and City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist INTERVIEWS The following persons were scheduled for interviews commencing at 7:30 p.m. and allowing 15 minutes per interview: 1. Larry Brewer, P & Z 2. Chet Conger, P & Z 3. L. Arlan Knutson, P & Z or Park Board 4. Richard Schreiner, P & Z or Park Board 5. Robert Harris, Park Board Larry Brewer did not appear for the interview. The Clerk reported Robert Harris called saying he would not be able to appear for the interview due to illness. Mr. Conger, Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Schreiner were interviewed by the Council and Chairman Bosell, asking questions of their familiarity with the ordinances, the major concerns they see in the City, their feelings toward the Metropolitan Council, how they would handle a Council rejection of a project they had worked on, their ability to attend meetings and do on-site inspections if necessary, and whether or not there is anything that would create a conflict of interest situation. Discussion was then on the qualifications of the applicants, with the general consensus being all three applicants interviewed were good candidates for the Planning Commission. It was agreed that two be appointed to the P & Z Commission, with the third made an alternate in the event there is an opening on the Commission within the year. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Lachinski, to nominate Mr. Knutson to the P & Z for a term expiring 12/31/85. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we appoint Richard Schreiner to a three- year term on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we appoint Chet Conger as an alternate for the first available opening to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the year 1983. Motion carried unanimously. It was suggested that Mr. Conger be asked to attend several P & Z meetings to be familiar with the procedures and issues in the event he would be appointed to the Commission sometime during the year. It was also agreed the Park Board interview should be rescheduled. Recess at 8:41; reconvene at g:OO p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/LOT SIZE DISCUSSION Planning and Zoning Commissioners present: Chairman d'Arcy Bosell, Maynard Apel, Margaret Perry, Glen Rogers, and Don Spotts Also present: Bob Short, Barton~Aschman, Consulting Firm. Special City Council Meeting February 9, 1983 - Minutes Page 2 (Joint Meeting with the P & l/Lot Size Discussion, Continued) Chairman Bosell reported at their meeting the previous evening the Commission generally agreed the City should be divided into two districts -- the urban lot size relating to single and multiples, and the rural area with the minimum lot size remaining at 2~ acres. They also generally agreed to reduce the minimum lot size in the urban area for single family residential areas to 85x135 feet, which amounts to 11,475 square feet minimum per lot. When platting property, the suggestion was to leave the lot at 85 feet width on the corner but require the setbacks of both the front and side yard to be equal, which gives the developer more of an opportunity to determine the lot size. Chairman Bosell went on to say they also talked about allowing two-family homes in the urban area by special use only because it allows for the opportunity to require controls and offers the neighborhood an opportunity to provide input. The suggestion was the lot size for two-family homes be at least l~ times that of a single family lot, which means a minimum of 17,000 square feet, a minimum width of 130 feet. There was then a lengthy discussion between the Council, Commission members, and the consultant on the Planning Commission suggestions. It was stated that reducing the minimum depth requirement on the lot really doesn't reduce the cost of development to the developer. Those costs are saved by reducing the width of a lot to reduce the cost of the street and utility improvements. It was also argued that with the smaller lot sizes, people may prefer larger back yards for activities and have a narrower width, rather than a wider width and shorter back yard. It was also suggested that possibly that density factor should be looked at and that an average frontage should be met in that development, though that was discarded because of the large amount of unusable land in the City. Those present reviewed the minimum lot sizes of surrounding cities and the type of homes that could be constructed on lots with widths of 70, 75, 80, and 85 feet. The affect of the street right-of-way width through development was also discussed, with some questioning whether 60 feet is really necessary if the utilities are put in as the plat is developed. Others felt it is necessary for future maintenance. There was some concern that with the narrower lot width, access to the rear yard is reduced or eliminated and that with smaller lot sizes and smaller houses, outside storage and storage buildings would increase. The concern was also not to lower the minimum lot size such that in a few years the area begins to look rundown. It was noted that the reduction in lot size being talked about is about 6 to 10 percent of the cost of a lot. Some housing costs can be lowered by reducing the quality of the construction of the house, but the greatest cost factor in the housing market is that of financing. Mayor Windschitl stated increasing the density factor in the City's urban area would have no appreciable affect on the City's sanitary sewer capacities. Discussion was also on whether the City wants the density to increase, with the statement being the reduction proposed amounts to only 6 to 10 percent, which was not felt is a large change. The existing minimum standards have been in effect since 1971, and it was generally felt the minimum house size should not be changed. After further discussion on various proposals for minimum square footages, lot widths and lot depths, it was agreed that minimum standards be established and allow the developer some flexibility in developing a subdivision as long as the minimums are met. The various configurations of lot sizes were determined to meet a minimum square footage of 11,400 square feet. Discussion was also on a minimum lot width and the sideyard setback for corner lots. It was generally agreed that parkland would not be included when determining the density factor -- only what is actually included in the lot area and streets. There was a general consensus for the following minimum standards for single-family lots in the urban area: Special City Council Meeting February 9, 1983 - Minutes Page 3 (Joint Meeting with the P & Z/Lot Size Discussion, Continued) Minimum square footage: 11,400 square feet (The square footage of each lot divided by the number of lots would have to average 11,400SF) Minimum width: 80 feet Minimum depth: 130 feet The existing provision that no lot can be larger than twice the average lot size would be eliminated. Some combinations of lot dimensions to meet the 11,400 SF minimum would be 80x142.5 feet, 35x134 feet, 87.7x130 feet or anything in between. This would apply to new developments. It was felt that a provision should be written that any subdivision, lot split or rep1atting of existing developments would be required to meet the standards of the original development or to meet the average size of the existing lots. It was also agreed the corner lot width requirement should be a minimum of 90 feet with a 20- foot side-yard setback and a 30-foot front setback. Also, two-family lots would be required to be 150 percent of a single-family minimum size and dimensions and such lots would be allowed only in new plats. There was then some discussion about rezoning the City into two residential districts -- urban at the minimum standards just agreed to and rural at 2~ acre minimum -- and the problems that occur with doing so. One suggestion was to use a minimum lot size or acreage for such uses as dog kennels, etc., to avoid such uses on the smaller lots in the rural area. It was suggested the Planning Commission and Mr. Short address that question further. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \1~~Q<~?L ar e11a A. Peach Recordjng Secretary.