Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP August 12, 1999 LA r y C!.\Vt-"' '1 / {'1<¡ .- CITY of ANDOVER Special City Council Meeting Thursday, August 12, 1999 Conference Room A Call to Order -7:00 PM 1. Review Proposed Zoning Ordinance (Draft) with Zoning Ordinance Review Task Force 2. Other Business 3. Adjourn ~ . -, . ._-~ -.-- -_.. vI! r rc.GY '('Ne¡ -- CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING -AUGUST 12,1999 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jack McKelvey on August 12, 1999,7:02 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Julie Johnson, Mike Knight, Ken Orttel Councilmember absent: Don Jacobson Also present: City Building Official, Dave Almgren Building Inspector, Don Olson Planner, Jeff Johnson Planner, John Hinzman Planning Intern, Megan Barnett Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Doug Falk, Mark Hedin Zoning Ordinance Task Force Member, Richard Erickson Residents Charlie Veiman and Bill Hupp REVIEW PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE (DRAFT) WITH ZONING ORDNANCE REVIEW TASK FORCE Mr. Johnson reviewed the process used to revise the Zoning Ordinance which included the involvement of the community, analyzing the concerns of the current ordinance, agreeing on the scope of the changes and obtaining input from the City Council before going to a public hearing. About 95 percent of the proposed language is ITom the current ordinance. Staff is still reviewing the draft to be sure it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Council mark their copies for grammatical errors and submit them to Staff. Those present then reviewed the proposed draft Zoning Ordinance on a page-by-page basis: Page 2, Item H, Sentence "Ensure that service demands of new developments will not exceed the capacities of existing streets, utilities or public services.": Councilmember Orttel felt if this item were strictly interpreted as written, it would end any further development in the City. . He understood it is meant in the broad sense; however, how would the City respond if someone challenged a development based on the statement as written. After some discussion, it was suggested the sentence be modified to "...new development will take into account the capacity of existing streets..." or "...consider the service demands of new developments relative to the system's capacity." Staff agreed to rewrite the item. .- Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 1999 Page 2 (Review Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Continued) Page 6, 10-070.0 Designation of Zoning Districts, A, Residential Districts: The Council discussed the issue of the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts and what the implications would be ifthose areas were rezoned to R-I. Mr. Carlberg stated the main problem may be with the uses allowed in the R-I, mainly agricultural or related to animals. Mr. Almgren noted the R-2 zone requires a larger house size. Mr. Hinzman stated another issue is two areas that are developed to the R-3 standards but are zoned R-I. He wondered if those areas, south of 161st Avenue west of Swallow and the South Enchanted Drive area, should be rezoned to R-3 rather than grant variances as use requests come forward. Councilmember Orttel felt it makes sense to have an acreage requirement for those types of uses allowed in the rural area and rezone everything to the R-I zone, but he didn't know if the size of home would be a problem. Mr. Almgren didn't think that would be much ofa problem. There isn't much left in the R-2 area to build on. Mr. Carlberg felt the biggest issue may be with setbacks, as there may be a lot of nonconformity on those lots. He stated Staff will explore the option further of a blanket rezoning to R- I in the ruraJ area. Councilmember Orttel suggested a change may be to the R- I zone with an asterisk * to allow administrative approvals of setback issues that would be affected by the zoning. Page 13, Dog Kennel, Commercial: It was pointed out there is no definition for private dog kennel. Mr. Johnson stated it was removed in the draft ordinance. A commercial kennel license is allowed in the R-I zone by Conditional Use Permit; but a private kennel license, also allowed in the R-I zone, will go directly to the Council. He didn't see a problem adding a definition for private kennel license and stated Staff will look at it again. There was some discussion on the number of dogs that would be allowed in a private kennel. The current ordinance sets a maximum of six. Mr. Johnson stated most communities do not set a maximum but evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Knight wondered what is the difference between 20 dogs allowed by a commercial license and 20 dogs allowed under a private kennel license. Councilmember Orttel felt the limit for private kennels had to do the large dogs, not the little ones. Possibly up to six dogs in a private kennel should be allowed administratively, and anything over that would need a Conditional Use Permit. Staff stated they will add a definition for private kennels and will look again at the number of dogs that would be allowed. Page 18, Manufactured Home: There was some question as to whether or not this item should be included in the definitions of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson was asked to contact the City Attorney about the legality of eliminating it. On the other hand, it was pointed out it would not be desirable to have someone come in with a definition if the City does not have one. Mr. Almgren suggested using the definition from the building code. Page 25, Therapeutic Massage: Mr. Johnson stated that item will be redefined because of the recent change to allow them by Conditional Use Permit in residential areas. - .- · .. Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 1999 Page 3 (Review Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Continued) Page 28, Article II, Base District Regulations: Mr. Johnson noted that the setback requirements stayed the same as the current ordinance. Mr. Carlberg suggested the Council discuss the multi- family issue. Town homes have been removed from the R-4 district as a special use, but the Comprehensive Plan did not add any new M- I or M-2 districts. Multiples can be developed in the R-4 zone by Planned Unit Development, which may defeat the purpose of the zone; so the Council may want to look at that issue. Councilmember Orttel stated increased density can occur by blending multiples with single family developments or designate some areas for higher densities such as apartments. The City must determine which standard it will take, as it is getting pressure from developers for increased density. The policy has been that higher density housing in Andover is not practical because of transportation, law enforcement and crowded school issues. Mr. Hinzman stated the preliminary comments from the Metropolitan Council staff on Andover's Comprehensive Plan is to increase density in new developments in the urban area to three units per acre. Currently R- I developments average 2. I to 2.2 units per acre. Increasing the density could mean mixing four- to six-unit multiples with single family developments. The second issue is the I for 10 or 4 for 40 density in the rural area to preserve open space for future extension of utilities. The Metropolitan Council Staff are saying any new rural development would have to be on a I for 10 basis. Within the Comprehensive Plan, the platting of large lot acres within the 2020 MUSA would be prohibited to preserve that area for the extension of services. The other question is how big does the City want to get. Will there be a demand for more land beyond the 2020 MUSA and will the Council want to serve that zone up to the 2040 line? Should the land between the 2020 and 2040 MUSA line be preserved to bring urban services there? Even though there is a lot of peat in the rural area, the question is how deep is it and how valuable will it become in the future that it becomes cost effective to develop regardless of the peat. Commissioner Apel pointed out it is also a property rights issue not to allow development of a person's land for 20 to 40 years. The residents like the open spaces and probably would support leaving the rural area rural. Councilmember Orttel stated it is not possible to predict the social change between now and 2040. There has been a large movement toward more dense living. However, that development in turn impacts the existing residents in traffic, schools, crime, etc. Councilmember Knight felt the present homeowners in the City should be considered. The feedback he gets from the residents is that they do not want to see the City developed to that extent. Discussion continued on the traffic issues. No decision was made on multiples or urban development beyond 2020. Page 32, Table 20-040-01, Minimum Residential District Requirements: It was noted the table needs to be rotated and renumbered. Page 39, 35-030.0 Decks and Porches: Mr. Almgren suggested the paragraph be rewritten to delete porches because they are part of the residential structure. The paragraph should apply to decks only. A<_,_. ·~ .- Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes-August 12,1999 Page 4 (Review Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Continued) Page 40, first paragraph: Mr. Almgren stated the top paragraph needs to be reworded regarding cantilevers in the rear yard. Cantilevers have been allowed to encroach into the drainage utility easement because they don't take away any area from the 100-year flood. After some discussion, it was agreed the sentence should specifY "city utility easements", as it is not intended to apply to private utility easements such as power and gas. Page 41, 35-090.0 Fences and Wells: Mr. Almgren didn't think the provision covers the issue of fencing on corner lots. He suggested the side yard fencing on a corner lot where the side yard becomes the front yard of an adjacent lot be allowed six feet high until the 35-foot front-yard setback of the adjacent lot. From that point to the street it would drop down to four feet high, which is the minimum height permitted in the front yard setback. Otherwise it is not fair to the adjacent homeowner to have to look at the six-foot high fence in the front yard. There was a lengthy discussion on sight lines and scenarios of corner lots and the effect of Mr. Almgren's proposal on them. There was general agreement to include that fencing provision on corner lots. Page 42, 35-100.0 Land Reclamation: Councilmember Orttel understood the paragraph allows properties to be filled, and he felt it means in conjunction with the platting process. He also wasn't sure if this has to do with landscaping, which is not land reclamation. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will clarifY that paragraph. Page 43, 35-110.0 Mining: Mr. Johnson stated nothing has changed in this provision of the ordinance. Mr. Carlberg felt some clarification may be needed of final plats. Page 43, 35-130.0 Gasoline Service Stations: Discussion noted the difference between a gasoline service station and a repair garage is not clearly defined. It was felt repair garages would be for more intense vehicular repairs. Staff agreed to look at the definitions and clarifY the differences. Page 45, Paragraph 2, Home Occupations located in an accessory structure and/or requiring exterior storage: Councilmember Orttel questioned if only cabinet making, woodworking and repair services are allowed in accessory structures. He felt that section was confusing. Mr. Carlberg stated those uses plus similar ones that are conducted in an accessory structure are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. It may not be necessary to list items a-c. Mr. Johnson thought they were included in the ordinance because of the problems at one time with automobile repair home occupations. Mr. Carlberg stated there may be better language for this section. Staff will look at it again. Page 49, paragraph relating to parking or storage of vehicles on R-I, R-2 and R-3 residential zones: Several people questioned the proposed code of allowing only up to two vehicles to be parked off the driveway or on the lawn/grass in these zones. While it was understood common sense should prevail when more vehicles would be parked on the lawn because of family reunions, etc., it was also argued that such instances would technically violate the ordinance and could be subject to a warning or fine. Because this generally is not a problem in the rural areas and because the provision is to protect the neighbors, it was suggested the phrase "in view of the neighbors" be added. . .- ....-. - Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 1999 Page 5 (Review Draft oj Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Continued) Page 49, Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 relating to the parking of boats, trailers, campers and recreational vehicles: Commissioner Dalien felt the three paragraphs are very confusing. Mr. Johnson stated those paragraphs apply to all residential districts. Most of the complaints come from the R -4 urban area and most problems are handled on a complaint basis. Council discussion was possibly there should be some room for differences between the residential zones, as the ruraJ areas tend to be more accepting of the outdoor storage of these vehicles. Mr. Carlberg stated they will research other communities and look at allowing differences between the urban and rural areas. Page 53, Article IV Signs: Councilmember Orttel noticed there seem to be more offensive temporary signs around the City. Mr. Carlberg stated Code Enforcement has been cracking down on the temporary signs to be sure they are permitted and are kept out of the right of way. Page 63, Article V, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations: It was noted the section should be clarified that it relates to commercial areas. Page 74, Article VI, Landscaping Requirements: Councilmember Johnson received a complaint from a resident whose neighbor has not yet seeded or sodded the back yard. The ordinance requires homeowners to provide a lawn within one year of moving into the house; however, apparently this homeowner moved in before the ordinance was approved and does not have to meet that provision because there is no retroactive clause. Mr. Carlberg stated he will check with legal counsel as to whether or not a retroactive clause can be added to this provision of the ordinance. They do get very few complaints on this. Also, Article VI relates to commercial landscaping. Page 90, 60-040.0 Variances: Councilmember Orttel questioned going through the public hearing process for variances. Mr. Johnson stated Staff feels it is crucial that the public be informed. Without a public hearing, the neighbors do not receive notification even if the variance has a direct affect on them. Several Planning and Zoning Commissioners stated they liked the idea of the public hearings. The public is notified and can comment. People have often complained that they were not notified of these things. No change was recommended. Discussion was also on the new signs that are posted on properties involved in a public hearing. It was questioned if those signs should be posted for simple items such as a vacation of easement that does not generally affect the public at large. When those signs go up, the Council is getting calls but does not have any information yet. Mr. Hinzman stated rather than being arbitrary in detennining when the signs should or should not be posted, he is posting signs whenever a public hearing is to be held. He will send the Council draft copies of the Agenda so they are aware of the proposal on those properties. Mr. Carlberg stated they are looking to change the language of the signs to indicate what is being proposed, which should clarifY some of the confusion. There were no further comments on the draft Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated Staff will redraft the ordinance with the proposed changes for Council review, then schedule a public hearing. He anticipated the public hearing will be scheduled for late September or October. - .~ A._'_o ,---- -- .- Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - August 12, 1999 Page 6 PRELIMINARY PLAN OF THE AREA BEING DEVELOPED BY 1/6 LLC, ANDOVER STATION Mr. Carlberg presented a concept of a development proposed by I 16 LLC in the area of Andover Theater in Andover Station. The development consists of a steak house restaurant, a sports bar with arcade, a 17,000 square-foot banquet hall with court yard and an office warehouse area consisting of I 0 buildings with interior employee parking and trunk delivery. Staff will be encouraging more green space and pedestrian trails. The next step is to determine what the buildings will look like and tie it into what will be done to the west by Ryan Company. The Council generally agreed with the concept presented. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Johnson, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I -Absent (Jacobson) vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~:L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary - .- ~. "." - .-- -._- ---- .~-