Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 12, 2001 u Q () o o CITY of ANDOVER ~ .CLQ) ~ lel~(pI()1 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 12,2001 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on June 12,2001, 7:02 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Douglas Falk, Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, Dean Daninger, and Rex Greenwald. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Commissioner Larry Dalien. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Planning Intern, Jason Angell Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 22, 2001 Motion by Fa1k, seconded by Hedin, the Minutes be approved as presented. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Dalien) vote. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): SPECIAL USE PERMIT (01-04) - TO ALLOW A 12,000 GALLON ABOVE GROUND PROPANE TANK AT THE ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SITE LOCATED AT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD -ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. City Planner Courtney Bednarz stated that a letter was received since the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that addresses the concerns and questions of the Commissioners. The letter states that the propane air system is being installed to get a better natural gas rate from the gas company. Tim Steigauf, Project Manager stated that all components of the system are solid state and are not sensitive to any radio u U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 '\ Page 2 J frequencies thus it is not suspect to any malfunctions due to the radio systems used by the highway department or the Sheriffs patrol station. He mentioned that when operating this vaporizer it will make some noise but it will not be a continuous noise. He stated that it's roughly the equivalent of someone clanging cymbals together, or yelling at the top of their voice once every minute. At 300 feet away from the system it would be audible if you were standing outside, however this system will only run on the coldest days of the winter when outside activity is limited and windows are closed. Mr. Steigauf explained that the tank is sized to handle the building for five continuous days of operation and on an average, the system will only run about 10 days per year. The tank will need to be filled every fall and then as needed throughout the winter, on average the tank will be filled about three times per year thus additional traffic as a result from this system will be negligible. Commissioner Falk questioned if the applicant has been to the Reliant Energy/Minnegasco site on 7th Avenue and Bunker Lake Blvd. He questioned ifthis facility would be as noisy as the facility on 7th A venue. \ Tim Steigauf, Project Manager, stated that it would be no where near that level of noise. ) He mentioned that other facilities around the metro area are within a 100 feet from a residential area and there have been no complaints. Mr. Steigauf stated that the system would only run about 10 days per year. He mentioned that the noise would be taking place during the coldest days of the winter. Commissioner Hedin questioned ifhe is saying that the noise would take place on the coldest days of the winter when people are typically inside. Mr. Steigaufstated that that is correct. Commissioner Daninger explained that his radio concerns were more that if the tank blew up how far from the facility would be affected. He questioned if the Sheriffs Department and the radio tower would be damaged. Mr. Steigauf stated that anything is possible, however it has been engineered based on National Safety Standards in addition to going through Underwriter Laboratories. Commissioner Daninger stated that it is just a concern. Commissioner Daninger stated that he is more comfortable with request now that Chief Winkel has reviewed it. \ / There was no further public input. u u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-June 12,2001 \1 Page 3 ./ Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7: 10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Dalien) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he wouldn't be voting on the issue since he works for Anoka County. Chair Squires stated that he wouldn't be voting on the issue since he lives across the street from the site. Commissioner Daninger explained that he plans to vote favorably for the request now that his questions and concerns have been answered. Commissioner Greenwald agreed with Commissioner Daninger. \ ) Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to recommend approval to the City Council of Resolution No. _, granting the Special Use Permit request of Anoka County Highway Department to install a 12,000 gallon above ground propane tank in accordance with Ordinance No.8, Section 4.26 on the property located at 1440 Bunker Lake Boulevard. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 2-abstain (Squires and Kirchoff), I-absent (Dalien) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be considered at the July 3, 2001 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN (01-05) - TO REVIEW SKETCH PLAN FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 732 140TH LANE NW TO CREATE 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS - KEVIN TRAMM. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to review a residential sketch plan for the property located at 732 l40tli Lane NW. He stated that the sketch plan contains three residential lots. He stated that the property is zoned Single Family Rural (R-l) and will need to be rezoned to Single Family Urban (R-4) to allow the property to be subdivided as proposed. The Developer, Kim Tramm mentioned that an existing house is located on the west half of the subject property, and sanitary sewer connections exist for all three properties with the subject property being approximately 1.5 acres in size. He went on to present the sketch plan to the Commission. '\ '- ) Commissioner Falk questioned if the existing house is currently hooked up to City services. Mr. Tramm stated that right now it has its own well, however we would hook them up to City services in conjunction with this project. U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 ) Page 4 u Commissioner Greenwald questioned ifthey plan to work around the trees that already exist. Mr. Tramm stated that they plan to keep as many trees as possible, the only time they would have to remove them is if they were on the building site. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this would be rezoned from R-I to R-4. Mr. Bednarz explained that at the time of preliminary plat there would be an application for rezonmg. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what the surrounding properties are zoned. Mr. Bednarz explained that the area is surrounded by R-4 developments. Chair Squires stated that since everything surrounding the area is R-4, we kind of new this would end up being rezoned to R -4 as well. Chair Squires questioned if each property would have their own driveway. Mr. Tramm stated that there will be a driveway for each property. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the existing house is far enough away from the sideyard setback. Mr. Tramm stated that they did measure the distance and found that . ) there is more than enough room with a lO-foot setback. Chair Squires stated that typically there isn't a formal motion on a sketch plan review. He questioned if anyone on the Commission was opposed to the proposal. The Commission was favorable. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (01-01) - TO REVIEW AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 214 TREE PRESERVATION. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being requested to review the City's tree preservation requirements. He stated that this is a continuation of the discussion held at the May 22, 2001 Special Joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting. He stated that several objectives were discussed at the meeting. He mentioned that the purpose of this discussion is to determine how the existing tree preservation ordinance can be modified to meet these objectives and to recommend a course of action to the City Council. . \ " / Mr. Bednarz stated that the objectives are to protect trees on development sites to prevent clear cutting, keep the ordinance easy to understand and enforce, not to impose onerous regulations on property owners, and to encourage tree planting on residential properties. He stated that significant efforts have been made in Andover to develop The Tree Preservation Policy which exists today. He stated that this policy requires a \ , ,_ J U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 Page 5 u developer to submit a tree protection plan indicating areas that will be protected from development activity. Specific tree preservation activities such as the installation of fencing and signs are required to identify tree protection areas. Two trees must be replaced for every tree within the tree protection area that is damaged. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the existing tree preservation policy that is currently in practice. He went on to review the new tree requirements, for instance the City has explored requiring new trees be planted on each lot in a new residential development. He stated that a one tree per lot requirement was adopted in 1995 and repealed later that year. He stated that at that time the homeowner preferences and the general practice of the homeowners planting their own trees were cited as reasons why the ordinance was unnecessary. This topic was revisited at the May 22nd special meeting. Requiring new trees to be planted on each lot was considered to be a component of overall tree preservation due to the fact that some existing trees are inevitably lost during grading and construction. It was mentioned that the majority of cities in the metropolitan area require between one and five trees to be planted by the developer on new residential lots. , Chair Squires questioned if the only change staff is recommending to the existing Tree Preservation Ordinance are that two trees be planted on each lot. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. , / Commissioner Greenwald stated that two trees would be adequate, however he would prefer even more than two. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he has a bias towards trees. He mentioned that he likes the idea of having trees on the lots. Commissioner Falk stated that he would prefer there are trees too. He questioned if the homeowner would have a say in where the trees are planted. Mr. Bednarz stated that if this is something the Commission would like to include then that would be fme. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned how close to the street can trees be planted. Chair Squires stated that there are trees that grow 6 feet tall and there are others that grow much taller. He questioned what would be acceptable to the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated that many cities have an approved tree list, which is something a forester could put together. , Chair Squires stated that he would prefer there is a list. " J u C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 '. Page 6 / Commissioner Greenwald stated that there needs to be something in the ordinance in order to have some continuity in a neighborhood. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he has a photograph of a 40-year old neighborhood with trees and one without. He stated that the difference is amazing. Commissioner Greenwald suggested there be some guidelines in terms oflocation ofthe trees as well. He suggested there be a guideline that the trees need to be so many feet from the boulevard. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that the only problem with this is that it could interfere with someone's irrigation or landscaping plans. Chair Squires stated that if a tree were planted in the beginning when the house is built, it shouldn't even be an issue that in 5 years they may want to move it. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested that the people have options so they plant the trees where they want them. He suggested there be a guideline of having one tree in the front yard. , I Chair Squires stated that one option is to have the forester approve a list of trees, in addition to approving the location of the tree. Commissioner Hedin opposed. He stated that the homeowner should be able to plant the tree wherever they want. Commissioner Falk stated that the homeowner should have a say on where the tree is planted even though they weren't the original buyers of the lot. Commissioner Hedin stated that no one should dictate where a tree should be planted other than a general requirement that it be located in the front yard. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he would also support it if there were a general requirement that a tree be planted in the front yard. Commissioner Daninger stated that it needs to be simple for the homeowners. He stated that providing a list of approved trees would be fme, in addition to giving a general location requirement. Chair Squires questioned if the Commission agrees that there should be a general location requirement. Commissioner Hedin suggested the requirement be one tree for every 40 or 50 feet of boulevard. , '\ Chair Squires questioned if the Commission agreed that the number of trees in the front yard should be based on the width of the lot. The Commission agreed. " /' o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 \ Page .7 / l) Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he would support one tree and encouraging homeowners to plant as many trees as they choose. He questioned if the homeowner has permission to cut down the trees. Commissioner Daninger stated that the City shouldn't be too restrictive on telling the homeowners what to do, because there wouldn't be anything stopping them from letting the tree die. Commissioner Greenwald stated that the City has made many changes over the years, therefore it isn't a huge requirement to require a tree for every 40 feet of boulevard. Chair Squires suggested adding language to the ordinance to require 2 front yard trees, "or I tree per 40 feet ofIot width at the boulevard in the front yard, whichever is greater". Also he suggested adding the following language after the word developer in the 3'd paragraph of Section 13, "if the minimum number of trees prescribed by this Section are preserved in the front yard ofthe property and the trees meet the requirements listed above". Finally, he suggested adding the following language after the word shall in the I st paragraph, last sentence of Section 13, "be on the list approved " by the City". / Commissioner Hedin mentioned concerns about the developer having to get a separate bond for trees when it costs them $50 to get the bond. Mr. Bednarz stated that the developer has the option of submitting a separate bond. It is not a requirement. Commissioner Hedin questioned if most cities have the same requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated that most cities don't count coniferous trees or evergreens. Chair Squires stated that if you look around the City you usually will just fmd deciduous trees. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned how many trees an 8 I -foot lot would require if it was one tree for every 40 feet of boulevard. Chair Squires stated that 0 to 40 feet would require one tree, 4 I to 80 feet would require two trees, and 8 I to 120 feet would require three trees. Commissioner Daninger stated that the average City lot would end up having two trees. \ ,_ J Commissioner Hedin stated that he would support one tree every 50-feet, since 85-feet would look fme with 2 trees. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that a 50-foot requirement would work better since with an 85-foot lot there would be two trees. The Commission agreed. \ / (J C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Daninger stated that as a Commission it will be crucial to look at the developer's plans much more closely than in the past at the time of preliminary plat. Chair Squires stated that in the future it will be important to require a much more detailed plan of what trees already exist on the site and how old they are in order to help with tree preservation. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what the requirement is if a developer removes one tree. Chair Squires stated that in the past when the developer has a designated area where they are preserving trees and they end up removing one, then they are required to plant two. Chair Squires stated that if the City Council chooses to follow our recommendation then we would require these new plantings in addition to having staff provide the Commission and the Council with more information on what already exists on site. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the developer has to replace a tree if it has oak wilt. Mr. Bednarz explained that if the tree may affect trees on other properties then they are required to remove it. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the size of the tree the City requires a developer to plant if they remove a mature tree. Mr. Bednarz responded 2 Y2 inches in diameter although, if the tree isn't in a tree preservation area, then the developer wouldn't be required to replace it. Mr. Bednarz stated that as proposed by the commission, rural lots that are 300 feet wide would be required to plant 8 trees. Chair Squires stated that the ordinance should be amended with the language previously stated, with the number of feet being changed from 40 feet to 50 feet. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (01-02) - TO REVIEW AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.10PLATTINGAND ORDINANCE NO. 114 WETLAND BUFFER. \ / Mr. Bednarz explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to continue the discussion regarding the buildability and wetland buffers that was initiated at the May 22nd meeting with the City Council. He stated that there was a general consensus at the meeting that future residential lots adjacent to wetlands and retention ponds need to provide adequate distance between the structure and water feature. The reasons for this space include protecting the water feature and providing useable rear yard space. , \ () () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 Page 9 , ./ Mr. Bednarz explained that the 100-foot buildability requirement was adopted in 1988. He stated that since that time the size of houses has steadily increased. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance. He stated that staff is recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission consider amending the Ordinance No. 10 and Ordinance No. 114 to require the 16.5 foot wide wetland buffer area to be located outside the 1 DO-foot deep buildable area as indicated in Attachment C, which is provided in the packet. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this would limit the number of lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that what is happening is the amount of buildable area on the lot is being increased not the depth, this may cause the lots to be bigger. Commissioner Greenwald stated that potentially 1 lot out of 7 could be lost. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if there wouldn't be a lot of variance requests, since it wouldn't be hard for something to go even two feet into the area. Mr. Bednarz stated the proposal provides more flexibility for locating a house and the variance tool is available for extreme situations. .I Commissioner Hedin stated that it would be a lot easier if there was no buffer. Mr. Bednarz agreed and stated different approaches are possible. Chair Squires stated that he gathered at the special meeting that the Council was unanimous in thinking this was the option best suited. Commissioner Greenwald stated that more often than ever developers are backing up to the wetlands. He suggested the Commission go with what would be best for all parties. He stated that he doesn't like that they are increasing it by 16.5 feet. Chair Squires mentioned that eventually the developers will understand the new requirements and it won't make a big difference. Commissioner Daninger questioned if there are any other negatives to the proposal. Mr. Bednarz stated that he isn't aware of any. He mentioned that it's a constant battle for the developer to develop as many lots as possible and for the City to preserve the items it values. \ Commissioner Hedin stated that in the workshop with the Council it was discussed as an option to leave it at a 16.5 buffer, furthermore this would be much easier for the developers since variances would be allowed. F \ (~ (~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-June 12,2001 Page 10 Commissioner Falk stated that he is for the optional requirements because ofthe additional 15 feet, which would allow for more flexibility. Commissioner Daninger stated that if the Commission went with the optional requirements it could help since there would be more flexibility for variances. Mr. Bednarz stated that building into the fIrst 15 feet behind the house wouldn't require a variance, therefore it would only require a variance in the 16.5 feet buffer. Commissioner Hedin questioned what purpose the 15 feet would serve. Mr. Bednarz stated that it could be used as yard space or for a deck, patio or porch. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a deck could go into the 16.5 feet buffer. Mr. Bednarz stated that nothing could go into the 16.5 feet buffer unless a variance is granted. Commissioner Hedin stated that he can't imagine voting favorably if a developer or homeowner came to the Commission requesting to build a deck into the buffer zone. '. Chair Squires stated that by allowing the developer a larger area of buildable land will j help to minimize the likely hood of granting variances. Commissioner Hedin stated that he would like to see that the developer or homeowner doesn't build into the IS-foot section unless they have a variance. Chair Squires stated that this would be too restrictive. Commissioner Hedin stated that he would like to see a 31.5 rear yard setback. Commissioner Greenwald stated that this would be unrealistic since some lots are on a comer in cases where the wetland has an odd shape. Chair Squires stated that having a 31.5 rear yard setback would result in a lot of variance requests. He explained that the 16.5 buffer is a backyard it's just a non- buildable wetland buffer. He mentioned that developers are usually pretty uniform at building at the front yard setback. Mr. Bednarz stated that the lot would be a lot more marketable if space is preserved for future additions. \ Commissioner Greenwald stated that Commissioner Hedin is making a valid point, however there is some commonality with a 35-foot front yard setback. j F \ , ') .v lJ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 12, 2001 Page 11 Chair Squires questioned ifthere is a general consensus amongst the Commission to move forward with the optional requirements. The Commission agreed. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Commission relative to Council actions on planning items. Commissioner Hedin questioned why Andover hasn't directed the surveyor questioning process to move forward. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Council's agenda has been pretty full lately. He agreed to check into it. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to adjourn. Motion carried on 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Dalien) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \ ) Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. \