Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 8, 2000 o " u o o 0 CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -AUGUST 8,2000 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 8, 2000, 7: 16 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Jay Squires, Larry Dalien, Maynard Apel, Dean Daninger, Tim Kirchoff, and Douglas Falk. Commissioners absent: Also present: Commissioner Mark Hedin. City Planner, John Hinzman Planning Intern, Dan Taylor Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 25, 2000 City Planner John Hinzman stated that Larysa Arndt who resides at 2381 155th Lane NW called to clarify that on page 2 of the minutes the individual was 51 years old not 15. She also wanted to add that the individual was from Bloomington, Minnesota. Chair Squires mentioned that if the public is reviewing the minutes and finding errors that maybe it is important for the commission to be reviewing the tape as well. Commissioner Apel suggested the minutes be approved as submitted recognizing the comment made by Ms. Arndt. Motion by Falk, seconded by Daninger, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nay, I-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 00-08) - TEMPORARY SIGNS AND BANNERS -13650 HANSON BLVD. NW -ANDOVER SPUR. Mr. Hinzman stated that he received a letter from the owner of the property requesting the item be tabled indefinitely. r-" , I I ' ----' () , " ,~,~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 2 Motion by Apel, seconded by Kirchoff, to amend the agenda for tonight's meeting, August 8, 2000, by removing item #5 for a future hearing. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 0- nays, I-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (LS 00-09) - SPLIT THE EASTERN 2.5 ACRES FROM A 5.0 ACRE PARCEL -16635 VERDIN STREET NW-BRIAN BOURN. Planning Intern Dan Taylor presented the commission with a lot split request submitted by Brian Bourn. He is requesting to split the eastern 2.5 acres of a 5-acre parcel on the property located at 16635 Verdin Street NW. Mr. Taylor stated that all applicable ordinances must be met if the application is approved. He mentioned that the existing pole building was constructed in 1974 and measures to be 30' X 45'. The building is located 350' northeast of the home and approximately 185' east of the new proposed property line. Mr. Taylor mentioned that the proposed lot split does meet the minimum size and setback requirements. He explained that the buildability of the iot needs to be confirmed by the Building Department. He stated that the zoning ordinance prohibits accessory buildings on separate lots of record, as well as sheet metal construction on property less than 3 ;- ') acres. , Commissioner Daninger questioned if there is a past history with the City in approving a variance of this kind. Mr. Taylor explained that the applicant is not seeking a variance but a special use permit and similar ones have been granted in the past. Chair Squires questioned how the City is allowing the pole building to consist of sheet metal when the ordinance prohibits sheet metal. Mr. Taylor stated that the Special Use Permit would require the building be resided or removed. Commissioner Dalien stated that the key is that the building can not consist of sheet metal. Mr. Hinzman stated that the City had a case last year where there was a provision that stated the applicant would have to match the materials. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the pole building would then be resided. Chair Squires stated that that is correct. Commissioner Dalien questioned if there is a size restriction on a lot of2.5 acres. Mr. Hinzman explained that the building meets the requirements of the ordinance. . \ "- ) ~. , , . 1 V Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 3 o ,) Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the applicant is pianning to build the new house on the existing property. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nay, I-absent vote. Commissioner Apel made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council and Commissioner Falk seconded it, however further discussion followed. Chair Squires suggested adding an additional condition to state that the residing of the pole barn must match the house. Commissioner Apel suggested keeping the condition with the Special Use Permit request. Chair Squires agreed and suggested the residing of the pole barn or removal of the r -\ accessory structure be stated under the Special Use Permit. \._) Commissioner Falk questioned if the purpose is to assure that both structures match. Chair Squires explained that it would clarify any possible confusion. Motion by Apel, seconded by Falk, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the lot split request submitted by Brian E. Bourn, to split the eastern 2.5 acres of a 5 acre parcel at 16635 Verdin Street NW, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of the accompanying Special Use Permit and/or removal of said accessory structure. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the September 5, 2000 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 00-07) -AL[..OW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BEFORE PRIMARY STRUCTURE -16635 VERDIN STREET NW. cJ Mr. Taylor mentioned that Brian Bourn is also requesting a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory structure (pole barn) to remain on the newly created lot prior to the () 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 4 , \ '---) construction of a principal structure. He explained that the structure consists of sheet metal construction with a concrete floor. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m, Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Brian Bourn, 16635 Verdin Street NW, questioned if the request could be on the agenda for the City Council approval sooner than September 5, 2000. He explained that he originally applied for the lot split on July II, however it has taken longer than originally expected. He mentioned that the future buyer of the property is also present and is in agreement to reside the barn. Chair Squires explained that the request to have the item reviewed by City Council at an earlier meeting would have to be discussed with City staff. Mr. Hinzman explained that normal procedure is to put it on the City Council agenda approximately 3 weeks after receiving approval from the Planning Commission. \ \_) Chair Squires suggested the applicant talk with staff after the meeting in order to come to an agreement. Mr. Bourn mentioned that according to the ordinance, request for approval from the Council should go no later than the Tuesday following the commission's approval for recommendation. Mr. Hinzman explained that the ordinance does state no later than the Tuesday following the Planning Commission meeting, however it is an error and should say no sooner than the following Tuesday. He mentioned that the ordinance needs to be'reviewed and possibly amended. There was no other public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, a-nay, I-absent vote. Commissioner Dalien suggested adding a condition that the house has to be larger than the existing building. Commissioner Apel mentioned that the current ordinance states that the building must be equal to or less than the existing building. - \ \...1 o o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 5 / " '--.../ Commissioner Dalien made a motion to approve with an added condition and Commissioner Daninger seconded the motion, however further discussion followed. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned ifthe footprint for the house includes the garage. Mr. Hinzman explained that is not included in the footprint, since it does not count as an accessory building. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Daninger, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the request for a Special Use Permit submitted by Brian Bourn to allow for an accessory structure to remain on the lot prior to the construction of the principal building, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a covenant be recorded with the newly split parcel requiring construction of a new home, or removal of the accessory structure within one year from the date of City Council approval. 2. A covenant recorded at the sale of the lot requiring the pole barn to be sided at the same time and with the same materials as the new principal structure to comply with Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 (L). 3. That the Special Use Permit be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 8, Section 5.03 (D). U 4. That the house must be as large or larger than the existing building. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent vote. Chair Squires stated that staff would work with the applicant to determine at what City Council meeting the item would be considered. DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE NO. 112, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Hinzman explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to discuss the current PUD ordinance. He stated that in the past the commission, City Council and staff have questioned the effectiveness and outcome of the PUD process. He explained that the objective of the PUD is innovative site design and the conservation of land. To achieve these two main criteria, developers are given flexibility with lot sized, setbacks, heights, higher densities, and similar regulations. The direction given by the commission will be incorporated into an amendment to the PUD ordinance. Mr. Hinzman explained that the PUD ordinance was adopted in 1996. Chair Squires explained that the whole PUD concept came about because of its idea for flexibility for the developer yet held restrictions for the City. <J o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 6 ,..-, . I '---, Mr. Hinzman explained that since the ordinance was adopted there have been approximately 5-6 projects that have been developed. Commissioner Apel mentioned that if 80 acres were to be developed into 2.5 acre parcels than each piece needs to be looked at that is being developed. Mr. Taylor stated that research was done in Elk River and he found out that they have excluded wetlands from the PUD since the beginning. Mr. Hinzman stated that one option is to take away wetlands completely or another idea would be to take away a portion of the wetlands. Commissioner Apel suggested that the ordinance be defined more clearly. Mr. Hinzman gave a brief history of how PUD's are being implemented on marginal land. Mr. Hinzman brought up that another issue is the preservation of open space. Commissioner Apel mentioned that each proposal should give the developer some '-, incentive to preserve the open space. ',--) Commissioner Kirchoff commented that typically people aren't in favor of increasing density. He mentioned that the PUD concept is good for those individuals, however it isn't good for the PUD. Commissioner Apel stated that it is important to have incentives for the developer. Mr. Hinzman stated that he reviewed the minutes from the past and found that in the original PUD discussion the wetlands were taken out completely. Chair Squires suggested that the wetlands also be withdrawn from the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Daninger questioned that ifthe City excludes the wetlands than would there even be an incentive for a PUD. Chair Squires stated that that would be a whole different issue. Mr. Hinzman stated that the big argument currently is that the baseline is skewed and not the increase in density. ~~) Chair Squires agreed that the baseline should exclude the wetlands. He stated he could agree with a small incentive, however agreed it shouldn't be the wetlands. / \ /- "- U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 7 o _ J '---~ Mr. Hinzman pointed out the 8 encouragements in Ordinance 112 listed in the staff report. He mentioned that the provisions are not being implemented in the PUD, however if they are acceptable they should be looked at for a PUD and have a developer review them. He stated that where the Planning and Zoning Commission has struggled the most is with the density issue and the density bonus. Commissioner Falk stated that it would need to be defined as to what they mean. Mr. Hinzman suggested going back to the wetland discussion in order to get a consensus from the commission. Commissioner Apel suggested excluding all wetlands from a PUD. Chair Squires suggested staff get together and create some ideas to define the rules on page 4 more clearly. Mr. Hinzman questioned if the commission has certain issues or qualities they are looking for in a PUD. He agreed that staff would do some research on what other cities do for a PUD ordinance. '\ Chair Squires questioned why a developer should get an automatic reward by increasing I ) '---- density if they preserve the wetlands. Commissioner Apel mentioned that the commission does need to be careful since the decisions made with the ordinance will affect people's property rights. Commissioner Daninger suggested that the applicant fill out a form stating how they meet the requirements. Mr. Taylor questioned ifit would be necessary for the applicant to write a narrative. Commissioner Daninger suggested the format be bulleted. Mr. Hinzman stated the burden of benefit should be bourn by the developer, not the city. Commissioner Daninger mentioned that the Brooke Crossing PUD was wonderful, however it didn't answer the questions. Chair Squires stated that it should either be the developer or the landowner's responsibility to sell the project. He suggested staff meet and come up with some ideas on how the ordinance should be amended. ,." Commissioner Kirchoff stated that in one hand we want to limit the ability to increase '-_) density in certain areas, however on the other hand we are trying to increase density. ,- " Ur l,__j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 8 ,/ \ ,~/ Commissioner Apel stated that is the Metropolitan Council that is listing the guidelines for density. Mr. Hinzman explained that it also depends on the area as to the level of density. Mr. Hinzman explained that the way it is now is one either has to rezone the land or establish a PUD district. He stated that actually when a PUD is developed it becomes its own separate district. He suggested creating a separate district on the map instead of using an overlay. Commissioner Apel disagreed with Mr. Hinzman's suggestion. Mr. Hinzman explained that it would be its own district. Mr. Hinzman explained that his main criticism is that it doesn't give an accurate picture to someone coming into City Hall to observe the map. Commissioner Dalien suggested just drawing an area on the map that would designate that it's a PUD. He stated ifthe individual would like more information than they could research the documents to find out the zoning of the property. ,- , ,,--J Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the zoning map is a separate map from the PUD map, or can PUD's be designated on the zoning map. Commissioner Daninger stated that basically the person would need to do some research to find out the zoning of the property. Commissioner Dalien stated that the only problem is that every PUD is different. Mr. Hinzman explained that each PUD would be separate. Commissioner Daninger mentioned that it could become confusing as well. Mr. Hinzman explained the process of review prior to any final changes to the ordinance. Chair Squires questioned if the Planning and Zoning Commission w6uld see the changes to the ordinance two more times. Mr. Hinzman stated that the commission would review the ordinance two more times. OTHER BUSINESS. ,~ '" '- j :~ C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 2000 Page 9 '--- -' Mr. Hinzman briefed the Planning and Zoning Commission on the outcome of the issues that were pending with the City Council. He also gave a brief overview of items that will be up for discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. It was mentioned that Chair Squires and Commissioners Apel and Dalien will all be gone at the August 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried on 6-ayes, O-nays, 1- absent vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .- '\ \._J <)