Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 28, 2007 ~Cw ~ . . It)1A, tkn Cf-/ 1- DC 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28,2007 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on August 28, 2007, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Plarmer, Courtney Bednarz 0 Associate Plarmer, Andy Cross Associate Plarmer, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 14, 2007 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HUGHSlWESTVIEW INDUSTRIAL PARKS. Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for the creation of interim performance standards for the Hughs/W estview industrial park area at the August 14th meeting. The Planning Commission was not in favor of creating interim standards, but indicated a willingness to review and provide input on a potential code amendment if the City Council wanted them to do so. The City Council has indicated that they want to proceed with a code amendment to create interim performance standards for the 0 Hughs/W estview industrial park area. Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:05 p.m. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - August 28, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Kirchoff stated they discussed the possibility of having water installed in the area and he wondered if that was currently in the MUSA. Mr. Vrchota stated the proposal was that these standards would remain in place until City sewer and water are available. The MUSA would need to be expanded to include this area along with the Rural Reserve. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the City would force City sewer and water into this area or would the property owners have to want to be part of the MUSA area in order for it to be expanded. Mr. Vrchota stated they would have to petition to have the services installed. Chairperson Daninger stated his understanding was instead of an applicant asking for multiple variances in this area could they come forward indicating their concerns and what they would like to do. He kind of compares this to a PUD and would this be similar. Mr. Vrchota stated that is correct. Chairperson Daninger wondered if there was any thought to putting a renewal date on this or a time frame on the CUP. Mr. Vrchota did believe that had been discussed. 0 Commissioner Kirchoff he is comfortable with what is stated but if a different standard is listed than what they currently have such as lighting will they relax the current standard to allow something else in this area. Mr. Vrchota stated Section D is a list for the applicant of what the City will be looking at and they could be things they could request to vary from or things the City could stand on. Commissioner Cleveland asked if one of the business owners in the area wanted to do a substantial site improvement or expand their business will they have to get a CUP? Mr. Vrchota stated that is correct. Commissioner Holthus asked what would happen to a CUP if a business were sold. Mr. Vrchota indicated a CUP goes with the property if sold. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. 0 Chairperson Daninger thought Commissioner Holthus made some recommendation at the last meeting and he wondered if what staff brought forward was a product similar to what she was trying to express. Commissioner Holthus thought this was a little more vague than she thought it would be and she wondered if that was to allow a little more Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - August 28, 2007 Page 3 flexibility for the Planning and Zoning and ultimately the City Council to make decisions on an individual basis. Mr. Vrchota stated the intent is to be flexible to allow give and take on both sides. Commissioner Holthus thought they were going to have stricter regulations such as amount of landscaping, etc. but she thought this was fine and should be open ended. Commissioner Falk wondered if the City Council was going to direct this or will there be some sort of spread sheet for them to look at. Mr. Vrchota stated this will be based on Commission, City Council and staff input, each based on a case by case review of the properties. Commissioner Walton stated his only concern is the length of time that is allowed by the vagueness of City sewer and water being brought to this area. His concern was how long that is going to be because they could have a lot of deterioration in that area and turn over and without a CUP being applied for on a regular interval, he would like to see something shorter than that vague timeline because the area could get run down and they should have a periodic review of the area regardless of when City sewer and water will be available. 0 Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if staff had received any input from the property owners in this area. Mr. Vrchota stated this started because a property owner was notified they needed to obtain a CUP and they voiced some concerns about improving their site and the costs to bring it up to City standards. Chairperson Daninger indicated if they make it too difficult nothing will get done. They want to be flexible so the applicant is willing to make some improvements. Commissioner Walton wondered if every business out there currently has a CUP. Mr. Vrchota indicated not every business has a CUP or requires one in the area. Chairperson Daninger stated on page 2, the HughsIW estview Industrial Park area is very specific and the only area they are talking about. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. He stated Letter B gives the legal description of the area they are discussing. Commissioner Cleveland stated he had a concern because there is a standard for the City; they are talking about interim standards for this because it is more rural and that would be an upgrade for the businesses in this area. He wondered what standard they are operating at now. His concern is if one of the sites decides to upgrade they will have to get a CUP and do upgrading at some level but the surrounding properties will not need to and until or unless they decide to upgrade these sites will never have to do that. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. C Commissioner Cleveland wondered why anyone would want to make the choice to upgrade. Chairperson Daninger stated a person may want to start a new business in the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 4 area. He stated the intent was before it was too restrictive and now they have the opportunity for someone to do a little improvement and have flexibility. Commissioner Cleveland thought this would be the same as living next to someone who did not keep up their yard. Chairperson Daninger asked in the language presented to them was there anything in the performance standard that the Commission would like explained, corrected or did they feel comfortable with what was presented. Commissioner Cleveland thought going through the CUP process should handle all of the questions that would come up. Chairperson Daninger wondered if staff felt there was enough information to move forward with this. Mr. Vrchota indicated there was. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the Interim Performance Standards for Hughs/W estview Industrial Parks. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Chairperson Daninger noted the only real concern was with the question about the timeline. 0 Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 4, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 5-1 ANIMAL CONTROL Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission discussed potential changes to the City's animal control code at the July 24th meeting. The City Council has provided some additional feedback, and the changes are now being brought back for a public hearing and formal discussion. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staffreport with the Commission. He suggested this item be tabled to get more information out to the public regarding this item. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to open the public hearing at 7 :29 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson, 2705 134th Lane NW, stated explained why she came to the City for help. She also noted she recently realized how dangerous electric fences are. She stated she is currently and historically been having problems with a neighbors dog barking. She stated the neighbor has an electric fence. She wants different changes to this ordinance 0 because she did not think electronic fences were being addressed in the ordinance. She thought there should be regulations regarding these fences. She thought a permit should be required when installing an electronic fence and they should not be allowed in the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 5 front yards. She stated she worries about her grandchildren when they come over and she thought they should do more research on them because they are not safe. She did not think an electronic fence should be allowed to contain aggressive dogs. Ms. Trudy Vanhouse, 2701 134th Lane NW, stated underground electronic fencing is a difficult issue for the Commission and if she can help with any information, she would be willing to help. She also would like some kind of window on how long it would take to research this. Ms. Munson asked if staff made any changes regarding restraint. Mr. Vrchota stated no changes were made regarding restraint and electronic fences were not specifically addressed in this amendment. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission discussed this with staffbut no changes were requested. Ms. Munson wondered if they had received information from other areas regarding electronic fencing. Chairperson Daninger indicated they have and would discuss this information. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. 0 Commissioner Kirchoff wondered on the electronic fence if a dog is wearing a collar don't they get shocked. He thought electronic fences work because no fence will stop every dog and if they want to get out of a yard they will. He wondered if there was some type of a threshold on the electronic fences to keep an animal in the yard. Chairperson Daninger stated they discussed this before and determined that if a fence will stop a dog it is an adequate type of a restraint. He stated he did not have any further questions because if it works it is considered a restraint and if a fence does not restrain an animal it is not effective. Commissioner Casey wondered if staff received any information from other cities regarding restraining an aggressive animal. Mr. Vrchota stated they did receive information from other cities on how they handle restraint and can provide that to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Holthus did not think that an electronic fence is reliable and she did not think they could consider it an effective restraint. She understood a dog could go under or over a fence but typically fences are reliable. It is a physical thing that can be seen by alL Chairperson Daninger agreed an electronic fence is not considered a restraint because he also did not think it was reliable. Commissioner Cleveland did not think it was their responsibility to write code that would 0 be one hundred percent reliable because other restraints could be broken through by a dog. Commissioner Holthus thought that if the City indicates an electronic fence is a reliable restraint then if someone would get hurt the City would be responsible. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 6 Commissioner Cleveland stated if a dog is outside of their boundaries it is considered an animal at large and not under restraint so it would not be the City's responsibility. Chairperson Daninger thought staff could bring back information from other cities on what they have done in their cities regarding restraint. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to table. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, 0- absent vote. WORKSESSION A. Subdivision Ordinance Discussion 1. Subdivision 11.1.3 - Platting Authority Mr. Cross stated this section is updated to reflect the State Statute. 2. Subdivision 11.1.4 - Definitions 0 Chairperson Daninger stated on page 6, lines 21 and 22 he asked for a defInition of mottled. Mr. Bednarz stated mottled soils are soils stained by water which means the water table had reached that point at some time. Commissioner Kirchoff stated mottled soil can be stained by salt or anything in the water even when dry. Commissioner Holthus asked if2,500 average trips per day was a typical number in other cities for minor/major collector streets and she wondered where the number came from. Mr. Cross stated that number came straight from the Engineering Department as a recommendation. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it probably came from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Chairperson Daninger remembered talking about this two or three years ago and changing collector streets based on a 2030 study. Mr. Bednarz stated the whole purpose is to allow driveway access to minor collector streets and not major collector streets. Commissioner Walton wondered if they would define types of homes that can be built on lots in this section. Mr. Bednarz stated this is all covered under the lowest floor. He explained the process they go through to find the lowest floor and how that affects the type of home that can be built. 3. Subdivision 11.2.1 - Sketch Plan Changes 0 Chairperson Daninger stated Sketch Plans are not required but they do pay a fee for both a sketch plan and a preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct, they pay for them separately. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 7 Chairperson Daninger wondered what the incentive was to do a sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated they are less expensive and gives the developer a chance to discuss the plans with the City to see if something is needed to be changed or if the City would allow a plan. Chairperson Daninger asked if they encouraged ghost platting next to the sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated a ghost plat is a requirement. 4. Subdivision 11.2.2 - Preliminary Platting Mr. Cross stated they pulled the requirements of the Preliminary Plat out of the City Code and put them in a checklist, which makes it more fluid and easier to update annually. Chairperson Daninger wondered on page 14, line 38, what "Meets and Bounds" means. Mr. Bednarz stated it is any piece of land that had not been platted and does not have a lot and block number. Commissioner Holthus wondered if there were two checklists, one for the sketch plan and one for the preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. 0 Chairperson Daninger referred to page 16, line 17, stating "all persons interested in a plat shall be heard", he wondered if this meant that anyone could speak no matter who they are. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Chairperson Daninger asked if this could be at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Mr. Cross stated it means whenever there is a public hearing, anyone can be heard. Chairperson Daninger stated in this section four pages were deleted and he wondered if the checklist addressed all of the deletions. Mr. Cross stated the information that has been removed is in the checklist but not word for word, it has been streamlined. Mr. Bednarz indicated this is much more user friendly and saves time for staff and the developer in reviewing the applications. 5. Subdivision 11.2.3 - Final Plat Requirements Mr. Cross stated there is also a final plat checklist. Chairperson Daninger asked for clarification of plat phasing on page 22, line 10. Mr. Cross reviewed plat phasing with the Commission. He noted the developer usually requests which plats they want to develop and they are called phases. Mr. Bednarz stated the developer will request which area of the preliminary plat they want to start as the first phase and a final plat is recorded with the County to create this phase and so on. 0 Commissioner Falk stated the word "clerk" has been stricken and he wondered why they changed this. Mr. Cross stated the City Clerk no longer plays a role in subdivision Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 8 . review and all of the documents are given to the city representatives and the Planning Department and they initiate the review and handle it. 6. Subdivision 11.3.1 - General Requirements Commissioner Cleveland stated he could not make the added word "that" on page 26, line 10 fit in that sentence. Mr. Cross stated they could add at the end ofline 9 "adjacent to" to make the sentence structure work. Chairperson Daninger stated on page 25, MN Statute 462.358 is referred throughout the entire document and he wondered if this was accessible somewhere. Mr. Cross stated they could keep it on hand at City Hall but is as accessible as any other Statute. Mr. Bednarz stated this is the Statute that provides cities with the ability to review plats. Their code does not reiterate the Statute but shows how the City applies it. 7. Subdivision 11.3.2 - Street Plan Chairperson Daninger stated on page 29, line 29, he thought they discussed sodding one time that went farther than the boulevard. Mr. Cross stated this only refers to boulevard 0 sodding and not any lawn maintenance. Mr. Bednarz stated this section refers to what is required of the developer when they install streets and utilities, not what is required of the homeowner for lawns. Chairperson Daninger wondered who is responsible for maintenance of the boulevard sod. Mr. Cross stated the City Code explains that it is the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the boulevard of their lot. Mr. Bednarz explained the City also holds an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it is maintained until a homeowner becomes responsible for it. 8. Subdivision 11.3.6 - Lots Commissioner Walton wondered at what point they discuss anywhere the changes about the expectations of the decks being ghosted onto a house plan. Mr. Cross stated the Building Department has now started to review plans to make sure that any possible deck to be built in the future is shown on the survey. Commissioner Walton wondered where the code states this. Mr. Bednarz believed it was adopted into the Building Code Section. He stated the issue comes up when they bring the house plan in for permit. 9. Subdivision 11.4.14 - Dead and Diseased Trees 0 Commissioner Kirchoff agreed they should remove dead and diseased trees but he was concerned with putting the burdon of clean up on the homeowner because according to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 28, 2007 0 Page 9 the City Council meeting he watched, it could add up to a lot of money. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council discussion did allow the Council review for some hardship cases and the City does have some grant funds from the DNR to work with homeowners and they try to target those larger areas. Chairperson Daninger thought the goal was not to create a hardship but to create a cure. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if there was anywhere in the City Code a time frame to remove a dead tree whether it be struck by lightening or from some other means. Mr. Cross stated if a tree is diseased that is another issue but if a tree dies from natural causes there is no time frame but there is also the nuisance factor that they consider. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Commissioner Falk wondered what the Council decided on irrigation for the Mosquito Control building. Mr. Bednarz stated that will be part of the landscaping plan that comes back to the Council and will be part of the final approval of that plan. , C ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0