Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 10, 2007 ~'Jl}Lu...b ~ UJll H-uI 5- Y -07 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -APRIL 10, 2007 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 10, 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, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: Associate Plarmer, Andy Cross Associate Plarmer, Chris Vrchota Others 0 APPRO V AL OF MINUTES. March 27,2007 Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-present (Daninger), O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13423 CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD. Mr. Cross stated Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake Boulevard into two urban residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed and two new houses built on the lots. The application is being reviewed using the newly-adopted "Redevelopment PUD" code section 13-3-13. Mr. Cross reviewed the information with the Commission. He noted staff wanted to add one condition to the Resolution. Condition 11 covers deferred assessments. This will 0 read "Any deferred or pending assessments for this property shall be paid as part of this lot split". Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-April 10, 2007 0 Page 2 Commissioner Holthus stated the Code on page 21 of the staff report states "all provisions to City Code Chapter 13-3 shall apply to redevelopment PUD's except for Section l3~3-ll". This section talks about landscaping requirements and buffers and this PUD would not have to have the requirement of providing some type of buffer or landscaping plan. Mr. Cross stated this was correct. 13-3-11 are requirements that apply to a large scale subdivision PUD. That has the economies of scale that can allow for these attributes to be incorporated into the plan. On a lot split with two lots, these design qualities do not factor into the proposal and are not required for the redevelopment PUD. Commissioner Holthus asked if there are many trees on the property now and if there was a landscaping plan at all. Mr. Cross indicated that was a question that the applicant may be able to answer. Chairperson Daninger stated the catch all on that point b of 13-3.13b, is the last sentence "approved by Council". Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion 0 carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Jack Knoedl, NK Financial, indicated he was representing Mr. Dennis Steinlicht. Commissioner Holthus wondered if they had a landscaping plan. Mr. Knoedl stated there a few trees on the back comer of the lot that would not be disturbed. They do not have an official plan at this time but he thought there would be smaller trees and some landscaping done as part of this development. Their feeling in working the Council and staff on this is that at the time they were actually to start construction, they would submit a total blue print for approval which would include landscaping. Their objective is to get the homes to conform to the neighborhood as well as the final buyers. He stated they would like to have the buyers customize their homes to meet their needs so they will be long time owner/occupants. Chairperson Daninger asked if the applicant was aware of staff adding Condition 11 to the Resolution. Mr. Knoedl stated he was not aware until staff discussed this with the Commission but he did not think it would affect them and they will be willing to pay any assessments remaining to hook up to sewer and water. Chairperson Daninger asked if they were aware they did need to hook up both homes to City sewer and water. Mr. Knoedl stated he understood that. 0 Mr. Cross wanted to make clear that this redevelopment PUD language is only used for lot splits. While the desirable design qualities are waved these are just for a lot split situation. He stated there is no situation where a large scale subdivision could move Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 1 0, 2007 0 Page 3 forward under this redevelopment PUD language and say they do not have to fulfill the design qualities because they are a redevelopment PUD. He also stated the proposed architectural plans are in keeping with the neighborhood as far as house size. Chairperson Daninger asked if the homes would be sold or would they be rentals. Mr. Noddle indicated the homes would be sold. Chairperson Daninger asked for a clarification on the lot split/redevelopment PUD. He wondered if they are going to approve both or should they have a separate motion for each item. Mr. Cross stated typically with PUD's, they will see the PUD language incorporated into a single resolution. In this situation they have a lot split and a PUD and the PUD is handled as a Conditional Use Permit. That is why the CUP resolution is separate but it is going along with the lot split resolution. The Planning Commission could form a single recommendation. Commissioner Walton asked with the lot width for Parcel A being fifteen feet narrower than a normal comer lot requirement, can the driveway still conform to a distance from the comer requirements for driveway or do they have to approve a variance for the driveway. Mr. Cross stated no variance has been requested at this time. The driveway will have to conform. 0 Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split and Redevelopment PUD request adding Condition 11 "Any deferred or pending assessments for this property shall be paid as part of this lot split", to the Resolution. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 17, 2007 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION' a. Consider Code Amendment Regulating Bee Keeping Mr. Vrchota stated an Andover resident has requested that the City adopt an ordinance outlining regulations for bee keeping activities in the City. The City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance at their March 20,2007 meeting to allow honey bee-keeping on parcels larger than 2 acres in size in the rural area. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff appreciated staff taking the time in condensing this ordinance for 0 them. He thought they did a great job. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 1 0, 2007 0 Page 4 Commissioner Holthus stated she contacted some other cities regarding this and Maple Grove indicated bee keeping is prohibited in Rl to R5 Districts and is allowed in residential agricultural zoning areas. Residential agricultural is twenty acres or more in Maple Grove. Blaine indicates that bees are regarded as farm animals which are under their farm animal code and it must be in an agricultural zone district with a minimum of one acre but there are no areas in existence like that. Ham Lake indicated that bees are regarded as an agricultural use and there are no minimum acres. Ramsey and Apple Valley do not address bee keeping at all. She did not think any of the cities had bees listed as nuisance animals. Commissioner Cleveland asked if what was written fairly consistent for other animals under the animal control ordinances. Mr. Vrchota stated this is actually pretty specific to Honey Bees. Commissioner Cleveland asked if they put this as an Ag. Animal, would the minimum be five acres. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. Commissioner Falk asked what happens if the MUSA decides to go into that residential area. Mr. Vrchota stated for the MUSA boundary to be expanded, he believed the property owner would have to agree to that. They do not expand the MUSA area without 0 property owner involvement. If the MUSA did expand, the property would no longer meet the requirements of the code so they would have to remove the hives. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he has a personal experience with family raising honey bees and a honey bee sting is very rare unless provoked. He thought their reputation was an over-reaction and they are actually good. Mr. Vrchota indicated the ordinance is crafted strictly toward European Honey Bees. Chairperson Daninger sensed everyone liked this. He asked for clarification regarding a colony and a hive and if they are one and the same. Mr. Vrchota thought that was correct and would double check it. He stated he would make sure the ordinance had the appropriate language in it. Chairperson Daninger stated in the model ordinance it says "one acre but smaller than five is eight colonies" under 5.2.d. When they came up with eight on 2 acres that was just staff recommendation. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. The Commission concurred that the ordinance looked good and should go forward to the City Council. 0 OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Cross updated the Planning Commission on related items. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 1 0, 2007 0 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 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 0