Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 13, 2007 ~~ CITY o F \)51.1 r/-Grl d. - ),..1-D7 NDOVE 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 - FEBRUARY 13,2007 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 13,2007, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:18 p.m.), Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Michael Casey. Also present: City Plarmer, Courtney Bednarz Associate Plarmer, Andy Cross Others 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 23,2007 Motion by Falk, seconded by Cleveland, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, I-present (Kirchoff), 2-absent (Casey, Walton) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07-03) TO ALLOW A TOWER AND ANTENNA FOR GREAT RIVER ENERGY TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 2980 173RD LANE NW Mr. Bednarz explained Great River Energy intends to install a 60 foot tall wood pole for the purpose of mounting an antenna to allow remote monitoring of the substation that is presently located on the subject property. Commissioner Kirchoff noticed the proposed tower will be slightly above the high wires there. He wondered how much taller it would be. Mr. Bednarz did not believe it would be taller than the high wires there. The applicant indicated it would not be taller. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 2 Commissioner Cleveland asked how tall the transmission line is. Mr. Bednarz did not know and indicated the applicant might be able to answer the question. Commissioner Falk wondered if the City prefers wood or steel for the other telecommunication poles in the City. Mr. Bednarz indicated they will have to build it to support the weight that is there but the City does not have a preference. Chairperson Daninger asked if there was a future pole possible. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not aware of others at this time. Commissioner Kirchoff noticed at some of the other lift stations, not necessarily in Andover, there is already radio monitoring in place and he wondered if those were sixty feet tall. Mr. Bednarz stated they typically were not. He thought the ones he was aware of were shorter than that. Chairperson Daninger stated typically they are placed on the structure with a directional type antenna to transmit less of a distance than the one proposed based on the height. Commissioner Holthus wondered if the trees surrounding this site provide enough screening of the pole and facility to the neighboring homes. Mr. Bednarz indicated there were a number of trees around the site and he thought the drawing indicated that. He also 0 noted there were trees on the neighboring properties to screen this. Commissioner Falk wondered if the land was landlocked. Mr. Bednarz stated it has direct access to 173rd Lane. Commissioner Cleveland stated he was at the site the other day and it is heavily wooded on all sides. He doubted it could be seen at all in the summer. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Casey, Walton) vote. Mr. Keith Larson, 17285 Round Lake Boulevard, stated they own the land directly on the opposite side of the power line that runs east and west. He wondered if Great River Energy owned the land in red on the location map because it is mistakenly known as open land that anyone can use. Mr. Bednarz explained that Great River Energy does own the property. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Casey, Walton) vote. Mr. Pete; Schaub, East Highway 10, Elk River, stated he was at the meeting to answer questions. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-February 13,2007 0 Page 3 Mr. Schaub stated the height will generally be between fifty and seventy-five feet tall. He did not believe there would be any noticeable difference in height between the tallest part of the substation and the pole they want to put in. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what this will do to increase security. Mr. Schaub stated it is for monitoring purposes. He stated this is part of a broadband network Great River Energy is putting together that will service their transmission and generation system and the purpose of the antenna is to allow data to be transmitted and received by another base station farther away and that is part of the reason they need the sixty foot pole. The security part of it is there will be alarms at the system and enable them to know sooner if something were to happen at the sub-station. The other reason is to also monitor the flow. He did not think there were any others plarmed in Andover. Chairperson Daninger asked if there were other substations in Andover. Mr. Schaub did not think there were. He indicated there may be a coop station but he was not aware of any. Chairperson Daninger stated the reason for the inquiry is because on Hanson and Bunker there is a large electric station and a sixty foot tower would blend in there and he did not know if that site would be advantageous if Council did not like the proposed site. Mr. Schaub stated the reason it is going there is because the antenna is dedicated specifically to the equipment located there. 0 Commissioner Holthus wondered if in the future there was any intent of putting anything more on that pole. Mr. Schaub stated at this time they do not have any intention of putting anything else on that pole. He stated this is just for their 700 MHZ broadband system they are putting together. He stated this is not setup structurally to allow co- location. Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Falk asked how high a tower is typically to accept more than one antenna. Mr. Bednarz believed the tower at 16151 and Round Lake Boulevard is 110 feet tall. Usually 100-150 is more common, especially if there was to be more than one antenna. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a tower and antenna for Great River Energy to be constructed at 2980 l73rd Lane NW. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE REQUIRED BUILDABLE AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO ADJUST WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE TITLE 11: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Mr. Bednarz explained at the December 12, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed changes to three sections of the City Code to address problems that have been arising in new developments. The proposed changes were further discussed by the City Council at a workshop meeting on January 23, 2007. Some additional changes were made based on input from these meetings and the proposed changes are now being brought forward for a public hearing. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated they had the initial discussion and it came back with a suggestion often feet based on the construction industry suggestions and he was pleased to see that and he was glad they received input from those that have to deal with this. He noted he was very comfortable with what they have. Commissioner Falk wondered what the history of the buffer was. Mr. Bednarz thought it 0 was somewhere around 2000 or 2001 when the requirement was fIrst put in place. He believed it was a cooperative effort between the City and the Watershed District to provide some of that protection during construction. At some point in the future the Watershed District may have other requirements that make that a permanent wetland buffer. At this point, once the home is constructed, that silt fence comes out and the owner can choose to use that property as they see fit. Commissioner Falk wondered if staff was happy with 110 rather than 1161/2. Mr. Bednarz stated they were. It was an improvement from their point of view. He knew the development community is very correct in saying it will add cost however, if they look at the backyards and the increase in the size of homes and the size of the lot remains the same, he thought that ten feet will help. Chairperson Daninger stated they see so many variances for decks and Item 3 is trying to address that and be proactive rather than reactive. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Joe Hauglie, Woodland Development, stated that issue one is an issue with developers as well as builders as far as a cost point of view. They appreciate the opportunity to have participated in the work sessions and the ability to give their feedback and see that some of that was taken into consideration. He would like to state 0 however, that they still oppose anything that increases the costs oflots. He noted this is a very tough market right now and looks to be one for quite sometime. Not only is the City Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 5 competing against other cities in costs for lots, but a new thing is the inventory of existing homes. With such a high inventory, people are lowering the price of their homes in order to sell them and yet for developers and builders, their costs continue to go up. It is getting harder and harder for builders to be able to afford to build homes and sell them. Mr. Hauglie stated he did not have any issues with items two or three. Mr. Hauglie stated they appreciated it going from 16.5 to 10. One of the issues he knows that is complicating the costs of the lots is the 35 foot setback in front. Some of the neighboring communities do not have this, they have 30 foot setbacks. This also adds costs and makes it hard to compete with other cities. Chairperson Daninger asked what his intent was regarding their campaign referenced in their letter. Mr. Hauglie stated the campaign was for marketing to help them sell lots. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if Mr. Hauglie received calls from people they built homes for indicating they were not aware before that they could not put a deck on their home. Mr. Hauglie stated they have not but they do not build single family homes, they sell their lots to other builders so they might have gotten those directly. He noted they do build townhomes and work directly with the buyers and work with them on their deck size and 0 what they are capable of doing and what will fit on their particular lot. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Commissioner Walton felt item one went exactly where they anticipated it would go. He agreed with the change from 116 to 110 and thought it was a soft compromise at this time for this particular code. Chairperson Daninger concurred. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the thirty-five foot setback was for aesthetics for a certain look to the neighborhood or why is it locked at thirty-five instead of thirty. Mr. Bednarz felt thirty-five feet was somewhat of a historical standard from the sixties or seventies. Since that time a lot of cities have reduced their front setbacks to thirty feet. This was a topic that was discussed by Council at a work session and they like the thirty- five foot setback. Mr. Bednarz noted they did not receive any letters from other developers regarding this topic but staff did meet with a group of developers and the common theme was this will add additional costs to development and given the times they are seeing now, that is somewhat of a hardship for them. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend approval of the proposed code 0 changes. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger indicated he was sympathetic to the developers and would like to monitor this for possible review in a year if there is a lot of impact. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH FARM JVINERIES AS A HOME OCCUPATION REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS. Mr. Cross stated at a recent City Council Workshop, staffwas directed to make modifications to the City Code to allow farm wineries in the R-l zoning district on 2.5 acre lots with a Conditional Use Permit. This report provides the suggested language changes to make that happen. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. 0 Commissioner Walton stated bullet point E talks about "subject to production limits" and he wondered if they have a set table of production limits they are anticipating. Mr. Cross stated they currently do not have any production limits in the code and is a condition that could be added in the resolution and may change as requests come in. He thought this would be something they would look at handling on a case by case basis. Commissioner Holthus stated on the very last page of the agenda item, there is some copies of minutes from the January 23 Special City Council Workshop meeting and on line 9 it mentions that Councilmember Knight requested the applicant to determine the amount of wine he believed he could produce and store and she assumed the applicant would bring that to the meeting as well as a list of the neighboring residents in the area. She saw the list of residents that signed the petition but she did not see the information and she wondered ifhe was required to bring it in. Mr. Cross stated it would appear so from the minutes but nothing was submitted to staff in regards to quantity or production. Chairperson Daninger stated Mr. Hedin has been the catalyst to this change but they are looking at the change, not the specific incident but he thought that helped answer the questions. Chairperson Daninger thought a CUP was the place where quantities would be stated or required if an applicant came forward. Mr. Cross stated that would be an appropriate place to put a condition like that. 0 Commissioner Walton stated he has been an advocate to maintain flexibility but he wondered if this was one where they should set some guidelines for acreage and Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 7 production limits. It seems that in the commentary and what Council had discussed that maybe they should impose limits because they have left the resolution wide open for a case by case basis. He thought they might then get into some issues of being too flexible for one and not flexible enough for another. If they laid down some guidelines that seemed to be generous, then people will know the requirements. Commissioner Cleveland asked if staff could find out, given Minnesota's climate, what a reasonable amount of gallons would be. Commissioner Kirchoff was under the impression that not all of the grapes that are processed are grown there. Chairperson Daninger noted the grapes are purchased. Commissioner Holthus indicated there are other things wine could be made out of other than grapes. Chairperson Daninger stated the intent is not physically growing it there, it is the production. Commissioner Falk thought another question was if this would be an individual doing this as a hobby or making a profit full time. That could vary the gallonage. Mr. Cross agreed. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they were trying to separate it out from the 2.5 acre 0 lots to the larger lots. Commissioner Holthus thought the Council has already decided where they think it would be appropriate to have a farm winery but the Council also gave her the impression that they want to set a gallonage per year. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they set a limit, does that mean the City will have to start monitoring it. Mr. Cross stated that could be part of the CUP permitting. Recordkeeping for these at the Federal level is very detailed so the records are produced and they could request those reports. Commissioner Walton thought they could possibly table this to get a better feel for a hobby farm type of setup and a casual wine creation limits versus full scale wineries. He thought it was better to have something laid out because if it becomes case by case and they deny a farm applicant who wants to farm and have a full scale winery as a job and they end up denying that but allow a hobby farm to do it, it seems like they created a problem by not giving some type of guidelines. Chairperson Daninger stated he did not have a problem with tabling this but they could also approve requesting some kind oflimitation to have staffbring it to Council for approval. Motion by Walton, to recommend approval of the proposed code changes for farm wineries with some additional guidelines from staff regarding what was discussed. 0 Commissioner Falk indicated they did not hold the public hearing yet. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 8 Commissioner Walton rescinded his motion. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Winslow Holasek stated when a restaurant gets approved to sell wine, they have to have a liquor license and he wondered if a farm winery would need a license to sell wine. Mr. Cross stated their City liquor licensing does not cover farm wineries so the applicant would not require a City liquor license to sell. Chairperson Daninger believed there are State and Federal regulations for this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if the City had any concern about any environmental considerations for waste. He wondered what is done with the waste product. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in other states, they take the waste and put it back into the field. Mr. Cross stated as applications come forward, that would be something they may want to look at for consideration. This may best be handled on a case by case basis. 0 Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to recommend the City Council approve the proposed code changes for farm wineries with the addition of some guidelines from staff for Council to review regarding quantities. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION DISTANCE OF CITY CODE 12-14-8 FROM 350 TO 700 FEET. Mr. Bednarz explained this item continues the discussion regarding public notification distance in the rural area. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the change with not having a public hearing on variance requests. He supported the 700 feet in rural areas and keeping the urban at 350 feet. 0 Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 9 Mr. Winslow Holasek wondered on the illustration of the MUSA development if this was accurate because the developments did not seem to line up correctly. Mr. Bednarz stated the illustration is for an example showing what 700 and 350 feet would look like for a development. Mr. Holasek thought this change would only be for rural areas and not urban areas. Chairperson Daninger stated that was correct except for rural abutting up to urban areas, then it would be 700 feet. Mr. Bednarz stated the proposed amendment determines if the notification would be 350 or 700 feet based on whether the property is connected to municipal sewer. If it is connected, it would be 350 feet, if it is not connected, it would be 700 feet. There was discussion regarding the example given to the Commission whether the notification would be 350 feet or 700 feet. Mr. Holasek stated he would strongly object that they would pick some other place in the area and say it is in a MUSA area and has public service just to the line but they were forced to put it over on their property fifty feet. Chairperson Daninger indicated he was not in favor of changing this to 700 feet. 0 Mr. Holasek asked for adefmition of "physically connected" from Mr. Bednarz. Mr. Bednarz stated the intent was there would be a structure on the property connected to the municipal sewer that would be the trigger between the 700 and 350 foot notification areas. Motion by Walton, seconded by Holthus, to close the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Commissioner Walton noticed the City of Ramsey in the survey brought up the point of commercial development and Andover does have some commercial development that is older within the center of the urban city and there was not any discussion in here regarding commercial development and if they need to notify the neighbors of changes. Mr. Bednarz stated with the language in the report, if the site is connected to MUSA, the notification area would be 350 feet. Chairperson Daninger thought staff needed to add some clarification or a definition if they wanted to see that extended. Commissioner Falk wondered if staff felt 700 feet for rural would benefit them that much. Mr. Bednarz stated it would pick up a second or perhaps a third property around . an acreage lot with a direct notice in their mailbox. Commissioner Falk asked if the City 0 gained feedback from residents as to why they were not included in the mailing list. Mr. Bednarz stated public hearing notices are a typical item of contention whether you received or did not and what was in it. He stated by the time something reaches the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page- 10 public hearing stage, a lot more people in the area are aware of what is going on than received the notice in the mailbox. There are other methods of notification also. Motion by Walton, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of the City Code change to extend public hearing notification distance of City Code 12-14-8 from 350 and 700 foot notification areas with the following amendments to the definition of connecting to municipal sewer as well as the definition of the measurement being at the perimeter of the property and at the discretion of staff to expand beyond these minimums as well as striking the notification for variances with the definition of connection being to the structure. Motion was tied and did not pass on a 3-ayes (Cleveland, Holthus, Walton), 3-nays (Daninger, Kirchoff, Falk), I-absent (Casey) vote. Commissioner Falk thought 350 feet was enough because staffhas the ability to expand the distanc.e if needed. Commissioner Kirchoff and Chairperson Daninger concurred. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH 0 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IN CITY CODE 13-3: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Mr. Bednarz explained the City Council directed staff to create criteria for "Redevelopment Plarmed Unit Developments" (PUDs). These criteria, which would apply to lot splits rather than larger developments, would allow for a PUD to be used to create flexibility in the development standards in older sections of the City, where existing housing might not meet current building codes or requirements. This would allow lot splits to occur on properties that carmot meet the existing requirements for a lot split, but have the potential to be split into two properties that come close to meeting City standards and would fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This direction stemmed from the Council's discussion of a proposed lot split on 134th A venue and Crooked Lake Boulevard that would have required two variances to be approved. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Holthus wondered how many is a handful of lots and how often will they be looking at these unusual PUD's. Mr. Bednarz stated with the PUD ordinance and the way it is set up, if you have an existing older structure and they are willing to meet some Council discretion on what kind of architectural design will go on it is fairly wide open and would be very difficult to say there is a certain number of properties because it is flexible enough that it does not say you need to have a minimum of this or that. It has 0 criteria of what the final product will need to meet but there is no minimum requirement to apply and that may be a concern. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 13, 2007 0 Page 11 Commissioner Walton asked about the thirty year old structure requirement. In his line of work, he may see structures that are blighted and may need to be tom down but they are only eight years old. He wondered if the criterion of thirty years might block them from applying this. Mr. Bednarz stated as written, it would appear to do that. His suggestion might be to remove that all together. Chairperson Daninger stated his concern is if they carmot afford the cost of a split or it does not fit, that means they carmot afford the cost of a single house, how they will be able to afford a PUD because a PUD typically adds cost by giving up buildability area. Commissioner Cleveland wondered in the staff report, 13a, would a property have to meet all the conditions or could they put in "or" where the commas are. Mr. Bednarz stated they could do that. He thought that was an excellent suggestion. Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Walton, to close the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 0 Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Chairperson Daninger stated he did not like this because there is a reason this code is here. He reviewed a past code amendment that was done regarding the ninety percent change. He did not like having a ton of rules and regulations but he felt another bend commg. Commissioner Walton stated he felt they are making a mountain out of a mole hilL With this particular property in mind, there are a handful of lots like this that may qualify throughout the City. He stated Minneapolis redevelops homes all the time and they handle them in some marmer but he does not know what that is and if there is a Code that guides them. He thought staff should look at alternatives to this. Commissioner Cleveland thought this removed minimums unless there is something real specific that is added to that. If you do this, what would be the minimum. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to recommend the City Council not approve the City Code Amendment to establish redevelopment criteria in City Code 13-3: Plarmed Unit Development because the current ordinance gives them enough guidance to handle a case by case basis for property management and this was sufficient. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. 0 Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20,2007 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-February 13,2007 0 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he attended a Community Development Block Grant meeting and they are recommending the City receive an additional $50,000 for its rental rehabilitation program through the Federal progI<lmming. Mr. Bednarz also noted that the Administrator and City Engineer attended a meeting at the Legislature where they were talking about rural speed limit requirements. There is some movement to change the unposted speed of 55 mph to allow it to be posted at a lower speed. Commissioner Walton thought it might be a good idea to research what other cities are doing with redevelopment of older or blighted property. ADJOURNMENT. 0 Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Casey) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0