Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 12, 1996 o (,INvNlD1'1 ~ ~ U "'"'--- . SI02u/Q(P ,~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 12, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on March 12, 1996, 7:05 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: ~~~ Jeffrey Luedtke, Putnam, Lorna Wells Maynard Apel, Lynette Berry, Randy Peek City Planning Department, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 27, 1996: Correct as written. MOTION by Squires, Seconded by Wells, presented. Motion carried on a 2-Yes (Luedtke, Putnam), 3-Absent (Apel, Berry, to approve the Minutes as (Squires, Wells), . 2-Present Peek) vote. '--) PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 92, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION AND OPERATION OF ADULT USE BUSINESSES 7:06 p.m. Mr. Carlberg provided the background which brought about the proposed amendment to the Adult Use Ordinance and reviewed the proposed changes. The amendment will change the definition as to what constitutes an adult book and media store and reduces the floor area for adult uses from 40 to 15 percent with a maximum of 1,000 square feet plus a 15 percent cap on stock or inventory. Any establishment exceeding these amounts will be considered an adult book or media store. It also requires that adult use displays shall not be visible from the rest of the media store and shall be clearly marked at the entrance of the section that is devoted to adult materials. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendment and feels it is acceptable. In further discussion with the Commission, Mr. Carlberg noted the amendment would not affect the two video stores in the City that already have adult use sections. Video Update has 600 square feet devoted to adult use materials, and Speedy Video has between 130 and 150 square feet. The Commission generally liked the three-tiered approach, that is limiting the floor area, the inventory and providing a maximum on floor area. ./ " o MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearipg. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Berry, Peek) vote. 7:12 p.m. Dave Ballstadt, President of Adventures In Video that owns Speedy Video stated his company is in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment. , " ) o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 2 I {Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No. 92, Adult Use, Continued} In referring to harassing phone calls that Commissioner Wells has been receiving on this issue, he stated it is totally unacceptable to them. He brought the sheet that was left in the return slot of his store to Mr. Carlberg, hoping this will get resolved. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Putnam, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Berry, Peek) vote. 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Wells thanked him for his concern. commissioner Luedtke favored the proposal, especially since those in the industry also favor it. Commissioner Putnam also favored the amendment to ward off any potential problems and to take a pro-active approach on a possible nuisance. Commissioner Wells suggested a change in the first sentence to clarify the meaning: ".. .either fifteen percent or more of its stock/inventory or fifteen percent or more of the floor area (exceeding 1,000 square feet)..." Chairperson Squires suggested a clarification in the last sentence: "An establishment that offers for display, sale or lease the foregoing matters which does not meet this definition..." He too liked the tighter restrictions of the amendment, which at the same time is reasonable and allows the existing businesses some flexibility to offer those materials. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to forward to the City Council the adoption of Ordinance 92A with revisions as discussed for Adult Use in the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Berry, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the April 2, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:18 p.m. DISCUSSION - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council again discussed the issue of density increases at its March 6, 1996, meeting, and agreed with the Planning Commission that there should be some density increase provision in the ordinance for those sites developed as planned unit developments. That would allow the City to increase density based on some merit to the proposal, though the specific density calculations have not yet been addressed. Staff has contacted Washington County, the City of Lake Elmo and Woodbury regarding their PUD ordinances, and has received the ordinances from Washington County and Lake Elmo. Staff will continue working on a PUD ordinance and bring it to the Commission for consideration as soon as possible. Chairperson Squires stated he wouldn't necessary be in favor of a planned unit development on a parcel unless there are some special amenities that the City has an interest in preserving. Not all parcels should be allowed to develop as PUDs. Mr. Carlberg thought the Council agrees that the PUDs would be used to protect a stand of trees, some wetlands or other natural features of the land. Based on trying to preserve those amenities, the City would grant some density increase. \. /' '---) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 3 (Discussion - Planned Unit Developments, Continued) Commissioner Putnam also felt PUDs can be used when the City wants specific buffers and certain kinds of housing in specific areas. He agreed with Mr. Carlberg that a differentiation should be made between mixed use PUDs versus clustered residential housing with increased densities. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will try to have something back to the Commission by the next meeting. DISCUSSION - WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE Mr. Johnson presented a proposed wetlands protection ordinance which was tailored from the Burnsville, Maple Grove and Plymouth ordinances. The Commission went through the ordinance section by section and made the following comments and recommendations: Page 1, Section 1, Findings and Intent: Chairperson Squires asked how potential state legislation changes would affect this ordinance. Mr. Carlberg did not know, but he has given a copy of the proposed ordinance to the Coon Creek Watershed District. They will review it and note any errors, conflicts, etc. He hoped that information would be available for the public hearing on this ordinance. Staff can also look into any proposed wetlands legislation at the State as well. Page 2, Wetland Buffer Monument: Commissioner Wells suggested the markers be permanent corner markings like lot stakes so they would not be removed or lost. Commissioner Putnam felt the buffer strip would naturally occur; and if there is none, would the City require one to be put in? That 16 1/2 feet of buffer area might have been there for a long time, and he questioned if there would be a need for permanent markers. Mr. Carlberg explained the process of delineating the wetland to protect against the 100-year flood elevation. It is possible for the wetland boundaries to change over time. Chairperson Squires had a concern with iron monuments. They are used for lots, which always remain the same. But he didn't agree with installing iron monuments to delineate boundaries that may change. Mr. Carlberg also felt permanent iron markers may be confused with actual corner markers. The biggest concern is what happens over time. Wetlands will have to be monitored so people don't sod or mow to the edge of the water. The intent is to avoid contamination of the wetland area with additional fill, lawn fertilizer, etc. Commissioner Putnam also felt permanent iron markers may not be necessary given today's technology of being able to determine lot lines, wetland delineations, etc., with hand-held computers. No change was made. Definition of Wetlands: Mr. Johnson stated this definition is the same one taken from the Wetlands Conservation Act, but he will double check it. Page 3, Wetland Area Buffer Sign: Commission discussion was on the possibility of having a very bright, visible sign delineating the wetland area and buffer during construction, and then replace that with / \ U ,-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 4 / {Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued} a smaller, more natural permanent sign on the wetland buffer monument posts indicating the buffer area. The permanent signs should be aesthetically pleasing, possibly a metal band around the post. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will do further research on permanent versus temporary buffer signs. '\ ) Section 4, (a), Buffer strips: Commissioner Wells suggested the buffer be greater than the 16 1/2 feet proposed in the ordinance to protect the wetlands. Chairperson Squires felt there may be areas that have a natural buffer of more than 16 1/2 feet and forcing that specific buffer zone may be unnatural. Mr. Carlberg explained this is a 16 1/2-foot buffer outside of the delineated wetland boundary. Now they sod right up to the water. This would eliminate that practice. Commissioner Luedtke didn't feel 16 1/2 feet is enough to preserve the natural look of the wetland. Commissioner Putnam stated some people will clear to that buffer; others will leave a greater buffer. If it is a naturally- occurring buffer, it would look unnatural by requiring a larger buffer. Also, in the urban areas, any more could have a severe impact on what can be done on the lots. Chairperson Squires didn't know if there was anything that could be done with uniformity. They can only deal with minimums. He has also been surprised when looking at wetland delineations as to what is considered wetlands. He felt they are very liberally defined, and adding another 16 1/2 feet beyond that delineation would be a very large area, especially in the urban area where it could really encompass a lot of the back yards. He questioned whether these same rules would apply to ponds that have been deliberately created on private property. Mr. Carlberg stated he will ask the Watershed if the 16 1/2-foot minimum would also apply to privately developed ponds as well as protected wetlands. Consequences: Commissioner Wells felt there should be more teeth in the ordinance and include consequences if barriers are violated. Chairperson Squires wondered if that is covered under the Development Agreement with the developer. Mr. Carlberg did not know if there was an escrow; but if there is a problem during construction, the developer is tagged and development is stopped until the problem is corrected. \ Page 4, Section 5, Protective Barriers: Mr. Carlberg stated as written, the barriers would be removed when the Certificate of Occupancy is removed. The Commission stated the discussion was to have permanent markers as discussed previously. There probably would be no problem witb the first owner of the lot; but as the lot is sold to others, people will not know about the barriers unless they are marked. Again, any markers during construction would be bright and reflective; and permanent markers would be unobtrusive, possibly metal wrapped around the pole stating "wetland protection buffer". Mr. Carlberg suggested the last sentence in the section state, "Upon the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit from the Building Department, the protective barriers shall be removed by the developer/builder." He will discuss the issue of escrowing' for protective barriers with the Engineering Department. , / , , '- _/ , ) ~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 5 / (Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued) Page 4, Section 6, Wetland Buffer Strip Protection Plan. phone number in the second paragraph, Item 1. Remove the Page 4, Section 7, Buffer Strip Vegetation Re-Establishment Performance Standards: Commissioner Wells argued the buffer area is not to be disturbed, so there would be no need to re-establish the vegetation. If there is a problem, she'd like to see the vegetation replaced with the original vegetation. After further discussion, the general feeling was that as written, the references to natural vegetation may be sufficient; however, Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will look at the section again to see if some clarification can be made to preserving the wetland vegetation that is appropriate. He will also ask the Watershed about re- establishing the buffer area. Wetland plants would not be found outside the wetland area. , Page 6, Section 8, Encroachment in Buffer Strip Areas: Discussion was on the ability to place docks, duck blinds, boats, etc., within that buffer strip areas. Commissioner Wells argued by placing anything within that area, the vegetation is killed and the buffer zone is being changed. Commissioner Luedtke stated he would like to build a dock to the water area to be able to go out and enjoy it. Mr. Carlberg stated the intent is to keep structures, fences, play equipment, etc., out of the buffer strip. He didn't know if they can expand it to include temporary storage of boats, docks, etc. Chairperson Squires questioned whether a dock is a permanent structure and suggested Staff look at whether the items listed are adequate or whether it needs to be expanded. / Page 6, Section 9, Variances: Chairperson Squires thought these should be use variances which would allow someone to build a structure in the wetland buffer area. Commissioner Putnam thought someone should be able to apply for a variance on the 16 1/2 feet of buffer area as well, as possibly the elevation or other topographical feature would warrant a smaller buffer zone. Staff was asked to clarify an area variance provision as opposed to a use variance. Page 7, Section 10, Inspection and Investigation: Chairperson Squires noted the last sentence is similar to one that created considerable resident concern when proposed in another ordinance, that is granting the inspector the authority to enter onto private property at any reasonable time to carry out the duties assigned under this ordinance. He cautioned this may be an issue. / Page 7, Section 11, Penalty: Commissioner Wells questioned the five-day provision to comply, feeling a lot of damage can be created within that time frame. Five working days is a long time. Mr. Carlberg felt it is a reasonable time period, in that the person does have to be given time to correct the problem. They can attempt to distinguish between the situations of a private homeowner and during the course of construction when dealing with a contractor/builder. Chairperson Squires also suggested a sentence be added that the provision does not necessarily , '. ) \ I j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page 6 (Discussion - Wetland Protection Ordinance, Continued) limit the remedies given to the City under other ordinances. Make it clear this isn't the only penalty that can be levied against the person who violates the ordinance. Mr. Carlberg stated changes and corrections will be made to the proposed ordinance and a public hearing scheduled as soon as possible. DISCUSSION - ANTENNA/TOWER REGULATION ORDINANCE Mr. Johnson explained two companies have approached Staff asking about the possibility of placing antennas on the City's water towers. Staff is in the process of drafting an ordinance that will address height restrictions, permits, locations and setback requirements, policies, and lease agreements. His research has found that other communities require a permit process and charge a fee when antennas are placed on the cities' water towers. The City Council has indicated they would like to see these antennas and towers located on City-owned property and that it become a financial benefit for the community. It would also be possible for more than one company to have antennas on the same water tower. One communications company is in the process of drafting a five-year plan for the installation of their antennas, and they will send that plan to the City for review. He asked the Commission what other issues they would like to see addressed in the ordinance. Commissioner Wells wanted to be sure the frequencies being used by the telecommunications companies do not interfere with or cause problems with garage door openers of residents, etc. Mr. Johnson stated in most cities the telecommunications company are required to submit a copy of an interference analysis to be sure there will be no interference problems. That can be placed in the lease agreement. Commissioner Putnam felt the antennas would not be obtrusive if placed on the water towers. A concern would be how many are needed in the City to cover the area. There may not be public property available in the northern portion of the City. He would also be concerned about the density. How many will an area or a water tower support? Mr. Carlberg stated the intent is to be sure the City has control and to protect the City in these situations. There have been no problems with the towers that have already been constructed in the City. Chairperson Squires felt that many of the issues, including liability, maintenance, upkeep and subleasing, can be handled in the lease agreement, which presumably will be drafted by the City Attorney. He also advised that the terminology "city property" be used as opposed to "public property". He recalled seeing something on the federal level dealing with this issue and suggested that be researched so any federal regulations would not preempt the local regulations. Commissioner Wells suggested the revenues generated from the fees be specifically earmarked, so residents can be told how those funds will be used. Mr. / Carlberg stated the Council will need to address that issue. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12, 1996 Page /'7 (Discussion - Antenna/Tower Regulation Ordinance, Continued) There was general agreement that the Staff continue drafting the ordinance and that the current regulation requiring a Special Use Permit for anything over 35 feet be continued. Mr. Carlberg stated they will leave that provision. Once they learn more about the technology, the size and appearance of the antennas, some changes may be considered. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the actions of the City Council at its March 6, 1996, regular meeting. He also gave a brief presentation on the proposal brought to the Council regarding a planned unit development for senior housing off Bunker Lake Boulevard in the vicinity of the Round Barn. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Berry, Peek) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ;,\y\e~~ "M~cella A. Peach Recording Secretary