Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 26, 1996 u u ~ "'-\ \q \'il.o o CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 26, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on March 26, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Lynette Berry, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam, Lorna Wells Randy Peek City Planning, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 12, 1996: Page 1, Correct Commissioners present: "Jerry Putnam". MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Berry, to approve the Minutes as changed. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-Present (Apel), I-Absent (Peek) vote. CJ PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENTS AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.18, PLANNED UNIT 7:02 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the hearing is to amend Ordinance 8, Sections 3.02, Definitions; 4.18, Planned Unit Developments; and 4.20, Density Zoning, in conjunction with the proposed new Ordinance No. 112 regulating PUDs. He also asked the Commission to discuss the minimum lot size requirements for PUDs in the R-4 and R-5 zoning districts which are currently in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. Should the City leave those minimums, take them out and let the developer propose minimum lot sizes, or add minimums for the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones as well. Mr. Carlberg explained the amendments to the sections in Ordinance 8 are housekeeping to correlate with the proposed PUD Ordinance. Page 5 of the proposed Ordinance 112, Section 11, b, requires maintenance and cleaning to be the responsibility of the property owners' association or owner. Public Works is reviewing that section to be sure there will be no problem with the City being able to maintain the sewer lines. That issue has not yet been resolved. This ordinance also depends on the platting and subdividing ordinance procedure for development. The City attorney has not reviewed the proposals. / "- I .'--..J Chairperson Squires noted there are specific regulations and requirements covering common areas and restrictive covenants, and he felt it would make sense to be sure what the City is requiring is consistent with those regulations. He specifically related to the items under c. on Page 3. Mr. Carlberg stated he will have legal counsel review that section. " ; \ '-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Maarch 26, 1996 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, PUDs, Continued) MOTION by Berry, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:12 p.m. Bvron Westlund, Woodland Development Corporation - stated they reviewed the ordinance and feel it would be workable with the City. They are in favor of it as proposed. They have done PUDs in Oak Grove and Ham Lake, and it has worked out very well. Commissioner Apel asked his opinion of requiring minimum lot sizes in the zoning districts. Mr. Westlund - stated their units are larger, so that is not a problem. In other communities, the minimum lot size is based on the livability requirements. The footprint of the building includes a primary septic system and an alternate. The 39,000 square-foot code is adequate and is a good size for a house plus a primary and alternate septic system. In the condominium approach, they could sell the footprint of the building. People buy the building and the rest is common space that is taken care of by the association. That is how they have developed Majestic Oaks in Ham Lake, and that has been very successful. All of their PUDs in Ham Lake and Oak Grove have been in rural areas with septic systems. By requiring a minimum lot size, such as one acre in the rural area, that kind of development is eliminated. Many people do not want to take care of anything other than the building itself. People are looking at different amenities, and the open spaces do draw clientele. There are no maintenance problems by the associations. The most difficult is keeping the dues realistic, covering the start-up costs, and having an amount reserved for emergency situations. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Apel felt the minimum lot size issue should become part of the contract in the negotiations between the developer and the City. Some may want a minimum lot size, but it is easier to go with the condominium concept, which is used often. Mr. Carlberg wondered if there would be a legal issue with negotiating a PUD with minimums that are less than the ordinance now requires for Zones R-4 and R-5. He again noted the purpose of allowing PUDs is to preserve some natural amenity on the property. The intent is not to cram as many lots as possible on a parcel. Commissioner Wells stated she would like to see some minimum in the rural areas, to stay within the 39,000 square feet, because of the well and septic systems. Commissioner Apel argued in order for developers to take advantage of the PUD option and to save open spaces, there must be a list of trade offs. \ J Mr. Westlund stated otherwise a portion of the market is eliminated. The size requirements vary among cities. Some are 10,000 square feet; some 20,000, and some 30,000 square feet. Commissioner Putnam wanted to be careful not to eliminate the types of legal ownerships available to builders and developers. In discussing the options further, Chairperson Squires asked if there are other City ordinances that would dictate defacto minimum lot sizes if they are not specifically stated in the '- j ,-,-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Maarch 26, 1996 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, PUDs, Continued) table in Section 6.02 or in the PUD ordinance. Mr. Carlberg stated the platting ordinance would still require the 39,000 square-foot minimum on rural areas, the minimum building pad, etc. He stated if minimums are not required at this time, they will work with developers; and if it becomes a problem, the ordinances can be amended in the future. Commissioner Putnam noted there is no mention of PUDs in the commercial area. Therefore, minimums should be eliminated for residential areas as well and let that be negotiated by the City with the developers. Then every district in the table will be the same. The Commission asked whether another hearing notice is necessary to amend Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, Minimum Requirements. Mr. Carlberg did not believe so; however, the Commission has the option to do so. The Commission generally agreed that another public hearing notice should be advertised. They also generally agreed that the table in Section 6.02 should be amended to eliminate the minimum PUD requirements noted in the R-4 and R-5 districts. The intent would be that minimum lot sizes in all districts would be negotiated with the developers, given the parameters that are already in existence for septic systems, building pads, etc. Mr. Carlberg stated the issues of maintenance by Public Works and legal review should be resolved by the time the Commission hears this again. I MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Berry, to table this subj ect to legal review and renotification for a public hearing for Section 6.02. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. This will be placed on the April 9, 1996, Commission agenda. 7:50 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE Mr. Carlberg stated Staff is requesting this item be tabled to obtain more information. Staff will be meeting with developers this Thursday on several issues, and input is desired on this proposal as well. He also noted a letter from Rosella Sonsteby which protests the requirement of a buffer around wetland areas. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to table the public hearing for Wetland Protection Ordinance so Staff has time to process information obtained with meeting with developers and the Watershed District. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ANTENNA/TOWER REGULATION ORDINANCE 7:54 p.m. Mr. Johnson reviewed the impetus for the proposed ordinance and highlighted some of the provisions to regulate the construction of antennas and towers in the City. The placement of antennas or towers on public or City-owned property would require a Special Use Permit and a lease agreement. \ ,) \ <.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Maarch 26, 1996 Page 4 ) / (Public Hearing: Antenna/Tower Regulations Ordinance, Continued) MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:56 p.m. Larissa Knapp and Tom Klawiter, SBA, explained they are a consulting company working with Sprint Spectrum to establish a wireless communications network in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area plus 28 otheL areas around the country. It is based on the next generation in cellular technology, which is digital. The advantage of digital technology is it provides better security. It also broadcasts at a lower power output. The phones will be smaller and lighter weight. They have a 25-year plan in which to perfect the technology and move to have long distance, local cable, cellular phone, etc., all under one company. Personal communication system equipment will be on another frequency band, so there should be no interference with other things. It is regulated by the FCC. Commissioner Wells was concerned that there will be problems similar to what people in Coon Rapids are experiencing when they get TV transmissions over their phone lines. \ / Mr. Klawiter was not aware of that problem. If there is any question of overlap of the different frequencies, their engineers can check it out. They do analyze the Twin Cities area to decide where the towers should be put to provide the best reception for the Twin Cities area. They are proposing to have antennas placed on the City's water towers. Ms. Knapp stated their engineers can do a study of modulations if the City can provide the frequencies and power outages of other antennas in the area to determine whether the interference is being caused by their PCS system. Mr. Klawiter stated their goal is to be able to have the best and clearest reception possible. If there is an overlap in frequencies, their system is not performing at the correct band and they should be notified so they can fix it. They are not allowed to operate at a different frequency. Commissioner Apel asked if either one of them had a problem with the ordinance being proposed. Ms. Knapp stated she only had a chance to glance at the ordinance, but it does fall in line with what other communities are doing. She questioned the language under Section 2, (a), which does not relate to analog communications. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to the following wording: " . . . reception of radio waves in digital, analog or wireless communications." Mr. Klawiter stated the ordinance is limiting if they are only allowed to place their antennas on City property. If their engineers decide a good location is on top of an existing building that has a tower already, to avoid that and build a tower on City property in that same section might not be desirable for them or the City. Mr. Carlberg stated the direction of the Council was to have these on City-owned property so the City had control. They may need to address the issue of existing private structures. Commissioner Apel was not impressed when a governmental unit decides to become a monopoly. He didn't want to be a part of an ordinance that is structured to prevent competition in the private sector. \. ) \ ",-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Maarch 26, 1996 Page 5 \ / (Public Hearing: Antenna/Tower Regulations Ordinance, Continued) Ms. Knapp stated they first look at public property for the location of their antennas. If that is not available, they look on top of existing private buildings. Mr. Carlberg stated he will ask the Council to address that issue. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Berry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Peek) vote. 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Putnam had a concern with Section 6, Subdivision 7, on Page 3. There are regulations on lights and reflectors at a certain height. At the same time, he didn't want them to be a nuisance issue to the quality of life for adjoining properties. This ordinance should not conflict with those regulations. Mr. Carlberg stated it is a safety issue, and they will look into it further. One of the concerns is not knowing just how many towers and antennas will be needed. " J Commissioner Berry asked if allowed on City property, how would the City stop someone from leasing space on that same tower to someone else? She did feel it would be better to allow flexibility in the location of the antenna than to have to build a tower on City property that may be right next to a suitable location on private property. Chairperson Squires felt that would be included in the lease agreement. Commissioner Luedtke did not favor restricting these to City-owned property. With the Special Use Permit process, there is no reason to limit the locations. That can be handled through the Permit. Commissioner Apel felt that as written, it could be interpreted that someone that has an existing tower on private property would have to remove it. He specifically related to Sections 3 and 5. Mr. Carlberg stated the intent is not to require existing towers to be taken down. MOTION by Berry, Seconded by Luedtke, that we forward to the City Council for approval the proposed ordinance with the following changes: Page 1, Section 2, (a), add "...digital, analog, or other wireless communications" . And also that further consideration be given to Section 6, Subsection 7 on Page 3 regarding the lighting requirements, beacons, lights, illuminators, and that be looked at for code and other regulations. Page 4, Section 7, Subsection 2, that further consideration that they can be located somewhere else in the City of Andover on private property versus City-owned and look at that as an option. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Wells asked that "public property" be used rather than "City-owned property" to be able to include county and school district property. Chairperson Squires felt that will be addressed under Section 7, Subsection 2. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1- Absent (Peek) vote. This will be placed on the April 16, 1996, City Council agenda. 8:20 p.m. " OTHER BUSINESS -' Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions taken by the City Council at its March 19, 1996, regular meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Maarch 26, 1996 Page 6 (Other Business, Continued) Commissioner Wells noted she received a letter regarding for a senior citizen center along Bunker Lake Boulevard. stated a neighborhood meeting on the matter will be held March 28, 1996. the proposal Mr. Carlberg on Thursday, Commissioner Wells asked that the snowmobile issue be revisited. She related an incident of two children driving snowmobiles through Bill's Superette parking lot, an illegal area. She stated this is becoming a safety issue. While she recognized the efforts of the snowmobile club, she strongly felt this is a serious problem and safety issue that need to be addressed. Mr. Carlberg advised that any incidents should be reported to both the City and the snowmobile club hot line. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Putnam, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~~~~l Recording Secretary