Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 14, 1995 o o ~ ;1./ ;;ll(,/Q5 o :C}\ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w, . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 14, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on February 14,1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovichr Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam None Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Engineer, Scott Erickson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES o January 24, 1995: Page 1, Fourth line of Public Hearing, Change "suite" to "site". MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval of the Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. SKETCH PLAN - KIRCHNER ADDITION - SECTION 29 Mr. Haas reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Kirchner Addition as presented by Jeff Kirchner to divide a parcel of property at the intersection of Round Lake Boulevard and South Coon Creek Drive into three single family urban residential lots. The Anoka County Highway Department is recommending a total of 60 feet be dedicated from the centerline of Round Lake Boulevard. Currently there is 50 feet of easement. With this required dedication, the corner lot would be 80 feet wide, which would require a variance from Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 A1 dictating a minimum width of 100 feet at the building setback line. The City did provide sanitary sewer and watermain stubs for all three lots. All assessments have been paid in full. The house on the parcel is currently hooked up to City sewer and water. Mr. Haas continued that variances would also be required from Ordinance 10, Section 9.03C for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, as they are proposed to have direct access to a collector street, and for Lot 1 which currently has direct access to a critical street, Round Lake Boulevard. o Commissioner Doucette expressed opposition to the 80-foot width on the corner lot. Commissioner Apel considered this a regulatory taking which has deprived the owner of his property rights. Prior to the ordinance change the proposed subdivision would have met the ordinance. The lots were stubbed in and the assessments were levied and paid. He felt this u () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 Page 2 ~) (Sketch Plan - Kirchner Addition, Continued) is the only way the property can be subdivided and that the variances are proper. If the current ordinance requirements are imposed, the City is depriving Mr. Kirchner property rights that existed prior to this. Mr. Haas explained the Council had decided the parcel could be subdivided based on the ordinance at that time of an aO-foot minimum lot. That requirement has since changed. There was some discussion that the City would not have to require the extra 10 feet that the county is requesting, though the general feeling was that the City should be cooperating with the county since the additional easement will probably be needed when the road is upgraded in the future. The Commission then suggested the driveways be placed as far east as possible on Lots 2 and 3 to move them away from the intersection of South Coon Creek Drive and Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Haas stated the driveway placements can be made a part of the preliminary plat. Another Commission suggestion was to reduce the width of the interior lot, Lot 3, to provide additional width to the corner lot, Lot 2. Mr. Haas stated that can be considered at the time of the preliminary plat. C) Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - explained when the Kirchners were assessed for that property, the City made an agreement with them of what lots would be available. He thought there was a written agreement by the Council made at the time of the assessment that they would be allowed three lots from that property. Jeff Kirchner - had a sketch showing the three lots that was done at the time of the assessment. He didn't know if that was the document to which Mr. Windschitl referred. The only difference is the interior parcel is 70 feet and the corner lot was 90 feet. The extra lO-foot dedication is not shown. Commissioner Doucette stated she would like to see the documentation at the time of the assessments. After further discussion, the majority felt the City may have already committed to three lots. They again expressed the importance of moving the driveways away from the intersection to address the safety concerns and generally agreed that a reduction in width to the interior lot would be appropriate to provide additional width to the corner lot. Mr. Haas stated the sketch plan will be forwarded to the Council with the Commission's comments to be reviewed at the February 21, 1995, meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION SUBDIVIDING ORDINANCE AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10, THE PLATTING AND CJ The Commission reviewed the following portions of the ordinance: Page 6, Section 7.02 B, Second paragraph: Commissioner Apel was concerned that the way it is worded, a developer has no method of getting beyond the Andover Review Committee if there is a disagreement and that the wording implies that no plat will be forwarded unless it is u () Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 Page 3 C_J (Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 10, Continued) 100 percent in compliance with the ordinance, so no variances will ever be allowed. Commissioner Peek felt that reviewing the plat for "compliance with the City ordinances" and reviewing the plat for "completeness of submission" is not the same. He felt it is the ARC's responsibility to review for completeness of submission. Commissioner Putnam also felt the word "compliance" is incorrect. Chairperson Squires clarified the review of the ARC is to be sure the plat contains all of the information requested by the City ordinances and all the necessary submittals so that it can be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr. Erickson stated he will look at rewording that paragraph. Page 7, K: Commissioner Apel asked if the State Statute allows 120 days. Mr. Carlberg stated it does. () Page 10, 8.03 K: Commissioner Apel was very uncomfortable with the wording of this paragraph. Who determines what is significant enough to forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council? Mr. Erickson stated the ARC wrestled with that definition. There are so many possible scenarios that could happen regarding a plat that it is not possible to put a definition on "significant". It was felt it should be done at the Staff level, and a reasonable Staff should be able to bring it back to the Commission and/or Council if there are major changes. It does not allow Staff to permit variances or lot alterations. It is specifically to the revisions of the development plan. Commissioner Apel had no problem with that, but questioned if the Commission and Council are giving up their responsibilities to the Staff. No change was suggested. Page 11, 9.01 B: Commissioner Apel again questioned who determines when it becomes necessary to combine the rural and urban contiguous properties together. Then there is the problem of how should the R-1 property be platted, urban or 2 1/2-acre lots? Chairperson Squires felt this language gives the discretion to look at that. Commissioner Apel just wanted to bring this out as a discussion item because it is very difficult to decide. He has no problem as long as Staff is not making policy. But if the Commission and/or Council are not participating, then Staff has to make policy because they are not getting direction from them. No change was suggested. Page 15, 9.06 A1: Commissioner Doucette found the paragraph very confusing and presented a typed revision of the paragraph as she understood it. () Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - stated this paragraph has a material effect on the design of plats. As written, he felt all developers will be required to go back to the grid system in order to comply, as any curvilinear streets, by definition, will have to have narrower back yards and wider front yards. He went into some detail to explain that with the current proposal, it is not possible to have curved streets, which has been desirable in Andover and used by all modern developers. He does not know of complaints in Andover with the current requirements, so he doesn't know where this change originated. u () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 Page 4 ~.J (Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 10, Continued) Mr. Erickson presented a diagram comparing the current requirements to the proposed change. The front of the lot doesn't change, but it does have the effect of enlarging the rear lot. The reason for the change was it is was felt it would be a benefit to the City to have larger back yards. Commissioner Apel felt it could mean what Mr. Windschitl has said, that the plats corning in would be grid streets rather than the nice curved streets that the developers now have. Chairperson Squires asked if it is a question of going to a grid system or of a developer losing the density and having fewer lots in any given piece of property. (.J Mr. Windschitl - explained the proposal is a dramatic difference of where to start the radial line. It gets to be an economic issue. Traditionally Andover developers do not design minimum-sized developments. His density in Crown Pointe East is lots of 1/2 acre. It isn't a question of trying to stuff the maximum number of lots; it is a question of being able to design curvilinear streets. He noted the change would also drastically affect cul-de-sac lots. Commissioner Apel repeated the reason for the change was to increase the size of the back yards. He didn' t know if that is a sufficient reason to make the change, but he did not want to create the checkerboard style of street layout unless that is what the Council decides. He did feel that people do want cul-de-sac lots and curvilinear streets. Mr. Erickson stated they did meet with the developers, who are aware of the proposed change. They didn't express any concerns. Mr. Windschitl - thought the developers really didn't understand what the change meant. They finally drew it out and found the language extremely confusing. They appreciated being informed of the proposed ordinance changes but simply did not understand this one at the time. Chairperson Squires suggested before it is presented to the Council, there needs to be more discussion with the developers on how this will work. Personally, if it is a question of losing a couple lots, that is a different story compared to whether this means plats will corne in as a grid, which he felt is not the way to layout a neighborhood. The other Commissioners agreed. They suggested Staff review the typed submission by Commissioner Doucette. Mr. Erickson stated they will revisit with the developers and will look at the curvilinear issue. Page 18, 907.6: Commissioner Jovanovich wondered if it should also include "City assessor". Mr. Erickson explained the procedure now followed by the Park and Recreation Commission. No change was made. Commissioner Jovanovich noted places where "engineer or engineer" is used and wondered if it should state "City Chairperson Squires noted the definition of "engineer" Engineer" . consulting engineer" . is "City :) Though the public hearing had already been closed, the Commission agreed '-/ to hear some testimony. (j (j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 /-") Page 5 ~J () CJ (Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 10, Continued) Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development - asked that the item be tabled until the next meeting to get an opinion from the City Attorney. They were concerned with the approval process of the ARC Committee, which may be in conflict with some sections of the law. Section 462.358 Section 3b very specifically states the review process and what cities are able to do. There is also a section where the subdivision application shall be approved or disapproved within 120 days following the deliverance of the application unless an extension is agreed to by the applicant. If no action is taken within that time frame, the application and preliminary plat is deemed approved. That can create a situation where something not being done can be approved within 120 days. A lot of the language of the changes transfers review approval process to the ARC, and he again asked that the item be tabled. Chairperson Squires did not feel it is necessary to table the item. The City Attorney will have time to look at the changes prior to the Council discussing it. Steve Nash, representinq several developers - hasn't had a chance to look at the changes since the last meeting. The Commission is looking at a fundamental change in the City and should consider what is best for the City. Andover has had only a small number of builders with good reputations, and they want to keep developing and constructing in Andover. If this policy is adopted, the developers and builders don't know what to expect from the ARC. There is no public hearing provided if there are disagreement with the ARC, and they are not willing to take a risk on a anonymous committee. As proposed, there is a shift from this body to the nameless Committee that doesn't even have rules. He asked that this be tabled to allow Staff to meet with the developers or their representatives to come up with some understanding. By simply passing this to the Council, the Commission is passing on an opportunity to shape that new policy, which may have the effect of bypassing the Commission altogether. He didn't think it was a benefit to the City to circumvent the Commission and Council. As required by State Statute, if the time period lapses, approval is deemed automatic and it may not be the product the City wants. Chairperson Squires explained at the last meeting and at this one, the Commission expressed general concerns with the terminology regarding the decisions of the ARC; however, the purpose of the Committee is to see that all of the technical information is in place before coming to the Commission. He still saw no reason to table the item. Mr. Nash - felt the language is extremely vague and it is a question of interpretation. The ARC shouldn't be making these determinations; it should be the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Council. Nothing in the ordinance obligates the ARC to state the problem. It is written that if the ARC says no, there is no appeal. As he reads it, if the ARC says no, it will not be filed with the City. In the past, if there has been a disagreement, it is allowed to go to the Planning Commission to let them make the decision. Chairperson Squires explained the City has their own requirements on submittals. The ARC determines whether the submittal is complete. He asked if the developer would have a right of appeal to the Board of Adjustments if they disagree with the ARC l~ ( ') 1......./ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 (- '1 Page 6 , .I (Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 10, Continued) determination. Mr. Carlberg was not sure of that process. Staff has the problem of plats being submitted that are not complete. The intent is to make sure they are complete before going to the Commission. Commissioner Apel stated he would like to see a provision that after a given period of time, it would be brought to the Planning Commission to either agree with the ARC or accept it as presented. He was nervous with the wording because it doesn't look like there is any way of ever getting out of the ARC if they deem it incomplete. There needs to be some way of appealing a decision of the ARC. Again, the Commission did not feel the need to table the issue, that the concerns have been expressed by the Commission as well as those of Mr. Nash and Mr. Windschitl. One change in language is the ARC is to determine the completeness of the submittal as opposed to its compliance. /"- ", \-.J Mr. Nash - was also concerned with the change to the preliminary plat schedule. If a plat submittal is complete, he didn't think the City has the authority to arbitrarily say it can't be heard because of the time of year. If an application is complete, it has to go forward. From the developer's perspective, they want to know the rules and that they are fair and applied equally to everyone. Also, it has to be applied using a public body, not done in a back room; because that is when people will have the perception that the rules are being applied arbitrarily. The Commission generally agreed this item should be forwarded to the City Council with the proposed changes and general comments and concerns. Mr. Erickson stated the item has been removed from the February 21 Council meeting agenda and will be on the March 7 Council agenda. In the meantime, Staff will work on the issues raised this evening. DISCUSSION - EXPANSION OF TIF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT , " ''-.) Mr. Carlberg asked the Commission to approve the modification of the development program for Development District No.1. He reviewed the proposed expansion, that area in which Tax Increment Financing funds can be used. The expansion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Andover Economic Development Authority has given conceptual approval to the proposed expansion, with discussion that a four-fifth vote would be needed to use TIF funds in the outer district and a simple majority needed to use TIF funds in the area designated in bold, Option A. By law the Commission is required to review the expansion of the development district. He also noted the Authority had discussed the possibility of including the entire City in the Development District as other cities have done, but the majority preferred the expansion as shown. The district could be expanded again in the future. In a discussion with the Commissioners, Mr. Carlberg noted the Comprehensive Plan does not include a specific proposed area for the TIF ,,) , 'J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 14, 1995 "\ Page 7 , J (Discussion - Expansion of TIF Development, Continued) districts, but it does encourage the use of TIF funds as a tool to promote development of commercial and industrial. This proposed expansion is consistent with that statement. The purpose for the expansion is to allow for greater flexibility in the use of the TIF funds, though the intent continues to be to use the TIF funds primarily to redevelop the existing auto recycling area south of Bunker Lake Boulevard. TIF funds can be used for the infrastructure, the extension of utilities, the acquisition of land, plus in the various commercial areas within the expanded district. The Commission noted the Comprehensive Plan is quite vague on this subject and that this is an important decision on development. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, adoption of the Resolution which is contained in the Staff report (Resolution of the Andover Planning Commission finding the modification to the development program for Development District No. 1 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City). Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS r, l ) '-~ Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions of the City Council at their February 7, 1995, regular meeting. Commissioner Peek also reported the Task Force on Snowmobiles held its first meeting this evening. Andover now has a Snowmobile Club with 15 to 20 members. The Task Force discussed possible regulations, educational programs, certification programs, and designating trails through Andover. The next scheduled meeting is March 28. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. unanimously. Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully s~ / Th ~0-.~o.d~ ~~r~lla A. Peach Recording Secretary .....-/