Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 24, 1992 o o o o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 24, 1992 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Bonnie Dehn on March 24, 1992,7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Becky Pease, Bev Jovanovich, Marc McMullen, Randy Peek Steve Jonak Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planner, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 10, 1992: Correct as written. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Apel, to accept the Minutes for March 10. Motion carried on 6-Yes, i-Absent (Jonak) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (R-l TO R-4) - WINSLOW HILLS 2ND ADDITION. GORHAM BUILDERS AND WINSLOW HOLASEK 7:31 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Gorham Builders, Inc., and Winslow Holasek to rezone the proposed Winslow Hills 2nd Addition from R-l, Single Family Rural, to R-4, Single Family Urban. Staff is recommending approval. Chairperson Dehn opened the public hearing. Mr. Carlberg stated the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which is being considered by the Metropolitan Council. The City can rezone without sewer actually being there, although the property would only be allowed to be developed to the minimum 2.5-acre lots as long as it remains outside the MUSA. Commissioner Apel noted it is obvious the City does not want this area to develop in 2.5-acre lots, as that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by McMullen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the resolution granting the rezoning request of Gorham Builders as presented by Staff. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. This item will be on the April 21, 1992, City Council Agenda. 7:40 p.m. , J '-.J , J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 24, 1992 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINSLOW HILLS 2ND ADDITION. GORHAM BUILDERS AND WINSLOW HOLASEK 7:40 p.m. Mr. Haas reviewed comments and concerns of the Andover Review Committee pertaining to the proposed preliminary plat of Winslow Hills 2nd Addition. The subdivision consists of 62 single family urban residential lots, noting the property must first be rezoned and included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The proposed plat differs from the sketch plan presented in 1988. The road to Crosstown Boulevard has been changed, as the developer is looking at the possibility of townhomes on those lots along Crosstown Boulevard. He felt it was good planning to move the road further from the intersection of Crosstown and Hanson Boulevards. Mr. Haas also noted some areas included in the 1988 sketch plan have been eliminated and more cul-de-sacs have been added. The area north of Crosstown Boulevard is now proposed as all commercial, whereas the 1988 sketch plan shows it as housing. Mr. Haas pointed out that in the future, Mr. Holasek may wish to include his homestead property in the sketch plan, which could provide for roads to go through. The , Park and Recreation Commission is recommending cash in lieu of land ~ for park dedication. The Commission commented it is good planning to eliminate accesses to heavily traveled roads and move accesses away from major intersections, but there was some concern about 150th Lane carrying the brunt of the traffic from this subdivision to Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Haas agreed that is a concern, though some of that traffic will go north once the next phase is constructed. Traffic can also go south on Bluebird to Oak Bluff and out to Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Haas stated the City will also require the 100-year-flood calculations for the northwest corner to make sure the lots will be high and dry. The southeast part of the plat will be designed by the City because of the existing homes and storm sewer through that area. The hearing was opened for public testimony. Myron Gannon. 1452 148th Lane - was concerned about the traffic coming to Oak Bluff, and feared even more with the 3rd and 4th Additions. He is not necessarily opposed to the plat, but he'd like to see some traffic controls at 148th and 149th and Bluebird. Mr. Haas stated Oak Bluff is not signed, as it is a rural area; but he agreed a stop sign could be placed on Bluebird at 148th. One cannot be put on 148th because it doesn't meet warrants. Mr. Gannon - stated that is acceptable. '\ ,) Gary Gorham. 3538 Mississippi Drive. Coon Rapids - explained the reason for the change in the sketch plan is they changed planners since the first phase, and they feel this is a better plan now. They moved the access onto Crosstown Boulevard because of topography. This Addition has a lot of trees and rolling areas, and they tried to save as much as they could while still staying within City code. , \ ~~ u . \ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ,~ Minutes - March 24, 1992 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Winslow Hills 2nd, Continued) Mr. Gorham continued that the cul-de-sac to the east is to have bigger lots by the gas line easement so the homes could be further away from the easement. There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Dehn asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. Mr. Haas stated according to the City's regulations, temporary turnarounds will not be needed on the cul-de-sacs. ~J MOTION by Apel, Seconded by McMullen, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that they approve the Resolution concerning the preliminary plat of Winslow Hills 2nd Addition as presented by the Staff, with the addition of a No.2 caveat under the park dedication paragraph stating the City is directed to provide a stop sign at the intersection of 148th and Bluebird to stop the traffic coming from the north from Winslow Hills 2nd so they must stop at that stop sign. It should also be noted that the Staff wants to note that the 100-year-flood plain elevations and drainage plans have yet to be submitted for that northwest pond, and that it should be part of their submission to the Council. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. This item will be on the April 21, 1992, City Council Agenda. 8:02 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS CODE AND RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE 8:02 p.m. Mr. Carlberg stated the corrections suggested by the Commission on March 10, 1992, have been made in the draft copies of the ordinances, plus Staff made additional changes in Sections 4-10 of Oridnance 99, the Rental Housing Dwelling Licenses and Regulations Ordinance. There was considerable debate over Section 6, Subdivision 2, regarding the requirement of designating a resident operator or agent who resides within the seven-county metropolitan area If the owner does not reside in the seven-county area. Mr. Carlberg stated the City Attorney has reviewed this section and made the suggestion to use the seven counties rather than restrict it to Anoka County. , ~ Commissioner Apel felt it is not legal for the City to force one party ,_) to enter into a contract with another, that the provision forces owners who leave town to work with an agent or property management company, and that the provision does not address how long an owner '" ) v , Andover Planning and Zoning Commission / Minutes - March 24, 1992 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Minimum Housing Standards/Rental Housing, Continued) must be out of town before this is in effect. He gave the scenario of an elderly couple renting their single family home while they go south for several months. Does this provision mean an agent must be designated if they are gone for two weeks, two months, six months? He didn't feel the City should be forcing people in this instance to hire agents or property management companies. The provision would be a burden to single-family home owners. Commissioner Apel felt the paragraph is not needed. If there is a problem, the rental license should be revoked. Mr. Carlberg explained the ordinance requires licensIng for renting property regardless of the length of the rental period. Designating an agent Is necessary for the City so someone in the area is responsible for maintaining the property and so the City does not have to locate the owners from allover the country if there is a problem. Someone has to be held responsible for the rental unit. The Commission discussed whether or not the renter can be designated the agent. It was felt that is possible, though it would have to be written into the lease. Commissioner Apel felt this would work better if one is in the rental business, that is for producing income; but the short-term rental of a single family home is generally not a problem and should be exempted from this provision. Commissioner Jovanovich reported in contacting many other cities, she found that some cities require this and others do not. Those that require that an agent be designated are enforcing that provision. Discussion was on the length of time an owner would have to be away from the seven-county area before an agent must be designated. It was finally determined that as long as the owner is a "resident" of the metro area, that is he/she has a permanent local mailing address, no other agent need be assigned. This may eliminate the question of those owners who rent their single family home while they are gone for several months; however the provision would be applicable where owners of apartments, etc., do not live in the seven-county area, which is the main area of concern. Several CommIssioners were also concerned about the five-day time period from the response of the complaints to the actual action. Mr. Carlberg stated that time period is used so that action will be taken immediately. No change was made to the ordinance. Section 9, Posting: Change to "Every licensee of a multiple rental dwelling shall post the bi-annual license..." (Continue as written). ,/ The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, Chairperson Dehn asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to so move. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Jonak) vote. \ , 'J \ \.J ) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 24, 1992 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Minimum Housing Standards/Rental Housing, Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to send Ordinance 99 to the City Council and recommend approval of it as we have seen it here tonight with the one change in Section 9. A public hearing was held; there was no opposition. Also note the Commission spent a good deal of time discussing Section 6, Subdivision 2. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. Commission discussed the proposed Ordinance 100, the Housing Standards Ordinance. Mr. Carlberg noted no changes were made and that this applies to al I buildings within the City, not just rental units. The Building Official, who wil I enforce the ordinance, has reviewed it and has no problem with it. The definitions conform to the Zoning Ordinance definitions. Section 6, Stairways, Proches and Balconies, Line 4: Change to "...shall conform to the Andover Building Code standards..." " I , J MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Jovanovich, to accept Ordinance 100 as presented by Staff and forward it to the City Council for approval. A public hearing was held Jointly with Ordinance 99 and there was no opposition. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Jonak) vote. This will be on the April 21, 1992, City Council agenda. 8:47 p.m. DISCUSSION - TANNING BEDS IN IN-HOME BEAUTY SALONS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Dan and Beverly Penn to allow them to add a tanning bed to their in-home beauty salon. Tanning beds are not currently governed by any regulatory body within the State of Minnesota. They are not addressed in the City/s ordinance. In talking with other cities, none have had this request, nor do they address it in their ordinances. Some said if it would be permitted, it would be by amended Special Use Permit. The Commission discussed the options of amending the ordinance to include tanning beds as an allowable in-home business, to allow them only in conjunction with an in-home beauty salon permit, or that tanning beds would not be an allowable use for in-home businesses. , \ , J Comments were that such a business is in direct conflict with the City/s efforts to zone designated areas of the City for neighborhood businesses such as this, that the use as an in-home occupation is not required to satisfy a need for Andover residents since there are such businesses already located in designated commercial areas, that adding the use to another in-home occupational use such as beauty salons is intensifying a commercial use in a residential area, that the use as an in-home occupation may be creating new activities that will be more in demand for in-home businesses, and that it may not be legal to tie this use to Just one other use; therefore, if allowed, it would be able to function by itself. , , -- ~I \ \J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ') Minutes - March 24, 1992 / Page 6 (Discussion - Tanning Beds in In-Home Beauty Salons, Continued) For those reasons, the Commission generally agreed that no change should be made to the ordInance and that the use should not be permitted as an In-home occupation either by itself or in connection with beauty salons. They also noted the use is in direct competition with the Comprehensive Plan, it could be an intense business generating additional traffic and parking problems in a residential area, and there are health issues associated with tanning beds. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, that after reviewing Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 (B)(1), that the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that there should be no changes in it at this time. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Jonak) vote. DISCUSSION - EXTENDED DRIVEWAYS/VARIANCES " , ) Mr. Carlberg reviewed the City Council's request to address a policy change by allowing extended driveways and granting variances to the lot width at the front setback line. The issue arose from the Johnson request to split a ten-acre parcel and provide access to one of the parcels via a 34-foot extension to Tulip Street. The Commission discussed various options to the parcel in question, noting it is not denied use of the land because there is access by Poppy Street in the northeast corner. The parcel could possibly be split diagonally from Poppy Street. Mr. Carlberg felt the Johnsons were not interested in splitting the property that way. Commissioner Apel stated extended driveways have been al lowed in the past, so it is not setting a precedent. He felt each case needs to be considered on an individual basis. He did not feel this is a major policy change, that he does not wish to change the policy, but that his position is unchanged in this instance because allowing the extension provides for the most reasonable use of the land. He also noted the City already addresses long driveways by requiring Class V when they exceed so many feet. Also, as the City develops, there will be more and more of these parcels which are difficult to develop. Mr. Carlberg noted technically the extension and the large parcel can be combined, then the large parcel split into two five-acre parcels as proposed because metes and bounds subdivisions only require the parcel to touch a dedicated street. The problem is meeting the width requirement at the setback. Commissioner Peek stated a similiar request was made in the past and \ the City took the position that this type of development was not ,/ appropriate. He doesn't support the lot split proposal. If this is allowed, it will be a springboard for too many other similiar situations that the City doesn't want. He'd agree to an access from Poppy, so they are not being denied the use of their land. ( , ',----- J " \ I...J ,'." Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ,) Minutes - March 24, 1992 Page 7 (Discussion - Extended Driveways/Variances, Continued) Chairperson Dehn did not want to see the policy changed, but she felt that each situation needs to be considered on an individual basis. She still supported the Johnson proposal as a reasonable solution. When polled, five Commissioners verbally recommended the policy not be changed; but in this situation, their positions remain the same, that is to allow the lot split as proposed with the 34-foot extension to Tulip Street. They did not feel this Is a change in policy, but a reasonable use of the land. CommIssioner Peek stated "present", as he dId not partIcipate in the origInal discussion on the item; however, he did not want the policy changed and was not in favor of the proposed lot split. Mr. Carlberg stated he will brIng the Commission/s comments to the City Council at its regular AprIl 21, 1992, meeting. There beIng no further busIness, ChaIrperson Dehn declared the meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. :~ ) Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary "\ '. ./