Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 2009 I T Y O F C 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 —M4 Y 12 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on May 12, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Valerie Holthus. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Angie Perera Director of Public Works /City Engineer, David Berkowitz p Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. April 14, 2009 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent ( Holthus) vote. PUBLICHEARING: VARIANCE (09 -02) TO VARYFROMMINIMUMLOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -3 -5 FOR FUTURE LOT SPLIT AT 17285 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the applicant would like to divide their 9.69 acre parcel into two lots at some point in the future. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not understand what the applicant was trying to do with the property because the long narrow strip looked to be only a road. Mr. Bednarz clarified with the Commission what the applicant proposed to do. Commissioner Cleveland asked if an easement was granted where the potential property © would be located at. Mr. Bednarz stated it is yet to be determined and staff will work Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 2 4 with the applicant on this, if approved, to make sure the home is not located in an area that would obstruct the road from being extended. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Harvey Mathies, 2857 172 Avenue, stated he talked to the owner of the other property and was told he was not going to sell the land or divide his property. He stated there will be one road coming in there and will go into a cul -de -sac and he wondered if these lots will be 2.5 acres. Chairperson Daninger believed the area was zoned for 2.5 acres. He also wondered if a cul -de -sac was placed on the property if someone will take some of his land for a second access to the area. Chairperson Daninger indicated they were only looking at the variance at the meeting and everything else will be looked at in the future. Mr. Keith Larson, applicant, 17285 Round Lake Boulevard, stated they never intended on putting in a cul -de -sac or anything else. They just want to have access from 173 into their property so they could someday possibly build a house in the back. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- © ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Casey stated he thought in this situation it is a unique property considering the length of it and access is limited by other private properties it is landlocked and presents a hardship for him. He stated he was in favor of approving the variance and did not see any other alternatives in developing the back of this property. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the variance request. Commissioner Walton stated there is a neighboring property to this one and they will land lock this property if they approve this variance because they would never have access to 17247. This landowner will then control the road that will have access to the back half of both of the lots. Mr. Bednarz stated to clarify the intent at this time is to provide a driveway access to the subject property. The applicant did express to him some interest in another lot there at some point in the future, which would also be served by a driveway. The City would make sure that the location of that home would not conflict with the extension of a future street. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 3 ® PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (09 -04) TO ALLOW A USED CAR DEALER AT 3149162 LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Code requires Council approval of a conditional use permit and a city license for used vehicles sales in the Limited Industrial Zoning District. The applicant is obtaining a dealer's license from the state. This license requires commercial office space. The applicant proposed to have a small office in the existing building and one display vehicle in the existing parking lot. The applicant's letter also indicates that he would provide brokering services for clients. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the proposed building was what was currently there. Mr. Bednarz indicated that was correct. Chairperson Daninger indicated an email was received by Dan and Nancy Prescott indicating they were against this Conditional Use Permit application. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Joe Brabant, 16191 Round Lake Boulevard, stated he was not opposed to business but his question was the parking situation and if it was indeed a legal parking lot because © he understood that a permit was never given for this parking lot so in reality it could not be considered adequate parking for a business. Mr. Bednarz did not think Mr. Brabant was ever told there was not any parking at this site and shows parking in the aerial photo. He stated he was not privy to all the details or history of this site. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the parking lot was bituminous. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if a permit was pulled for this parking area. Mr. Bednarz explained he could not answer that but there was a parking lot on site at this point in time. Mr. Frank Sudd, 15956 Drake Street, stated he was looking for the opportunity to start this business. He noted he planned on having an extremely small operation and looking to get his dealers license. He also noted there will be minimal impact to the area. Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd planned on having only one display vehicle on site. Mr. Sudd indicated he did because he mostly needed to CUP in order to get his dealers license in order to broker. Commissioner Falk asked if Mr. Sudd would consider looking into consignment of vehicles. Mr. Sudd stated that is something he may look into and would like to keep his business somewhat diverse. He would not keep a vehicle parked in the lot trying to sell it but may help others use his resources to sell their vehicle on consignment. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 4 © Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd did this anywhere else. Mr. Sudd stated he did not. Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd was comfortable with staff suggestion with the vegetation and upgrade of plantings. Mr. Sudd stated he has not seen those plans yet but did talk to the owner of the building but was not aware of the requirements. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would support this item as written. Chairperson Daninger agreed and wanted to make sure it was also fair to the existing businesses and have staff follow up on the parking area that was discussed. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to approve as written and following up with staff to see if the parking lot is legal. Chair Daninger stated the resolution was read and restated and the concern with the one vehicle was understood by the applicant. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays (Casey), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. © Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. a PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OFHANSONBOULEVARDAND CROSSTOWNBOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz stated BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. This item follows from the sketch plan reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 10 meeting. The applicant requested a full movement access to Crosstown Boulevard at that meeting. The Planning Commission recommended a right - in/right -out access only. The Council appeared in favor of a' /a intersection. The Council also discussed the speed limit along Crosstown Boulevard, the potential for development of the Holasek property to the south and staging roadway improvements over time. Mr. Bednarz turned the discussion over to Mr. Berkowitz who reviewed the information with the Commission. © Commissioner Kirchoff stated Crosstown is currently separated by a concrete median up to the point where this access would begin and he wondered if the concrete would be tore Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 5 © up through the whole intersection area. Mr. Berkowitz indicated it would be torn up through the intersection to prevent any left movements into and out of the development and then create a safe area for those left turning vehicles. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if staff felt the three quarter access will work. Mr. Berkowitz stated as long as the safety improvements are adhered by as identified in their review of the plan. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there would be adequate space on the road for this improvement. Mr. Berkowitz stated there will need to be some widening needed on the roadway to facilitate the hard canalization. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there was sufficient room to widen the road. Mr. Berkowitz stated there is as long as the improvements are made towards the north side of Crosstown Boulevard. He noted there is no right -of -way on the south side of the road. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Tom Roberts, 6484 Pinnacle Drive, Eden Prairie, Chief Manager of BDT Holdings & Mr. Darren Lazan, Landform Engineering and Manager of BDT Holdings were at the ® meeting for discussion. Mr. Roberts stated the issue really becomes a cost issue. He thought everyone has agreed that a 3 /4 should work and their engineer thought they should have a full access because it operates at level service A. They felt in the future something will have to happen, such as when Mr. Holasek's property gets developed or they develop the other outlot and the traffic justifies it, he thought putting in additional access will make sense. They would like to build a % today with painted lines and a pork chop concrete at the access point but adding concrete medians and turn lanes adds too much to the cost for something that will be ripped out at some point when other properties are developed and does not make sense to spend that money for that now. Mr. Roberts stated one of the big issues is the speed limit and would recommend instead of requesting a speed study between Bluebird and Hanson, the speed study was done east of Bluebird, and by putting this access in they should request a speed study in a shorter time frame. Mr. Winslow Holasek stated he owns the property across the road from this development and he believed access to Clocktower Commons will be good for them and the City and he thought it seemed reasonable to have a 3 /4 intersection there at this time. Chairperson Daninger asked if a full intersection was constructed how it would be built. © Mr. Roberts stated the traffic does not justify that at this time. The only reason they suggested a 3 /4 intersection is because they have the ability at Bluebird to turn left. He Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 6 © thought the two big issues are staff would like a fairly large right turn lane into the property which they did not think was necessary at this point and the concrete medians going from both directions to designate the left turn in and so people cannot make a left turn out. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he supported the City Engineer's recommendation for this. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the City was going to make any adjustment to the speed limit on Crosstown. Mr. Berkowitz stated they were not and would remain at 50mph. Commissioner Walton stated in these economic times they need to figure out a way that makes economical sense to local businesses to help them thrive. He stated there needs to be another outlet because the parking area is hard to navigate. He was not sure he was in support of this or not. Chairperson Daninger thought the Commission agreed on the 3 /4 turn and he wondered which recommendation everyone wanted to use. © Commissioner Cleveland stated he was sympathetic to the Cities safety concerns. Both engineers have the same facts and drawn different conclusions for the intersection. He thought anything that will help the businesses out is a reasonable exercise to take. Chairperson Daninger stated he would not be in favor of what the applicant proposed but would agree with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Walton stated he was comfortable with the 3 /4 but was unsure of the expanse and expense of it. Mr. Berkowitz stated staff has to look at this as more of a permanent condition because they do not know where they will be at in five years. This does meet a level of a fall intersection at this time but they go back to identifying safety concerns. To support something less than a median out there will be a safety issue. Commissioner Walton stated he is struggling with this and based on discussion he would vote no just to send a message to Council that they need to make sure they are making the right decision. Commissioner Falk felt they were making the right decision. He stated they cannot put a price on safety. He stated he was in favor of the staff recommendation because of safety reasons. © Commissioner Casey stated he would be fine with staff recommendation. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 7 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to move the resolution as written and include the staff memo including the engineer recommendation. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays (Walton), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE 4: PUBLICHEALTHAND SAFETYPERTAINING TO THE ABATEMENT PROCESS. Ms. Perera stated this item was first introduced at the April 14, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held and is being continued. Staff has found some inadequacies with current language in Title 4 of the City Code, mainly pertaining to abatement. With the number of foreclosed and rental properties rising due to current economic conditions, this is a good time to bring forward these amendments. Ms. Perera reviewed the staff report with the Commission. The public hearing was continued from the April 14, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the hearing examiner was an official position or was it whomever was available to hear the person's issues. Ms. Perera thought it was the City Administrator who took that role and it was more of an informal process. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to approve as written. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE TITLE 9: BUILDING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8: RENTAL HOUSING DWELLINGS TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL LICENSING OF SINGLE FAMILY D WELLING UNITS. Ms. Perera stated the draft amendment incorporates changes to the Rental Housing Dwellings, Chapter #8 of the City Code. The intent of the amendment is to facilitate a single family market value preservation initiative by including rental license requirements for single family dwelling units. The most prominent change proposed in the draft amendment includes the requirement of a rental license for single family dwelling units with the addition of Section 9 -8 -12. The City Code currently only requires rental licenses for multi - family dwelling units. Staff has worked with other departments, the City Attorney, and the City Council on drafting this amendment so that it provides as little change to other sections within Chapter #8 while keeping all rental ordinances in the same chapter. Ms. Perera discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked how big of a problem is this, single family rental ® properties. Ms. Perera did not think the City had a grasp on it yet but there were a number of violations. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not really support this unless they see a real problem they are trying to solve that cannot be solved by existing ordinances. Chairperson Daninger asked if the basis of the fee was based on other cities fees. Ms. Perera stated their current application is $52.00 for the multi - family per unit and other cities are around $100.00 but they do interior inspections also. She stated they did look at neighboring cities for the fee along with involving their City Attorney and other staff members from other departments. Chairperson Daninger thought this was a proactive approach to take some initial steps and get feedback to make sure they do not have any issues and other cities are doing this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson stated she has been a landlady for seventeen years. She indicated she is really upset about this entire thing because she has a triplex. She did not think that it was fair that multi - family units need to have so much more than the single family dwellings. The single family dwellings do not do any of these things. There are no inspections for safety, etc. She did not think a drive by inspection would be adequate for © these types of rentals and felt they should have the same rules as the multi - family Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 9 dwellings. She did not understand how this ordinance will protect the renter or the neighbors. She wondered how the City will enforce this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Walton asked if staff has looked at other cities in regards to this type of ordinance. Ms. Perera indicated they have, she listed some of them. Commissioner Walton stated he has seen a lot of foreclosed homes and people are buying them to rent them out but to what level will these be fixed up to rent them. He thought there needed to be inside inspections done. He agreed that they needed to step up both the expense of the inspection for inside inspection. He thought they needed to get input from other cities on what they are doing for inspections along with what problems are they finding. Commissioner Falk asked if other cities have the same fee as proposed and are they doing the same extent for inspections. Ms. Perera stated most other cities are doing interior inspections as well and are reflected in the fees to cover the cost of administration. Ms. Perera stated the Council wanted to try this as a two year trial period and get updates © from staff monthly. Single family rental dwellings would not be exempt from any building codes, city ordinances or any other rules they have in place, they would just not be inspecting the interior. She thought this was a baby step forward from what they are currently doing. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there was a complaint from a tenant would the City go in to inspect the building. Ms. Perera stated they would not unless there was an issue of health or safety. The Commission agreed there needed to be more than just a drive by inspection but they were all not in favor of going into the dwelling to inspect it. They also thought the initial fee was adequate if they were going to just do a drive by inspection. Commissioner Walton thought they needed more than what is proposed. He would like to see an inside inspection. Commissioner Casey thought they should be going into this slowly because once they start inside inspections they will be dealing with tenant's property rights and landlord property rights. Commissioner Falk agreed and thought the inspection according to the staff report looked like a foot inspection of the property and not a drive by inspection. The Commission discussed inside inspections and issues involved with them. ® Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not want this because he did not see a problem yet. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 10 Chairperson Daninger stated he did not see a difference between multi - family and single family rentals. He thought they should both be inspected the same but they need to ease into it to begin with. Commissioner Cleveland did not think there needed to be a different standard for these and also did not think they needed to move slowly on this. He did not think this was fair to multi - dwelling rental owners and thought they needed the single family rentals to be treated the same. Chairperson Daninger indicated the Commission liked what they saw with something more than a drive -by inspection and have a larger fee for inspections. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. © Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.