Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/03CITY of ANDOVER CROSSTOWN • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • 755 -5100 FAX 755 -8923 1685 BOULEVARD N.W. (763) (763) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 13, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — April 22, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -03) to modify Ordinance 106 Boulevard Encroachments. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -04) to modify Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions. 5. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes April 22, 2003 DATE: May 13, 2003 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 22, 2003 meeting. M CITY of ANDOVER PLANNINGAND ZONING COMWSSIONMEETING —APRIL 22, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Tim Kirchoff on April 22, 2003, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Da (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Rex Greenwald. Also present: Community Development Director, Will Neumeister Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 8, 2003 Motion by Casey, seconded by Vatne, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger and Greenwald) vote. VARIANCE (03 -04) TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.04(B) TO ALLOW EXISTING PRINCIPAL TO REMAIN DURING CONSTR UCTION OFA NEW HOME ON PROPER TY LOCA TED AT 15451 PRAIRIE ROAD. Mr. Neumeister explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow them to live in the existing house while a new house is constructed on the same property. Mr. Neumeister stated a similar request was approved in 1984. The applicant was allowed 120 days to remove the existing house once a building permit had been issued. X4. ATo,, r, ;e4Pr A;Qrl]Q"- t the Ctate 0 %tntilte and information with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if the fire department using this structure for fire training would necessitate allowing more than thirty days after certificate of occupancy for the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 22, 2003 Page 2 structure to be removed. Mr. Neumeister stated he would add this when it would go to • City Council for approval. Commissioner Gamache asked what staff has found for a hardship in order to allow this to happen. Mr. Neumeister stated it is an unusual cir cumstan ce and the home is on a large lot in an area that an additional home under construction would not affect anything. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he looks at this as a very temporary variance. Mr. Neumeister stated the need for the variance would go away in a few months. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there has been a possibility of ACCAP buying the home and moving it. Mr. Neumeister asked the applicant if the house was worth saving. Mr. Matt Mason, 15451 Prairie Road, stated his thoughts were they would try to donate it to the City for fire training or the historical society. Mr. Neumeister asked what the square footage of the house was. Mr. Mason stated the foundation size was 750 or 800 square feet. He stated he has talked to some moving companies and they had concerns with the structural integrity of the house and it has been added onto several times so trying to move the house off the property without taking down trees would be almost impossible and they are trying to preserve the natural site of the property. Mr. Neumeister stated he knew the Fire Department was interested in this house for training purposes. Commissioner Vatne asked when do they consider a building to be the principal building • on site when something is being built. Mr. Neumeister stated anytime the structure can be considered a residence, it is a principal building so these could be considered two principal buildings. Commissioner Vatne asked when the building would be considered a primary structure. Mr. Neumeister stated once it has received its certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was a firm commitment in interest from the Fire Department for the house. Mr. Neumeister stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated they might want to consider at another time to look at changing the Ordinance. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to recommend approval of the variance be granted to allow the existing house to remain on the property during construction of the new house with added language regarding the Fire Department. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Neumeister stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 6, 2002 City Council meeting. n Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 22, 2003 Page 3 • PUBLIC REARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -02) TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE 266 TO MODIFY EXISTING RENTAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED FROMAPRIL 8, 2003). Mr. Neumeister explained that at the April 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, several issues involving the proposed changes to the Rental Housing Ordinance were raised that needed further discussion. Mr. Neumeister discussed the issues and answers to the issues with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper stated on page one, section three, should read "...allow to be occupied or let to another €ef a living unit... ", on page four, section ten, the sentence should read "No operating dwelling unit license shall be transferable..." and under section eleven, subsection one, number eight the sentence should read "Violations of State Criminal Laws (State Statute C ter 609); also under subsection three, the sentence should read "Landlords and Tenants should also be aware of other rules and regulations as stipulated in State Statutes, Seetien C ter 504B." On page six, section twelve, subsection one should read "...Licensed living units in a rental dwelling that have..." On page seven, section 12(2) (A) gives reference to section 11 (A) (1), there is no section (A) (1), it should read section 11, subsection 1. On page ten, section nineteen, Licensee should be plural. 0 Mr. Neumeister discussed issue one with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked in looking at the changes, what are they trying to do. Are they trying to add government to this or are they trying to make safe rental housing for those persons who do rent. He stated the only one affected would be the one renting from the landlord. If the tenant does not like the landlord, it would be in the best interest for the tenant to leave that unit. He stated once you bring a third party into the equation, this is where the Ordinance helps. He stated he sees no reason why they would want to license an owner /occupied unit. Mr. Neumeister discussed issue two with the Commission. Commissioner Vatne stated he thinks they are trying to protect residents who live near these rented units. Generally speaking an owner occupied unit with only one tenant, you would think would be more stringent watch on that tenant and if there was a problem they would act on it but that is not always the case. He stated this is the concern he has and he is fearful that this would arise and become a problem. He stated from a consistency standpoint, within th City all rental units would be subjected to this new Ordinance and it would make it simpler to enforce. Commissioner Gamache stated if they are going to license rental units, they should • license all of them. He stated they have received letters and a resident has asked to be Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 22, 2003 Page 4 licensed. He stated they are not only protecting people in the rental units, they are also i protecting neighborhoods and everything else. Commissioner Jasper stated the point Acting Chairperson Kirchoff makes is a good one but he still leans the other way because there is a consistency argument to be made and everyone should have the same rules. He stated these are income- producing entities and they should all play by the same rules. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked what would occur if it is a single family home and what recourses would happen with these. Mr. Neumeister stated according to the Ordinance, it would have to be two units on one lot, a single family home or townhouse would have their own lot under their unit, so it would not apply to them. Discussion ensued in regards to what type of dwelling units should be included in the Ordinance. The Commission decided to include the owner /occupied homes in the Ordinance for licensing. Mr. Herb Blommel stated they are in the process of licensing and he wondered if they would place this in effect for the next licensing period. Commissioner Gamache asked what the legalities of this would be. Mr. Neumeister stated they have been informing the owner of the Ordinance change all along. He stated once it comes to the City Council and they approve it, he would assume it would go into effect immediately so the twelve owner occupied units should be made aware of this. Chairperson Da arrived at 7:36 p.m. Mr. Neumeister discussed issues three through five with the Commission in regards to incidences leading up to provisional license and revocation of license. Mr. Neumeister discussed issue five with the Commission. After discussion the Commission added wording to section eleven, subsection nine to indicate "violations of the housing maintenance code.", so it would be very specific as to what the seven days would be regarding. Mr. Neumeister discussed issue six with the Commission. Commissioner Vatne stated when they made the change with the new page for issue number three, there was one spot that on page five, subsection five, the information should reference Section 11 (4) Commissioner Jasper agreed it should read Section 11L41. Commissioner Vatne stated that was correct. Commissioner Vatne stated the next section should read Section 11(5) Commissioner Jasper stated it should read Section 11 (4) and (5). Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 22, 2003 Page 5 • Commissioner Jasper stated Section 11 (8) (E) should be removed from the Ordinance because if a tenant has two strikes from another property, they cannot give the landlord a third strike without him having notice of the first two at the other property. His suggestion that the entirety of Subsection 8 be stricken but at a minimum 8(E) be stricken. Commissioner Vatne stated he would prefer to strike (E) only. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if A -D were inclusive of every combination of who would be in there. He would hate to see this become a loophole of some kind. Mr. Neumeister stated they previously discussed that if a police call goes to that address, it would not matter whose it was as long as it was a verified call to the address. Commission agreed to take Section 11(8) out of the Ordinance. W. Neumeister discussed issue seven with the Commission. Mr. Neumeister discussed issue eight with the Commission in regards to including domestic abuse as a strike against the renter. The Commission decided not to include domestic abuse calls as a negative strike against the renter in the Ordinance. • W. Neumeister discussed issue nine with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought this was a concern of one of the owners at one of the previous meetings. If they are not getting notification in a timely fashion, they cannot act on it and they could get multiple violations before being notified. He stated he thought they were going to get something from the sheriff's office stating how long they get notification out to the landlords. Mr. Blommel stated they send the reports to him and the reports looked like there was a two -week time period for the sheriffs department to get him a report. He did not know if this could be done any quicker. Discussion ensued in regards to whether or not deadlines should be put on the delivery of reports to the landlords. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission should guide staff to do some research and let Council know there was a split but that was what the Commission recommended. He stated that timeliness is important here but he would hate to put this on the sheriffs department and he wanted to make sure they do not take a deputy off of the street to file reports. Mr. Neumeister discussed the last issue with the Commission. • Commissioner Jasper stated in Section 16(8) the sentence should read "...Failure to comply with all -temis of this Ordinance is a misdemeanor." The Commission agreed. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 22, 2003 Page 6 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to open the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Motion • carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Greenwald) vote. Mr. Jason Shutz, 1970 10 Court, indicated that he would like to have a timely report from the Sheriffs Department. He wondered instead of W. Blommel getting a monthly report, could the Sheriff's office send out a weekly report to each city in the county for a quick turn around time. He explained that most landlords try to go to court in the beginning of the month so if the tenant needs to leave, they could have a new tenant in by the first of the next month. Otherwise, there are cash flow problems. He stated there could be other situations where something happens that the City and the owners do not find out about until it is too late. He stated in one of the previous meetings, he recommended having a personal letter sent directly to the landlord from the sheriff and bypassing Mr. Blommel so it is a quick turnaround time. Mr. Neumeister stated for the record, they did receive a letter from Mr. Kevin Gerads regarding the changes to the Ordinance. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Greenwald) vote. Chairperson Daninger stated the concern is for the smaller units also. Commissioner Jasper stated as indicated in the public hearings, there would be support for this. • Chairperson Daninger stated the feedback was that the owners were the ones eager for this. Commissioner Jasper explained on page seven, section 12 (2)(A), the sentence should read "...reduce the number of police e r-€ie calls described in Section 11, subseetiert 6" or 12 over the six month period..." because neither Section 11 or Section 12 talk about fire calls at all, it only has to do with police calls. Commissioner Vatne stated on page one, under Section Two, the sentence should read "to charge a rental eharge fee for the use of a living unit in a rental dwelling." He indicated on page two, they should identify some dates and helps with the milestones on what has to happen when. Commissioner Gamache stated he preferred not having dates in case they begin to have different license renewal dates in the future. The Commission decided to leave the wording alone. Commissioner Jasper stated section nine deals with the inspections for the housing code and section thirteen says that each rental unit is subject to the rental code so he would move this section between Sections eight and nine for consistency to make it more logical to follow. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 22, 2003 Page 7 Chairperson Daninger stated the only issue that needed to be discussed was item nine. Commissioner Gamache stated he was only throwing out a day because they need to have something there so the landlord has an idea that they will get enough notice to make changes. He stated the reason behind amending the Ordinance is to make the neighborhoods a better place to be and he thought they should turn it over as quickly as possible and maybe have the Sheriffs' Department hire a secretary to make up these reports. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the true spirit is to make these work and he would like staff to work with the Sheriffs Department to expedite the reports as quickly as possible. Chairperson Daninger stated he that if they indicated a timeline that is reasonable and prudent and as quick as possible is what they would be looking for. Commissioner Vatne stated they are setting in place a process that is very specific in all of the language they have scrutinized over the date and ti Now they have a necessary fundamental in order to make this work and if it does not happen in a timely manner, everything else breaks down and will not work. Chairperson Da stated he agreed it needs to have a timeline put on it and maybe it is a number of days and they will let the City Council know their intentions. Commissioner Casey stated he agreed it should be a reasonable and prudent time because people are doing their best to get the information out but they do not want to tie up the • Sheriffs' Department for this. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would agree with reasonable and prudent. Commissioner Gamache stated he would be comfortable with a time. Commissioner Vatne stated he would want a timeline. Commissioner Jasper stated he would agree with reasonable and prudent. Chairperson Daninger stated he would want reasonable and prudent to be the wording in the Ordinance. Commissioner Vatne asked what reasonable and prudent meant. Chairperson Daninger stated it means in a timely fashion, no delay. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Jasper, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the Rental Housing Ordinance Amendment. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 2 -nays ( Vatne, Gamache), 1- absent (Greenwald) vote. It was noted that the two negative votes would have approved this if the time was discussed and a certain timeline was included in the motion. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 22, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Neumeister stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 6, 2003 City • Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Neumeister updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 9:01 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVERMN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner 0 7 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 106 — Boulevard Use. DATE: May 13, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Boulevard Use ordinance to ensure permanent encroachments and improvements shall remain outside of the boulevard as defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. DISCUSSION Currently, Section 3, b. of the Boulevard Use ordinance allows encroachments beyond the property lines, and clearly within the Boulevard. The ordinance states: "No encroachment shall be permitted within eight (8') feet of the curb in urban areas and to the rear of the ditch in rural areas. In the case where there in no ditch, the distance shall be eight (8') feet." The distance from the road curb to the property line is typically at least thirteen and a half (13.5') feet of the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban areas or sixteen and a half (16.5') feet to twentyone (21') feet of the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in rural areas. Staff would still like to allow specimen trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area and outside of eight (8') feet from the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban or rural areas to remain if possible. We would also continue to reserve the right to require removal of any existing tree within the boulevard area if it is deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. Also, temporary improvements such as mailboxes and sprinkler systems would be allowed, again, as long as they are not deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given the above concerns, staff believes to reduce the number of residential complaints regarding Boulevard use and enhance the aesthetic aspects of completed residential subdivisions, that • Ordinance No. 106 be amended to require any permanent improvements and encroachments to be outside of the boulevard area, defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Attachments Resolution ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to consider amending Ordinance 4106 — Boulevard Use Ordinance. Rey sub ed, D. Tyler Mckay 0 11 is CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 106 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 106, BOULEVARD USE IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 106, An Ordinance for the use of the boulevard within the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: (Strike out indicates words to be deleted, underlining represents words to be added.) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 106 Ordinance No. 95, 95A, and 95B are hereby repealed. The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains: Section 1. Boulevard Use. A: Except as prohibited by this Ordinance or by other provisions of City Ordinances, the owner or occupant of property abutting public right -of -way shall be responsible for maintenance of the boulevard on their property. At a minim the grass shall be cut and any trees or shrubs shall be maintained. B: Permanent i mprovements , shall not be permitted within the boulevard. The boulevard is the distance between the vroverty line and the curb, typically thirteen and a half (13.5) feet from the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban areas or sixteen and a half (16.5) feet to twen one (211 feet of the back of the curb or edee of the pavement in rural areas, devendiniz upon right -of -way width. emeept as noted in emeeptie as sued hmpr, nt a, C: Temporary improvements, such as mailboxes and sprinklers, shall be allowed, as long as such improvements do not conflict with section D of this ordinance. D: All improvements shall not impair, interfere, or offer a potential threat of damage to City vehicles when snow plowing. The City shall not be responsible or liable for injury to or from such improvements. The owner or occupant, by placing or using boulevard areas for improvements, agrees in doing so to hold • the City harmless for any and all claims of any injury or damage to or from such improvements. Any city -owned equipment such as sewer and water lines, damaged or impaired by such boulevard improvement, shall be remedied at the home - owners or occupants cost. No encroachment or improvement of any kind shall be permitted within a si trian as defined in City Ordinance 8. E: Trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area and outside of eight (8) feet from the back of the curb and edge of the pavement in urban or rual areas may remain. The City reserves the right to require removal of any tree within the boulevard area if it is deemed a hazard. Section 2. Paramount Public Use. A: The City, its agents and or any utility company authorized by law or the city to use the boulevard areas, shall have a paramount right to use the area subject to control by the City. Any improvements in the boulevard shall be removed at the owners or occupants expense if the boulevard is needed for a paramount use. The City or its agents or utility company shall not be liable to repair or replace such boulevard improvements damaged or removed during authorized work in the boulevard. Sections 3 Violations. A violation of this ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. The City administrator or their authorized designee along with the City attorney shall be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor E lo s CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -04) to modify Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions. DATE: May 13, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review an ordinance amendment that would allow lot splits on for lots that are close, but do not meet all of the requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provision (without a variance) under certain circumstances. DISCUSSION This request was initiated from the lot split request at 1415 Andover Boulevard that included proposed variances to lot depth for both lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split. However, the City Council denied the lot split citing a lack of hardship for the variances to lot depth. As a part of the discussion, the Council discussed establishing a method to approve similar lot splits provided the lot met two of the three size requirements and was within 90% of the third (lot width, depth and area). Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission is asked to review and discuss the following issues and other items of interest: 1. Each lot within the proposed lot split must meet at least two of the following requirements; lot width, lot depth, lot area. Each lot within the proposed lot split must provide at least ninety percent of the requirement that cannot be met. 2. This provision will only apply to lot splits (containing no more than two lots). Reduced lot standards will not be considered for new plats. • 3. Whether the amendment should be limited to the urban area. 4. Pros and Cons of proposed ordinance amendment. 1 Similar Ordinance Provisions • Although this type of provision is out of the ordinary, similar provisions exist in Ordinance 8 as well as ordinances of other communities. Most communities, including Andover, have a provision similar to the following: Ordinance 8, Section 4.04 Lot Provisions (A) A lot or parcel of land for which a deed or contract for deed has been recorded in the Office of the Anoka County Recorder upon, or prior to, the effective date of this Ordinance shall be deemed a buildable lot provided it has frontage on a public street right -of -way which has been accepted and is currently maintained by the City and said space requirements for the district in which it is located can be maintained or adjusted to conform as follows: a lot or parcel of land of record upon the effective date of this Ordinance which is in a Residential District and which does not meet the requirements of this Ordinance as to area, width, or other open space, may be utilized for single family detached purposes provided the measurements of such area, width and yard space are within sixty (60 %) percent of the requirements of this Ordinance; but said lot or parcel shall not be more intensively developed. (8B, 9- 21 -76; 8F, 2 -19- 80) City Attorney's Opinion The City Attorney has indicated that the proposed ordinance amendment will not damage the • minimum district provisions section of Ordinance 8 provided it is worded specifically enough to limit how it is applied. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends in favor of the proposed ordinance amendment because it will allow flexibility for infill lots. As demonstrated with 1415 Andover Boulevard, infill lots may have development constraints that would otherwise prevent efficient use of the land. Attachments Proposed Ordinance Amendment FY FA • k CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS TO ALLOW LOT SPLITS ON PARCELS THAT DO NOT MEET ALL OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PROVISIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6.02 Minimum District Provisions. (see Chart on following page). (8C, 10- 17 -78; 8F, 2 -19- 80; 8T, 4- 05 -83; 8U, 7- 19 -83; 8Z, 10- 02 -84; 8BB, 4 -02- 85; 8LL, 11- 18 -86; 8NN, 12- 16 -86, 8PP, 5- 05 -87; 8YY, 11- 03 -87; 8RRR, 4 -02- 91; 8YYY, 9- 15 -92; 8ZZZ, 4- 06 -93; 80000, 5 -07- 96; 8TTTTTT, 10- 15 -02) (A) Lot splits shall be allowed with lot sizes that do not conform to the minimum district provisions as follows: 1. This provision shall onlv annly to lot splits containing no more than two lots. Re lot standards shall not be considered for plats containing more than two lots. 2. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall meet at least two of the following requirements for the applicable zoning district; lot width, lot depth, lot area. 3. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall provide at least ninety percent of the requirement that cannot be met. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk