Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 14, 2002 (J o (j u o CITY of ANDOVER ' 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ~ MAY 14,2002 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Dean Daninger on May 14,2002, 7:03 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Acting Chair Dean Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, Tony Gamache, and Rex Greenwald. Commissioners absent: Chairperson Jay Squires and Commissioner Douglas Falk. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9, 2002 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Hedin, to approve,the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. VARIANCE (02~03) - VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.21 FENCES AND WALLS TO INCREASE FENCE HEIGHT IN FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPOSED FENCE AT 15672 KIOWA ST. NW FOR JOHN DALOS. City Planner Courtney Bednarz explained that the applicant is. planning to construct a perimeter fence around his property. The proposed fence would be an aluminum (similar to wrought iron) fence that would be five feet in height. The proposed fence would be constructed along the rear and side property lines. They plan to place it behind an existing row of mature evergreen trees in the front yard. He stated that Ordinance No.8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls restricts the height offences located within the front yard setback to a maximum height of four feet. He mentioned that the intent of this ordinance is to prevent fences from adversely affecting traffic visibility from streets or driveways on the same block. The ordinance provision is also intended to protect the aesthetics of the front yard and front elevations of homes from being screened behind a taller, opaque fence. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 2 ~.J Mr. Bednarz stated that the applicant must substantiate hardship and demonstrate that the variance would not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The applicant has included a letter for this purpose. The specific findings of fact that must be addressed are provided by State Statute and are listed in the staff report. John Dalos, 15672 Kiowa Street, explained that he is requesting to put a fence up surrounding his property. The fence would be constructed of aluminum and be five feet in height. He stated that it would be a very nice looking fence. He presented a picture before the Commission showing that the fence would follow the property line around the entire property. He mentioned that he's applied for a dog through his work, therefore the fence will add security for the public and also for the dog. He also mentioned that he is willing to go with a four-foot fence if that's the Commission's recommendation. Robert Tashinski, 15700 Kiowa Street NE, stated that he understands that the property owner should have the right to put up a fence if so desired, however he opposes the idea. He stated that the land is beautiful and a fence would only be an eye soar. He suggested the fence stay within all City ordinances and within the property line if the Commission decides to recommend approval. He mentioned that he does have pictures of the applicant cutting on his property, furthermore the applicant won't pay to have the property surveyed. ~ Mr. Dalos explained that when he was trying to find the property stakes the neighbor helped. He stated that to his knowledge he didn't cut any trees off Mr. Tashinski's property. He stated that prior to this incident there wasn't any negativity towards the fence. He mentioned that in the past his dog was caught in Mr. Tashinski's property, therefore having a fence would solve the problem. He also mentioned that to his knowledge Mr. Tashinski is opposed to any fence, not just a five-foot fence. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he's trying to find the hardship. Mr. Dalos questioned the definition of a hardship. Mr. Bednarz stated what is classified as a hardship, referencing state statute. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason the applicant wouldn't put up a four-foot wrought iron fence. Mr. Dalos explained his reasoning. Mr. Bednarz stated that this issue is whether or not the fence should be allowed to be five feet. Commissioner Gamache stated that the Commission isn't denying Mr. Dalos a fence, but instead the extra foot. Mr. Dalos explained that his reasoning for the extra foot is mostly for stabilization. CJ Regular Andover Planni{:;nd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 3 :,J Commissioner Gamache questioned the distance from the road to the fence. Mr. Dalos stated that it would be approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a five-foot wrought iron fence were installed then the intent of the ordinance wouldn't be met. Mr. Bednarz explained that the issue of concern is whether or not there is a hardship. He stated that if the Commission doesn't agree with the ordinance then maybe it should be reviewed. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the ordinance was written in regards to a fence that one wouldn't be able to see through. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the Commission needs to determine if there's a hardship in order to approve the request of a five-foot fence. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he doesn't have a problem with a five-foot, see through fence. Commissioner Gamache stated that if this request is approved, someone could come forth wanting an 8-foot, solid fence. He suggested the possibility of an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained that it would take approximately 6-8 weeks to amend an ordinance. ~J Acting Chair Daninger stated that he's not aware of the history on the ordinance, therefore it isn't guaranteed that the ordinance would change if it were reviewed. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the process that takes place when amending an ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained that an ordinance amendment would require Planning and Zoning and Council review. Amendments are sometimes initiated by a group of residents with a specific request. Commissioner Hedin questioned the applicant on whether or not he would prefer to move the fence back 40-feet or do a four-foot fence. Mr. Dalos stated that he would prefer to do a four-foot fence. Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Dalos ifhe would be willing to wait 6-8 weeks in the case that the ordinance would be amended. Mr. Dalos stated that that would be fine with him, however he would need to discuss it with his wife. Commissioner Hedin questioned the Commission on how they feel about the ordinance as written. He questioned the Commission if they would prefer to table the request and move forward with the amendment process. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that it wouldn't make a difference, since he wouldn't need a variance if the ordinance allowed a five-foot see through fence. ~J '\ 0 Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 4 o Mr. Bednarz suggested the Commission make a recommendation based on the application. He stated that the Commission could also make comments regarding an amendment if so desired. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Denying the Variance Request for John Dalos to Increase the Fence Height within the Front Yard Setback from Four to Five Feet on Property Located at 15672 Kiowa Street NW, however recommending that Ordinance No.8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls be reviewed in regards to what the City allows in terms of height offences. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what would be wrong with Mr. Dalos installing a five-foot fence as long as it doesn't obstruct the view. Acting Chair Daninger stated that there might be a possibility to amend the Ordinance, since there are fences that are see through. He stated that the Ordinance would be reviewed in the future if the Council so desires. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the City Council at the June 4,2002 City Council meeting. (-J VARIANCE (02-04) - VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 6.02, MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS FOR REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPOSED DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT I735I48TH LANENW-RICHARD WAGNER. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the City has completed its review of the regulations concerning accessory structures. He suggested the item be tabled until the June 11,2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to table Variance (02-04) - Variance to Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions for the Reduction of Side Yard Setback for Proposed Detached Accessory Building Located at 1735 148th Lane NW until the June 11,2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS 'FOXBURGH CROSSING' LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND ANDOVER BOULEVARD - BOONE BUILDERS. o Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Regular Andover PlanninQnd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 5 , \ ,--.J Commissioner Greenwald questioned if option one would consist of 13 single-family lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the number of homes in option two. Mr. Bednarz stated that option two would consist of 12 single-family homes, and four townhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained that staffis recommending the property be rezoned from R-3 to R-4. He mentioned that the question between the two options is either the City would choose a PUD with option one consisting of more restrictions, or option two which would not allow the City to require additional improvements. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Bednarz on why staff feels that option one is a better fit. He questioned Mr. Bednarz on whether staff feels if having more requirements will make a better development. Mr. Bednarz explained that with a PUD there is more of a guarantee, for example all lots would be sodded and irrigated. He mentioned that on the west side of Hanson Blvd. and 132nd Avenue there's a development that came up 12 years ago, however there is a varying degree of maintenance. (~J Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is an illustration available without the twinhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained how the development would look without the twinhouse units. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there would be an association to ensure that all lots would be maintained. Mr. Bednarz stated that there would be an association for the entire development. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the twinhouses would be for rent or owned. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what level of control the City would have at the time of building. Mr. Bednarz explained that when a PUD has been developed in the past, there has been an elevation approval required. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. ~) The applicant Bill Gleason, stated that last time this the proposal included 35 detached town homes, however now that's decreased substantially. He stated that it was his understanding the neighbors didn't want to meet even though this was the Council's recommendation. He explained that he's trying to keep the costs down, therefore if the lots are bigger the houses become cheaper. He stated that he doesn't feel it's in the best interest ofthe neighborhood to have 80-foot lots. He mentioned that they feel this proposal would be a benefit to the City, since it could be bermed and landscaped. The twinhomes would help make the homes more affordable, furthermore they are nice looking units. He explained that the twinhomes would be owned and not rented. There Regular Andover Planni[;dnd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 6 ,~) would be an association on the area that would make sure the properties are maintained. Finally, he mentioned that the lot square footage exceeds what is throughout the rest of the City. Carol Cooper, 1690 l46th Avenue, stated that her property abuts the proposed development. She stated that the area residents still feel there are too many houses for the area. She stated that the lots should be more in tuned to what is in the surrounding area. She questioned if the property would still have to be rezoned. Mr. Bednarz stated that the property wouldn't have to be rezoned as multi-family, however it would need to be rezoned from R-3 to R-4. He explained that two twinhomes aren't considered multi- family, but instead apartments or condominiums are considered multi-family units. Ms. Cooper explained that the neighbors told the developer that they would be happy to look at a plan consisting of single-family homes, however they were never contacted. CJ Dan Stay, 1668 l46th Avenue NW, stated that he lives on Lot 12 of the Pinewoods Development. He thanked the builder for the most recent plan, since at one point it wasn't an option to build single-family homes on this land. He mentioned that he still believes it would be too many homes. He also mentioned that with this plan his property would back up to three different properties, therefore he requested his property back up to just one property. He suggested the City take their time in making a decision since the traffic levels will likely change once Natures Run and the school is completed. He stated that if the area were rezoned to R-4 it would be zoned the same as Pinewood Estates. He also suggested changing a few things to eliminate some of the homes, since it would likely be congested if developed the way it's presented. He mentioned that the Petersons on Lot 18 aren't happy with the proposal since there would be a road put in right next to their property line. He again suggested the City wait to see what happens in the next few months in terms of the traffic levels. Commissioner Greenwald questioned when Mr. Stay received the plan from builder. Mr. Stay stated that he received a letter a week ago from the City. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on how many homes he feels is appropriate for the area. Mr. Stay suggested taking out either two or three homes to widen the lots, so there would be only one property backed up to his property line instead of three. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on what the topography features are of his backyard. Mr. Stay explained that his lot goes into the woods approximately five feet on one side and about fifteen feet on the other side. He stated that he wants to keep as many trees as possible. u Patty Stay, 1668 I 46th Avenue, stated that she would like to see the area develop as single family. She stated that they aren't against development, however they are requesting the density be brought down. She mentioned that they are totally against the twinhomes, o Regular Andover PlanniQnd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 7 ~~ since it would only take away from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She also mentioned that they didn't know anything about two different options. She stated that it would make more sense if this development didn't have all the restrictions since their development doesn't have the restrictions. Mr. Gleason stated that it was his understanding that the neighbors didn't want to meet. He stated that he is more than willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss the development. He mentioned that the goal is to put in better housing. It is possible to put in only single-family homes, however the houses may suffer since the lots are big. Commissioner Gamache questioned what would happen if the area remained in the R-3 zoning district. Mr. Gleason explained that R-3 zoning is a holding zone and sewer and water wouldn't be available. . Commissioner Greenwald questioned the price range for the single-family homes. Mr. Gleason stated that the single-family homes would be in the $250,000 to $300,000 price range. He explained that there is a ratio that needs to be met, however the number of buyers in this price range is decreasing. (-.J Commissioner Kirchoff stated that to him the second option is the less favorable of the two. Mr. Gleason stated that he is willing to do strictly single-family homes, however option one would be a better project. Ms. Stay questioned if there would be multiple builders. Mr. Gleason stated that at this point this hasn't been decided. There was no further public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache questioned ifPinewood Estates is zoned R-4. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the development went from originally having 35 single-family homes to 12 single-family homes. He stated that the area would probably be rezoned to R-4. He reminded the Commission that the PUD would have more restrictions, and ifit were decided to go with strictly single-family homes the twinhomes would be eliminated and the lots would be 80 feet wide. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that regardless of either option the lots would need to be buildable lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that all of the lots are considered buildable. , '\ ,-) o Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 8 :,.-) Commissioner Greenwald questioned if all the single-family lots meet or exceed the minimum square feet requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated that all the single-family lots would meet the requirements for the R-4 zoning district. He explained that the only requirement they would be under is the width. Acting Chair Daninger questioned why one lot couldn't be eliminated in order to make all the lots 80 feet wide ifthe City were to go with option two. Commissioner Gamache questioned if a variance would be required on all the lots. Mr. Bednarz explained that a variance wouldn't be required if the development was built as a PUD. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would rather see better homes than to reduce the lot size, since this would only improve the surrounding areas. Commissioner Hedin stated that he would like to see 80-foot lots. He mentioned that he believes the market will support one less lot. He also mentioned that he doesn't feel the City needs the twinhomes. Commissioner Gamache stated that he's comfortable with the proposal as presented with the two twinhomes. ,_) Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if lots one through five would have a fence. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he likes the idea of having a PUD. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't like the idea of a PUD and would like to see 80- foot lots. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he isn't in favor of the PUD and would like to see 70-foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that he isn't in favor of a PUD and would like to see 80- foot lots. He mentioned that he would like to see the number of variances limited. Commissioner Greenwald mentioned concerns regarding the possibility that the homes could become high priced. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would support the idea of 80-foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that the majority of the Commission is in favor of 80-foot lots in an R-4 zoning district, with no PUD. ~-) Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the City Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. o Regular Andover PlanninQnd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 9 ./ \ ',~) PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1444 161sT AVENUE NW -MARK TIBBETTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there will be a need for any variances on this project. Mr. Bednarz stated that there wouldn't be any variances necessary for this project. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that the proposal looks great and makes sense the way it's laid out. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed. .~-.J The consensus among the Commission was that the sketch plan looks great, therefore there were no issues of concern. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 16034 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW- BRUEGGEMAN HOMES. Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained that the Commission is being asked to review a residential sketch plan for 'Constance Corners', a property located east of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway, South ofCSAH 20/161 st Avenue and west of Crosstown Boulevard. Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is being asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan doesn't constitute formal filing of a plat. , \ I "--_/ Mr. McKay stated that the project area is approximately 36.8 acres. The proposed density conforms with the low-density land use designation from the Comprehensive Plan for the property, which allows up to 3 units per acre without PUD review. The property is zoned Single Family Rural. A rezoning to Single Family Urban would be necessary to bring the zoning into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and to allow the project to move forward. Many of the lots border wetland mitigation areas, especially south of 1 60th Lane and west of Quince Street. Review by the Coon Creek Watershed Regular Andover PlanniQnd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 10 ,- 'I '-) Management Organization would determine whether this development proposal is feasible. The purpose of outlot A at the northeast corner of the sketch plan is to allow the existing Church to meet minimum setback requirements should it decide to expand. Outlot B at the southwest corner of the sketch plan will also be combined with adjacent property to the south of it. Both of these properties must become party to the plat before this can move through the preliminary plat phase. The applicant doesn't plan on creating these outlots unless the adjacent property owners wish to purchase them. A covenant would then be necessary to ensure this takes place. Mr. McKay stated that although the majority of the lot sizes and arrangements conform to the R-4 requirements there are two properties that are questionable. The cul-de-sac on the southwest corner of the sketch plan may need to be shortened in order to allow lots 22 and 23 to meet the minimum depth requirements of 130 feet before the preliminary plat phase. The property is located inside the MUSA line. Utilities would need to be established to serve the proposed development. '\ ) Access to the development would be provided from Crosstown Boulevard, 161 st Avenue and Sycamore Street by way of Crosstown Boulevard. The sketch indicates a curvilinear 60- foot wide street that begins on Crosstown Boulevard and ends at 161 st Avenue. A planting plan, which would provide buffering of the residential area from the county road would be necessary with the preliminary plat. The developer would also be required to meet all applicable ordinances, and would be responsible to meet all necessary permits. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there would be an outlot on the southwest comer. Mr. McKay stated that once it's completed there wouldn't be an outlot. Commissioner Hedin questioned how the fire department feels about the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. McKay stated that they did have concerns, however they didn't make any formal statement. Mr. Bednarz explained that Sycamore would be a temporary cul- de-sac. Commissioner Greenwald questioned clarification on the NE corner in regards to the church. Mr. McKay went on to explain that the church has mentioned the possibility of purchasing some property, however it's up in the air at this time (the developer is interested in selling the property to them). Commissioner Hedin questioned if this would change the location of the lots. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the county highway department has reviewed the plan and given any input regarding the access on Sycamore, especially since it's so close to the railroad tracks. Mr. McKay stated that a few weeks ago a sketch plan was sent to the county, however there's been no response as of today. . \ \.~) o Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 11 \ I \ / Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The applicant Greg Schlink, clarified on outlot B that where the road forms the cul-de- sac, an encroachment is created. He mentioned that they are discussing with the property owners the option of exchanging property. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the property owners are receptive to the idea of exchanging property. Mr. Schlink stated that they haven't come to an agreement yet, however the option is currently being discussed. Lee , from Ham Lake (no address stated), stated that it would be possible to get sufficient size houses on Lots 22 and 23, since at the most narrowest point the lots would be 45 feet deep. The house pad would be 65 feet wide and 50 feet deep. The minimum size house would be 2,500 square feet, however they don't feel the lot size would be a problem. Commissioner Hedin questioned if they tend to find more expensive homes on smaller lots or larger lots. Mr. Schlink stated that typically more expensive homes are found on larger lots. ,- '\ , ) Mr. _ (Lee) stated that the existing Sycamore Street ends at a dead end, which is 800 feet from the intersection to the south. He explained that they would be adding 300 feet to the 800 feet. He mentioned that the reason they are requesting a variance is because they border the railroad tracks and a wetland, therefore there is no place for the street to extend. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the cul-de-sac would be 1,100 feet in length. Mr. _ (Lee) stated that that is correct. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if Lots 22 and 23 would require a variance since they would have a smaller building pad. Mr. McKay stated that the lot width would require a variance, however the buildable space is fine. Commissioner Gamache questioned if Sycamore Street could be swung out clockwise. Mr. McKay stated that it has been suggested, however he was unsure as to whether or not it's possible. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed with the idea of turning it clockwise. , \ \~) Shari , 15890 Sycamore St., explained that their property is the property the developer wants to be exchanged. She stated that they aren't sure ifthey want to make the exchange or not, since they want to keep their privacy. She questioned if it would be possible to curve the road and use some of the land instead of putting houses on all three lots (Lots 22,23, and 24). " U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 12 o I '\ \. ) Stan Carlson, 680 Constance Blvd., questioned if they plan to put in sewer and water in the area. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Mr. Carlson questioned how his taxes would be affected and whether or not there would be any assessments. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Anoka County Accessor determines the value, however because your property is outside the MUSA line there is no reason to believe they would value your property any different than what it is now. Gary Cider, 15955 Crosstown Blvd., questioned if there has ever been any talk of a fire station going in next to his property. Acting Chair Daninger suggested Mr. Cider discuss this with staff at another time. Judy Carlson, 680 Constance Blvd., questioned what type of homes they plan to develop. Mr. McKay stated that at this time there aren't any twinhomes in the plan, only single- family homes. Ms. Carlson questioned how many single-family homes would be developed. Mr. McKay stated that the plan consists of 43 single-family homes. Ms. Carlson questioned if it would bring down the value of her property. Mr. McKay stated that it shouldn't bring down the value of her property. <_.J There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache stated that he would like to explore the idea of moving the cul- de-sac clockwise towards the east. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed, however stated that it could be limited because of the wetlands to the east. He suggested staff look at where Sycamore Street comes out onto County Road 20. He suggested stafflook into the possibility of moving the access to the east because of the railroad tracks. Commissioner Hedin stated that he has no problem with the location of the cul-de-sac. He stated that it would be in the best interest if the property owner and the developer could agree to swap land. Commissioner Greenwald suggested there be something in writing from the fire department regarding the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. McKay stated that he would receive something in writing from the fire department, before this proceeds to City Council. , .) '----' Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4,2002 City Council meeting. o U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 13 :~ PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02-03) WITH VARIANCES TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR PROPERTY WITHOUT ADDRESS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF 13503 CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 135TH CIRCLE AND CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD (PARCEL ID 33-32-24-43-0001) - JOHN STAHNKE HOMES. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Commission is being asked to review the lot split and variance request of John Stahnke to split the vacant lot immediately south of 13503 Circle and Crooked Lake Boulevard east of the intersection of 135th Circle and Crooked Lake Boulevard. A variance is requested to the minimum lot width requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. The current zoning of the property is R-4, Single Family Urban. Mr. Bednarz stated that Mr. Stahnke is requesting to split the current property, with a width of 154.45 feet, into two urban residential lots with a width of 77.22 feet for Tract A and 77.23 feet for Tract B. The minimum lot frontage for this zoning district is 80 feet. Ordinance 10, Section 17 provides the procedure for reviewing variance requests. Sewer and water stubs have been constructed for two lots on this property. o Staffhas asked Mr. Stahnke to contact his neighbors to the North and South to determine their interest of selling him the additional land that would be needed to meet the minimum lot width requirements. A county ditch easement, 40 feet wide, used to divide the property, but has since been vacated as of February 7,2002. Attached is a letter from the Anoka County Attorney's Office confirming the vacation easement along with resolution. The City Engineer has asked that the existing pipe be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bednarz stated that staff recommends approval with the following conditions: soil borings to establish buildability, remove existing pipe before building permit is issued, establish lO-foot easement in front and back, and 5-foot easement on the sides of both properties to preserve 100-year flood plain (easements would need to be recorded as separate document). Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the owner would have to remove the pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that as a condition of approval John Stahnke Homes would be required to remove the pipe. Acting Chair Daninger questioned what kind of pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that it's a storm sewer pIpe. '\ \,J Commissioner Gamache questioned if the pipe has been removed on the neighboring property. Mr. Stahnke stated that the pipe hasn't been removed from the neighboring property. () Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 14 o Commissioner Gamache questioned if removing the pipe will affect the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Bednarz stated that it shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the full intention in the past was that it be two lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Kathy Swenson, 13453 Crooked Lake Blvd., stated that the pipe is filled on her side, however it is a 6 to 8 foot pipe. She stated that she hopes they maintain the property when its tore up on the one side. She mentioned concerns about the staggering of the homes, since it would take away her backyard. Mr. Bednarz explained that the City can't restrict the location of the house as long as it's within the setback requirements. Ms. Swenson stated that she isn't opposed to the 74-feet, however is just concerned about her view in her backyard. Mr. Bednarz questioned Ms. Swenson if her home faces Crooked Lake Blvd. Ms. Swenson said yes. :~J Commissioner Hedin questioned the location of the driveway. Ms. Swenson explained that she has two lots, she pointed out their location along with the driveways. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested a fence as a possibility. Ms. Swenson explained that her neighbor lives to the south of their property, furthermore their driveway is 5-feet from his yard. She stated that they've had problems in the past regarding her blowing snow in the neighbor's yard. She mentioned that when they bought the home it was like this, however they don't want something like this to happen to anyone else. Mr. Stahnke stated that they have two interested buyers in the properties. He explained that they are looking to place the homes back 200-250 feet from the road, furthermore the driveways would be located in the middle of the lots. He mentioned that they plan to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the homes would be staggered. Mr. Stahnke stated that the homes would be staggered if it's the buyers choice, however it wouldn't make much sense since one wouldn't be able to enjoy the privacy. Commissioner Hedin stated that it appears Mr. Stahnke is doing everything possible to keep the driveways as far away from Ms. Swenson's property. Ms. Swenson agreed, however stated that they would still be in her backyard. \ ''--J o Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 15 o Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is woods near the area. Mr. Stahnke pointed out the location of the woods. He explained that the idea of placing the homes back is because of the drainage ditch and to be able to enjoy the privacy. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stahnke ifhe would be removing the pipe. Mr. Stahnke stated that he wasn't aware there even was a pipe. Tony Capman, 2735 135th Lane, stated that he isn't aware of anything dealing with the placement of the homes. He stated that he has spoken with the new owners and they have no problem with the lot split itself. Commissioner Hedin how close Mr. Capman's property line is to Crooked Lake Blvd., and whether or not the homes would affect his backyard. Mr. Capman explained that the backyards of the new homes would be his backyard. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9: 16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he fills this is the best use of the site. ,~ \ U Acting Chair Daninger questioned who made the recommendation to remove all of the pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that it was the engineering department's recommendation. Commissioner Gamache questioned the reasoning behind removing all of the pipe. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested this be researched further or clarification received from the engineering department. Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that it could cause damage with the neighboring property owners. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, granting the Lot Split with variances to minimum lot width for property without address located immediately south of 13503 Crooked Lake Boulevard, subject to the following condition: 1. That further investigation be conducted to determine whether or not it is necessary to remove all of the pipe or just portions of it. Further Discussion o Regular Andover PlanninQnd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 16 ~ Commissioner Hedin questioned if the pipe is closed up anywhere or does it go forever. Ms. Swenson explained that there are two sewer pipes, however there aren't any other access points other than the two and theirs is cemented. Acting Chair Daninger stated that it's important the City take the best approach for the neighborhood and for the health and safety of the area. Commissioner Hedin questioned what would happen to the neighboring properties if that section ofthe pipe were removed. Mr. Bednarz explained that the engineering department would have to research the various possibilities. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02-06) FOR REPAIR GARAGE, TOWINGSERVICEAND OUTDOORSTORAGEAT311816rvD LANENW. ,~ Mr. McKay explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a repair garage, towing service, and outdoor storage in the Hughes Industrial Park. The City of Andover prohibits auto storage and reduction yards. The use ofthe property may only be limited to repair services. Exterior storage of two or more unlicensed motor vehicles or the remains thereof is prohibited. Vehicles cannot be kept for the purpose of dismantling, sale of parts, sale as scrap, storage, or abandonment. Storage waste tires on the site is also prohibited. Mr. McKay stated that based on the nature of the business and the number of vehicles proposed to be stored on the property, staffhas determined that this request will not meet the City's requirements. Ordinance No.8, Section 7.01 Permitted Uses allows repair services in industrial districts, however Section 7.04 Uses Excluded prohibits auto , storage and reduction yards, junk yards, and exterior storage of waste tires. The use of the property would be limited to repair services only. Ordinance 8, Section 8.01 allows exterior storage of no more than two unlicensed motor vehicles or remains thereof. He mentioned that staff is recommending denial of this request. The site was inspected on April 24, 2002 and number of substandard items were noted (those items are listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2002). Mr. McKay mentioned that the applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the details of the proposed towing, repair, and impound business. o Commissioner Hedin questioned if the applicant has seen the list of substandard items that's included in the staff report. Mr. McKay stated that the list was indeed mailed weeks ago. Regular Andover PlanninQnd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 17 / \ '-~) Commissioner Hedin questioned if there has been any response from the applicant regarding this list. Mr. McKay stated that he hasn't heard any response from the applicant. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The applicant Todd Pallum, stated that he's having a problem with how staff has grouped his business. He stated that it wouldn't be an outside storage and reduction site, but instead he is just requesting to be able to tow and impound abandoned vehicles. He stated that typically the vehicles are picked up within 24 hours, and if they aren't picked up they would be sent to one of the other storage yards. He presented the Commission with pictures of other towing facilities in the area. He agreed that improvements to the property are necessary. He went through the list that's included in the staff report and gave explanations and possible solutions to be done in time. Acting Chair Daninger questioned Mr. Pallum as to what he means by "in time". Mr. Pallum explained that as a purchase agreement he will have a CD on the property and eventually it would be his property and he would then be able to do what he wants with it. He reiterated that the business wouldn't be a recycling yard. ':~) Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Pallum on what he intends to do with the pole buildings. Mr. Pallum stated that they would need to be structurally sound whether it be him that fixes them or the seller. He mentioned that he isn't sure if anyone even went inside when the inspection was conducted. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the ordinance considers this as a grouping of two types of storage. Mr. McKay explained that Ordinance 225 prohibits auto storage and reduction yards. Commissioner Hedin stated that that doesn't sound like Mr. Pallum's business. Mr. Bednarz stated that this business would be considered an auto storage yard, furthermore the applicant has agreed to this classification. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he has concerns with Mr. Pallum's statement "in time" in terms of completion of the items listed in the staff report. He mentioned that any other business that comes before the Commission with a request has addressed and completed the areas of concern or will have addressed them by the time the business is in operation. There was no further public input. ~J Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. o Regular Andover PlanninQnd Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 18 \ ~.~ Commissioner Greenwald stated that he agrees with Commissioner Kirchoff regarding the Special Use Permit. He mentioned that the business going into the Andover Station development have a number of requirements to fill. He also mentioned that the items that would need to be addressed aren't a quick fix, furthermore there's no guarantee that Mr. Pallum will be successful. Mr. McKay mentioned that the building official did submit a report. It included a number of items that need to be addressed after he had completed the walk through. Commissioner Gamache mentioned that even if all improvements were made, the fact remains that in the past the City has tried to get rid of auto storage yards. Acting Chair Daninger stated that for the record, Mr. Pallum submitted to the Commission a letter dated May 14,2002 and several pictures showing what similar businesses look like. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Denying the Special Use Permit Request of Todd Pallum for a Repair Garage, Towing Service and Outdoor Storage for Property Located at 3118 I 62nd Lane NW. '--) Further Discussion Commissioner Greenwald explained that his reason for denial is because there was no plan stated on how and when the items listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2002 would be completed. He mentioned that the Commission isn't denying Mr. Pallum his opportunity for a business, therefore ifhe were to come back with a plan, it's possible the Commission would consider his request. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4,2002 City Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02-07) FOR RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 313816ZVD LANE NW - CLARENCE ZUELEGER. ~ ) Mr. McKay explained that the Commission is being requested to recommend approval of a retail trade and services in the Industrial Zoning District. He stated that all applicable ordinances would be required to be met. The applicant describes the retail use as limited with hours from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and an occasional evening unti18:00 p.m. as needed, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Currently this business is operated from a private home with minimal customer traffic. The building will be used for both producing plaques, trophies, engraving, embroidery, Regular Andover Planni~nd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 19 / \ "- ) and silk screening as well as retail sale of these items. The applicant plans to renovate the current site including a complete reconstruction of the front building and new landscaping to make the property more attractive for customers. Mr. McKay stated that the proposed renovation and retail use will have a beneficial effect on the general welfare of the surrounding area by increasing property values, aesthetic image of the property and allowing residents better access to this business. The increase in traffic will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or residents. This property will need to be inspected by the Building Department to find it to be in compliance with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. This Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual review. The applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the details of the proposed business. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the Special Use Permit is for the retail use. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the applicant sells the property would the retail part then be null and void. Mr. Bednarz stated that this could be listed as a condition, however ifthere isn't a condition the permit would go with the building. " \ ) -/ Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a condition could be added stating that if the building were sold it would have to be brought before the Commission at that time. Mr. Bednarz stated that it would be possible to add a condition stating something such as this. Acting Chair Daninger questioned if the areas of concern and/or issues have been addressed by the applicant. Mr. McKay stated that the applicant does have a plan as to completing the items that need to be done prior to opening, furthermore this case doesn't have issues like the previous request. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The Applicant Clarence Zuleger, stated that they do have a plan of what needs to be accomplished prior to opening. He stated that the front part of the building will be for retail sales and they plan to add a 30'X40' building for production. He stated that the two buildings behind have been inspected. All codes and ordinances will be met in regards to the building and parking lot. He mentioned that the landscaping and signage will be done in conjunction with the remodeling of the property. He stated that they want the building to look nice. He questioned if the business could be transferred if he were to sell it. Mr. Bednarz explained that it would depend on how the Commission drafts the resolution. It would depend on whether it were tied to the sale of the property or specific products, or the square footage of the building. '\ " /) o CJ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 20 / '\ \ ) Acting Chair Daninger questioned if the permit could be reviewed yearly. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is a possibility. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't see harm in having it run with the owner, therefore ifhe were to sell and/or retire it shouldn't be a problem to have the permit renewed. Commissioner Gamache stated that he would like to see it reviewed and if the business is in good standing there shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't want to pre-approve something since a new owner may want to add something to the business. Mr. Bednarz stated that any expansion of the building or the use would have to require the owner to come back for an amendment because of a specific square footage. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that this could be the type of business that will really help improve the area. There was no further public input. "\ ,-.) Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Approving the Special Use Permit Request of Clarence T. Zuleger for Retail Trade and Services in the Industrial Zoning District for the Property Located at 3138 162nd Lane NW, subject to the following condition: 1. That the permit runs with the current owner, Clarence T. Zuleger, and any new owner would be required to reapply for a permit. Further Discussion Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the owner were to sell his business than the new owner would have to reapply for a permit. Commissioner Hedin stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a new owner would be grandfathered into these conditions or would there be new requirements. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the new owner would come before the Commission just as Mr. Zuleger has done. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. \ \ ___I } o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 2002 Page 21 / \ \ J Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz mentioned that Planning Intern Jason Angell has decided to take a position with the Chanhassen Planning Department. His last day will be next Friday. Multi-Sports Task Force Report - Commissioner Hedin stated at the last meeting the YMCA was present and gave a presentation on how they could help with the project. He stated that their thoughts were well received and the task force plans to continue discussing different options with the YMCA. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a vote by the public would ever be taken regarding the Multi-Sports Facility. Commissioner Hedin stated that that is something that's currently being discussed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Squires and Falk) vote. '\ . ; "- Respectfully Submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. -- ') \ .....J