Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 28, 2006 o o o ~~~ lLJll-tt:n 4---2 c::; -C/o CITY OF NDOVE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MARCH 28,2006 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on March 28,2006, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota Commissioners present: Chairperson Dean Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, and Michael King. Commissioners absent: Devon Walton Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Plarmer, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 14,2006 Motion by Kirchoff seconded by King to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. VARIANCE (06-02) TO CONSIDER VARIANCE TO PARKING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3480 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report for the Planning Commission. Chairperson Daninger wanted clarification: this variance is just for the parking area setback and that access issues would be addressed through the commercial site plan process, correct? Mr. Bednarz stated that this was correct- the commercial site plan approval process will look at the finer detail issues like access, grading, and drainage, though if the Planning Commission had specific concerns or suggestions, they should offer them. Commissioner Greenwald asked when Rose Street was put in. Mr. Bednarz indicated that it was sometime in the late 1980s. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if the site could have met the standards in place at that time. Mr. Bednarz indicated that the parking lot setback requirement has not changed since Rose Street was constructed. Commissioner Casey was curious about item #1 under the discussion- the physical conditions, such as water conditions. Mr. Bednarz stated that items 1-4 were the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2006 Page 2 o conditions that must be taken into consideration for all yariances, and that not all of them pertained specifically to this lot. Chairperson Daninger stated that, even though they were not required to hold a public hearing, they would consider taking public comment. He asked the Planning Commission if they were agreeable to this- the other commissioners nodded assent. Motion by Casey seconded by Kirchoff to open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. Ms. Marnell Wilber 3510 136tb Lane NW, stated that she's lived in the neighborhood since before Rose Street was put in. She said that the City was responsible for installing a berm with evergreen trees on it to screen the neighborhood to the south and wondered what screening would be put in on the subject property. She also wondered what will be done to prevent people from parking on 136tb Lane to access the business. o Mr. Bednarz stated Rose Street will not be connected to 136tb Lane. He further explained that part of the reason for the variance was to ensure that adequate parking could be provided on the site so that there was no need for people to park on the adjacent street. Mr. Bednarz explained that the landscaping would be reviewed through the commercial site plan process, and that the applicant had indicated a willingness to install adequate screemng. Motion by Casey seconded by Holthus to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. Motion by Greenwald seconded by Casey to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed variance because of circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 4, 2006 City Council meeting. VARIANCE (06-03) TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5159159TH AVENUE NW. Mr. Cross summarized the staff report for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holthus wondered what the current condition of the house was. Mr. Cross indicated that the applicant would be better suited to answer the question, but that renovation work had begun. o Chairperson Daninger indicated that they would probably follow the same format as the last item- allowing public comment despite the fact that it was not a public hearing. o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner King wondered if the garage would affect the septic drain field. Mr. Cross indicated that the garage could not impact the drain field, as it would not meet code. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if a legal non-conforming lot such as this one could be rebuilt if it were destroyed. Mr. Cross indicated that if the house was more than 50% destroyed it could not be rebuilt without variances. Commissioner Greenwald wondered about the reasoning for the 150-foot setback. Mr. Cross indicated that this was the Scenic Riyer District and that the setback was largely for aesthetic purposes. Commissioner Greenwald asked about the DNR requirement of vegetative restoration. Mr. Cross indicated that these requirements had not been specified yet. The DNR will come up with requirements if and when the City approves the variance. Commissioner Greenwald wanted clarification- they were considering yariances to two different setbacks? Mr. Cross stated that this was correct. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if we can grant a variance to the scenic river district if it's a DNR requirement. Mr. Cross stated that we can require them to meet all requirements stipulated by the DNR for the approval of the variance. Commissioner Greenwald wondered how many other properties in the area had a similar situation? Mr. Cross indicated that he did not have that information available. o Chairperson Daninger asked if the rest of the houses in the area were built at the same time? Mr. Cross responded that he didn't have that information, but that all of the lots were platted at the same time. Chairperson Daninger asked staff to explain the meaning of abatement. Mr. Cross indicated that the City Council had ordered the abatement of a number of dilapidated properties in the City, and that this property was one of them. The property owners were ordered to abate the nuisances on their property; if they do not do so, judge can give the City the authority to abate them. The applicant purchased the subject property and has been working to rehabilitate it. The City Council has stopped abatement proceedings on the subject property because of the work that is being done. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable allowing comment again. They nodded their assent. Motion by Casey, seconded by King to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 0 nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. Mr. John Galvin, 5151159th Avenue NW, stated that he was concerned about the septic system. He stated that it was over 40 years old, and wondered if it was appropriate to allow a new garage to be built if the septic system needs replacing and may need to be located in the area where the garage was being proposed. o Ms. Mary Anderson, 5167 159th Avenue, stated that she has lived there for 20 years and that she has been concerned about the condition of the property. She appreciates that the applicant is doing something with the property. She had concerns about the septic system. She was also concerned because her well is 15 feet from the property line, and if the garage goes in and she needs her well serviced, they will not be able to drive back to her well. She recognized that this was her issue. She wondered why the garage could not o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2006 Page 4 have been attached to the house in place of the screen porch. She is concerned about the quality of the riyer and water contamination. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. Chairperson Daninger invited the applicant, Mr. Pete Crosby up to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holthus asked what the current condition of the house was. Mr. Crosby indicated that they're about halfway through the framing process. They've replaced all of the windows and doors. They had to order some new trusses for the screen porch- it had to be completely removed and rebuilt. They're finishing the basement, moving the bathrooms, and redoing the kitchen. Chairperson Daninger wondered why the garage could not be attached in place of the screen porch? Mr. Crosby stated that because house is a walk out, the foundation is small, and to put the garage there would have required tearing up much of the foundation. Also, if they cannot add a garage, there is storage space under the porch that is needed. o Chairperson Daninger asked about the septic system- even though it's not directly related to the variance, there were a number of questions and concerns. Mr. Crosby indicated that they had a state certified septic system designer come out and inspect the system, which had to be dug up. Mr. Crosby stated that the inspector was surprised by the condition of the system. The system has been certified as being in compliance with all applicable standards, and has been approved by the City Building Official. Mr. Crosby displayed a rendering of the proposed garage. Commissioner Greenwald stated that the garage does meet the side yard setback. Mr. Cross indicated that the City does have the certificate of compliance for the septic system. Chairperson Daninger polled the Planning Commission to gauge how a vote would go. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he had been uncomfortable granting a variance to the scenic river district, since it was likely tied back to the DNR. but that the letter from the DNR had relieved his concerns. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed. o Motion by King, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the proposed variance because of circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 28, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the Apri14, 2006 City Council meeting. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if the DNR would set their requirements before or after this goes to the City Council? Mr. Bednarz indicated that the state generally waits until after the City has granted approval before they give their approval and issue conditions. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Walton) vote. o Respectfully Submitted, Chris Vrchota, Associate Plarmer o