Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 14, 1999 o o ~ o o CITY of ANDOVER NNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 14, 1999 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Maynard Apel, on December 14, 1999,7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Douglas Falk, Mark Hedin, and Bev Jovanovich. Jay Squires and Dean Daninger City Planner, John Hinzman Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 23, 1999 Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE (LS/VAR 99-03) SPLIT APPROXIMATELY 2.52 ACRES FROM A 42.5 ACRE AND VARY APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE 300 FOOT LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 ON PROPERTY FOR DAVID HORST ON PROPERTY OWNED BY LAWRENCE AND MARGARET AUDETTE. 1364 WARD LAKE DRIVE. City Planner John Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the lot split and variance request of David Horst on property owned by Lawrence and Margaret Audette at 1364 Ward Lake Drive NW. The applicant proposes to split approximately 35.58 acres from a +/_ 38. I-acre parcel and vary +/- 26.3 foot from the 300-foot lot width at front setback provision of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 for the original parcel. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. He indicated Ordinance 40 provides for the collection of Park Fees, which are $1,100 per lot for park dedication, and $300 per lot for trails, for a total of $1 ,400 to be collected for this lot. . He explained that if the property is further subdivided in the future, any buildable lots created would also be subject to Park Dedication Fees. / \ / ( ~) :\.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AJinutes - December 1-1. 1999 Page 2 ,) Mr. Hinzman noted the general comments contained in the staff report, indicating the property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. The applicant proposes to split the existing home from the property in order to construct a new home. Mr. Hinzman explained that opportunity exists for future subdivision of the proposed split parcel, and future street expansion from the north (potentially Bluebird Street), with a full intersection on Ward Lake Drive should be taken into consideration. He advised that a condition has been included in the resolution to indicate that the house will be situated on the lot so as not to interfere with future street expansion. The engineering department has reviewed this proposal and has provided scenarios for street extension from the north to insure there is sufficient clearance in the future. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with pictures of the site, which indicate that numerous accessory buildings exist on the parcel, including one that appears to encroach upon the 1412 Ward Lake Drive property. All accessory buildings would need to be relocated or removed to meet minimum setback requirements. The Building Official has indicated the property along Ward Lake Drive is generally buildable. The applicant will need to conduct soil-boring tests to confirm site buildability. / "- I ,_ _.J Mr. Hinzman stated the property proposed to be split consist of a total of 575 feet across Ward Lake Drive. He indicated staff has reviewed various means to alleviate the need for a variance, however, the applicant is unable to acquire additional property to the east or west to satisfy the 300' lot width requirement. He noted an accessory building on the 1412 Ward Lake Drive property prohibits property acquisition to the west and the property owner to the east is reluctant to sell the necessary acreage to meet minimum requirements. Mr. Hinzman advised that the proposed variance would be less than 9 percent of the minimum width requirement. He noted that similar variances were granted in 1996, ranging from 30 feet to 75 feet on similar lot width requirements in the R-l Zoning District. Mr: Hinzman outlined the Commission's options for action. He stated staff recommends approval of the lot split and variance, subject to the conditions of the resolution. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant, David Horst, was present. Commissioner Dalien requested clarification of the potential location of Bluebird Street, as per the picture provided by staff. Mr. Hinzman explained that the street is 100 to 110 feet east of the northwest comer of the property. He indicated that the street location had been laid out, and if a lot fronting Bluebird Street was to be developed in the future, this lot would meet the minimum lot width requirement to be buildable. Commissioner Dalien requested clarification of the proposed location of the house. , " , , '- -/) o U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ,\-feeling Minules - December 1-1, 1999 Page 3 \ , ../ Mr. Hinzman stated the house ...vould be constructed to the west of the existing house. He provided the Commission with an aerial photograph of the site, which further indicated the potential location of the street. Commissioner Hedin requested an overlay be provided to clarify the location where Bluebird Street might potentially intersect with Ward Lake Drive. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with an overlay, which represented the roadway, as laid out pursuant to State regulations. He explained that 100 feet of stacking is required, as well as a 3D-mile per hour curve. He stated the location of the house would have to be off of the right-of-way, and abide by the minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Hedin inquired on which side of Bluebird Street the proposed house would be constructed. Mr. Hinzman stated the house would be located on the east side of the street. He reiterated there is no future subdivision proposed with this project at this time, however, this would be a possible scenario, should further development occur in the future. . " \...) Commissioner Falk inquired if the Park Dedication and Trail Fees were based upon acreage, or if this represented a flat fee. Mr. Hinzman explained that this is a flat fee based upon the lot, and since only one home is being proposed at this time, the fee is for one lot. He indicated that if the property is subdivided further in the future, the fee collected would be based upon the number of lots involved. Acting Chair Apel advised that these fees are based upon every lot created. He explained that it is unknown how the property might develop in the future, however, it would most likely involve a plat, in which case the fees would be based not so much upon the number of lots, but rather upon the acreage involved. Commissioner Dalien inquired if the house was currently under construction. Mr. Hinzman stated it was not. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent vote. Denny Emmonds, 1412 Ward Lake Drive stated he was the owner of property located to the immediate west of the proposed lot split. He stated his concerns with the proposal were relative to Bluebird Street, which may encroach upon or adjacent to his property. He inquired why a variance is necessary at all, in that with a total of approximately 575 feet, the property with the existing home / '. , ) o C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Alinutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page -I " , site could be 300 feet in width, and the new lot could be 275 feet wide. He noted the proposed home would be fronted on Bluebird Street, therefore the setback requirement could be considered from that point, as well as the additional length of the lot. Commissioner Dalien pointed out that Bluebird Street does not yet exist, therefore, it could not be utilized as the frontage of the proposed home. Mr. Hinzman stated staff had considered whether the 275-foot width should be on the western property instead of the eastern property, however, the property owner indicated he desired the 275- foot width for the existing property, with a 300-foot width on the western property. Commissioner Hedin pointed out that there would be additional room for the future development of Bluebird Street if the 300-foot width was utilized on the proposed site, therefore, Mr. Emmonds would have more room on his property. Mr. Emmonds stated he uncertain regarding the future development plans for Bluebird Street. He commented that if the street is constructed at an angle, or offset onto Ward Lake Drive, it may result in vehicle headlights shining into his bedroom window. F \ Acting Chair Apel explained the problem lies in the location of the road, in that it is in such close proximity to the western edge of the property, there must be a curve, in order to for it to run along the property line. , J Mr. Emmonds stated his home is constructed relatively close to the eastern edge of the property. Acting Chair Ape! indicated that it might be more appropriate to address this matter in the future, when a preliminary plat comes forward. Andrew Theis, 17564 Ward Lake Drive stated he had no objections to the proposed variance. He stated he had recently moved to Andover from the fairly high density housing in the city of Fridley. He indicated he enjoyed the open area at the back of the subject property, although he understood that development of that property was inevitable. Mr. Theis indicated he had concerns with regard to the all-brick barn located on the subject lot. He explained that this barn is a very unique structure, and inquired if it would have to be removed. David Horst, the applicant stated it would be removed. Mr. Emmonds requested clarification of the location of this structure, in relation to the widths of the properties. ,- '\ ) o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission l'vfeefing Minutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Horst stated it was located 100 feet west of the 275-foot lot width off of Bluebird Street, in the middle of the lot. Mr. Theis reiterated the barn was a very unique structure, and a landmark in the City of Andover. He requested he Commission consider this factor in their deliberations. Mike Armor, 17500 Ward Lake Drive indicated he had arrived at the meeting late, and requested clarification of the proposed project. Mr. Hinzman explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a home to the west of the exiting homes located in the northeast comer of the 35-acre property. Mr. Armor inquired if the remainder of the property would be sold for development. Mr. Hinzman stated the property owner would retain the remaining portion of the property for the proposed home site. Mr. Armor inquired requested clarification of the development plans for Bluebird Street. Mr. Hinzman explained that no plans were being proposed in this regard at this time, however, they '-_) were considering how the road might be extended in the future, if any further development of this property were to oCCUI. Mr. Armor stated he had moved to Andover to get away from the dense housing in the Twin Cities area. He indicated that jfthis property is developed, it could potentially accommodate approximately 20 houses, with four people per household, which would translate to approximately 80 people living within a half a mile of his house. He stated he would be strongly opposed to this, and if any further development is proposed, he will do all that he can to stop it. He commented that if the applicant is simply proposing to construct a house on the property, he did not understand why the division of the property is necessary. Mr. Emmonds stated he shared Mr. Armor's concerns. He indicated that the original homestead, which dates back to 1938, is located on the back portion of his property, and that the home was constructed of hand hewn logs that were split with a broad axe. He advised that the Anoka County Historical Society has seen the structure, and has been in contact with him with regard to this structure's historical relevance. He requested the Commission consider the structure in terms of its historical value. Mr. Hinzman inquired if the old farmstead building was located on Mr. Emmonds' property. ,- -', " ./ Mr. Emmonds explained that the homestead is located on his property, however, the farmstead and the accessory structures are located on the subject property, which is adjacent to his property. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Afeeling Afinutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 6 , / Mr. Theis stated to his awareness, there was currently no City sewer or water service to the subject property. He inquired if future development of this property would involve 2.5 to 3.5 acre lot splits, or three houses per acre, which would bring in these services. Mr. Hinzman stated this property is located outside of the 2020 MUSA boundary. He advised that the minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres, with private septic and wells on the property. John Audette, 17600 Ward Lake Drive stated he is the son and legal guardian of Lawrence 1. Audette, the property owner. He explained that his father purchased this property in 1968, at which time he was one of the only residents in the area. He explained that there was no Hanson Boulevard at that time, and Ward Lake Drive was not completed. He indicated his father purchased this property as a hobby farm, and farmed it for several years, until he could no longer maintain it. He stated his father currently resides in a rest home, and his mother lives in an apartment, which she is able to maintain. Mr. Audette stated he had considered what was the best for his parents. He stated when they purchased the farm, they had animals which they kept in the barn, and the barn was part of a function, however, they could not continue to maintain the animals, as this requires much work. He stated they now consider his parents, who are in rather expensive housing, and believe this to be the best manner in which to proceed. He stated they support this proposal completely. \ , ) There was no other public input. Motion by Falk, seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing 7:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Commissioner Hedin inquired if Bluebird Street is extended as indicated as one of the potential proposals, what would become of the sliver ofland to the west. Mr. Hinzman stated this piece of land would be too small to be buildable, and one possibility would be to negotiate the transfer of land to the property owner to the west, for either cash value or some other land. He explained that these situations have come forward in the past, and they have been resolved in this manner. He advised that they would not want to create a sliver of land that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for buildability, therefore, they would attempt to attach this land to an adjacent parcel. Commissioner Dalien pointed out that this property would otherwise likely go tax forfeit. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He explained that in the past sliver parcels have gone tax forfeit, and a maintenance issue has come forward with some of those parcels. \ I ,/ o () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission A/eeting AJinutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 7 ,) Commissioner Falk inquired if these lands, once tax forfeited, are considered City-owned property. Mr. Hinzman explained that if these parcels go tax forfeit, the State owns the land, and the County is in charge of the maintenance of the land, however, there are so many of these types of parcels that the maintenance is not always present Commissioner Dalien advised that the State holds these properties In trust for the taxing jurisdictions, which have a lien on the land for the back taxes owed. Commissioner Hedin stated that if the remainder of the property is developed into 2.5 acre lots, and Bluebird Street is extended into the middle of the development, a lot would be created on the east side of Bluebird Street that would not meet the 2.5 acre requirement, and would be much less than 300 feet wide. He inquired if the lot width on Bluebird Street would be wider than 300 feet, and if that would qualify as frontage. " "- "-) Mr. Hinzman stated the minimum lot depth requirement is 150 feet. He explained that if the home was constructed so as to meet the 40-foot front yard setback requirement from Bluebird Street, with at least 300 feet along Bluebird Street, and with a depth of 150 feet, it would meet the requirements. He stated staff has determined that with the curve of the road at the beginning the lot, it would be somewhat less than 150 feet, and after the curve, further to the west, it would be slightly more than 150 feet. He eXplained that in the past, they have taken the mean value of these measurements, which in this case, would be more than 150 feet. Commissioner Dalien pointed out that depending upon lot configuration, they could still come up with 2.5 acres. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. Mr. Hinzman explained that staffs primary concern in researching this proposal was that they not construct a home that would prohibit the future expansion of streets, and beyond this, everything else is speculative at this point. Commissioner Hedin pointed out that since the owner of the new house is also the owner of the remainder of the land, they would not have a conflict in terms of further development of the land. Mr. Hinzman stated he would not anticipate a conflict in this regard. Motion by Falk, seconded by Jovanovich, to recommend to t:le City Council approval of Resolution No. R -00, a resolution granting the lot split and variance request of David Horst on property owned by Lawrence and Margaret Audette, located at 1364 Ward Lake Drive NW (PIN 05-32-24-32-0012). Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. : ) Acting Chair Apel requested Page 2 of the resolution be amended to indicate the correct spelling of the word "manner." , \..) :- '\ "J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeling Afinures - December 1-1, 1999 Page 8 C) Mr. Hinzman added that the legal description of the property had not been attached to the resolution, however, this would be included prior to City Council consideration ofthis item. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the January 4, 2000 City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with a brief overview of the status of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and how it conforms to the City's Zoning Ordinance, which will be considered later in the meeting. Mr. Hinzman stated this item was brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the official public hearing in December of 1998, and between that time and now, the Comprehensive Plan has remained primarily the same. He indicated that one of the issues staff has attempted to address is in terms of establishing the sewer expansion districts, and they have met with property owners who live in those districts, to insure that they are in agreement with regard to what is being proposed. , - ~, '-.) Mr. Hinzman stated the Comprehensive Plan will be brought forward to the City Council at their December 21, 1999 meeting for approval, and following this, the Plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for final approval. Mr. Hinzman stated Commissioner Apel participated on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force, which met for approximately two years. He indicated the Task Force conducted a very thorough examination of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan document is a planning document, which takes into consideration future development, roads, sewers, water extension, parks, and transportation issues within the next 20 years. He explained that this document sets goals for the City, and sets the specific ordinances that correspond with the City's goals and objectives. Mr. Hinzman explained that the issues of concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission are relative to the land use aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. He provided the Commission with the City's Land Use Map, which indicated the area of future urban expansion as a Transitional Residential area. He stated this is the area is currently unsewered, however, is proposed to be sewered within the next 20 years. He stated the Comprehensive Plan defines this area as R-l zoned, rural, however, it provides the City the opportunity to rezone it to. an Urban District designation, without requiring an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that over the past few years, with the changes in legislation which indicate that all zoning ordinances and official controls must conform with the Comprehensive Plan, the City has had to amend the Comprehensive Plan " with every rezoning that has taken place. '- ./ o u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Alinutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 9 \ '- ) Mr. Hinzman advised that in the Transitional Residential District, there are opportunities for single- family detached development, or a rezoning to Multiple Family development. He explained that the land use plan sets specific criteria for the areas which are suitable for Multiple Family development, including those areas adjacent to a commercial area or a major arterial, and these developments are essentially being set up as buffers between different uses. Mr. Hinzman explained that the remaining districts correspond directly with the Zoning Ordinance, and both the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan have been examined to insure they conform to one another. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with a map, which indicates in 5-year increments, the areas that are within the urban expansion zone within the next 20 years. He stated that this takes into consideration the buildable acreage, and allocates it equally over that time period. He indicated that in the past, the City has attempted to regulate growth by taking a certain number of buildable acres per year, generally been between 125 and 150 acres per year, into the MUSA area for development. He explained that this method corresponds to this process on a five-year basis, and staff has met with some of the property owners to obtain their reaction, and determine if this corresponds to their plans. ~-) Mr. Hinzman eXplained that these projections represent the availability of services, however, this does not indicate that during this time period, every property owner in the area will be assessed the cost for services being brought in. He pointed out that in the past, the City Council's policy has been to assess the property owner for connecting to services if they are available, however, the City has not gone across one property to serve another farther out, and then assessed the property owner in between. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with a map of the 2000 to 2005 year time frame in one-year increments, which represented areas consisting of approximately 125 buildable acres. He indicated he has met with these property owners as well. He explained that the 2000 services are already allocated and have been brought forward through the approval process with the Shadowbrook Sixth Addition, and the Woodland Estates Second Addition. Acting Chair Apel advised that prior to passage of the new legislation, the Zoning Ordinances took precedence over the Comprehensive Plan, however, in 1996, the State mandated that the controlling document is the Comprehensive Plan, which resulted in these changes to the Plan. He explained that they had gone through the zoning ordinances, in an attempt to reflect these changes, however, if there is a question between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan now rules. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the December 21, 1999 City Council Meeting. '\ ,) Acting Chair Ape I thanked Mr. Hinzman for his presentation. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission }vleeling Minutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 10 '- -' PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 208 - ZONING ORDINANCE _ REPEALING ORDINACNE 8, ZONING ORDINANCE; ORDINANCE 40, LOT SPLITS; AND ORDINANCE NO. 112 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to review and approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 208). This ordinance repeals Ordinance No.8, the current Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 40, regulating the division of lots, and Ordinance No. 112, regulating planned unit developments. Mr. Johnson stated over two (2) years have past since the City Council established an advisory committee made up of Planning and Zoning Commissioners and residents to review and diagnose the problems associated width the current zoning ordinance, and prepare a new document which is more easily interpreted, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. " ,--_/i Mr. Johnson indicated the advisory committee met bi-monthly to conduct a section by section review ofthe ordinance. On August 12, 1999, a joint meeting was held with the committee and the City Council to receive more input on this proposed ordinance. Staff has addressed comments from this meeting. He indicated that 95 percent of this ordinance duplicates the current ordinance. He explained that there have been some adjustments in terms of performance standards, landscaping and other areas. Acting Chair Apel stated this item replaces three City ordinances, and simplifies the language to provide clarification for people attempting to find answers. Mr. Johnson stated the ordinance also simplifies the public hearing process, and incorporates some changes to the notification process to inform residents regarding various applications. Commissioner Falk stated he had reviewed the document over the weekend, and found it to be very "user friendly," and very well prepared. He inquired if the ordinance would take effect immediately upon approval by the City Council. Mr. Johnson advised that this item will be brought forward to the City Council on January 18. He indicated that if the Commissioners have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, they may contact staff, and their comments will be forwarded to the Council. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion carried '" on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. / o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ,"feeting Minutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 11 ,- , Commissioner Falk requested clarification of the Flood Plain District. Acting Chair Apel advised that this district is comprised of land, which is subject to severe wetland or drainage issues. Mr. Hinzman added that the Flood Plain District is within the 100-year flood plain, and is considered unbuildable. Acting Chair Apel explained that a permit for the construction of any permanent structure would not likely be issued for any land that is completely inside the flood plain. Mr. Hinzman added that even accessory buildings are frowned upon in this district, in terms of their potential for the redirection of water flow, and the like. Mr. Johnson advised that there is a separate ordinance, which addresses all flood plain issues. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Dalien, to recommend to the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 208, an ordinance repealing Ordinance No, 8, the Zoning Ordinance and its amendments adopted _ January 1, 1961, Ordinance No. 40 and its amendments, regulating the division of lots adopted August 16, 1977, and Ordinance No. 112, regulating planned unit developments, adopted June 4, 1996. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. \.. Mr, Hinzman stated this item will be considered at the January 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. VARIANCE: (VAR 99-12) - SIGN VARIANCE - ORDINACNE 8, SECTION 8.07, RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFICATION SIGN - /4191 PRAIRIE ROAD, SUE ROOKER. Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the variance request of Sue Rooker to allow for a sign to remain on her single family residential property located 14191 Prairie Road NW. Mr. Johnson noted the general comments contained in the staff report, which indicated the subject property is located north of the Shadowbrook Subdivision, to the east of Prairie Road, and is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a sixteen (16) square-foot sign to remain on the property. As stated in the variance application, the sign has existed at this location for ten (10) years. Mr. Johnson reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. He advised that the maximum sign area for residential lots is four (4) square feet, as established in the original Zoning Ordinance, at its adoption in 1970, Mr. Johnson stated the City received a complaint regarding the sign, and staff investigated this matter, and sent out a notice to the applicant requesting she comply with the ordinance by either ;- \ ., , .\ ',-/ ~J / , I " ' Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Jfeeling Jfinutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 12 removing the sign, or reducing it to four (4) square feet. He explained that the property owner has requested to go through the variance process. Mr. Johnson outlined the Commission's options for action. He indicated staff has prepared a resolution for the Commission's review. Mr. Johnson indicated the applicant, Sue Rooker, was present. Acting Chair Apel advised that this item was not a public hearing, but rather the Commission's discussion of the variance. He invited the applicant to state her case at this time, if so desired. Sue Rooker, 1419 I Prairie Road NW, stated she had recently come through a very difficult divorce, and the repurchasing of her own home twice. She indicated the sign has existed on the property for ten years, and she was not aware there was a problem in this regard. She commented that someone should have informed her of this, prior to the $300 she has spent to change the sign face from a horse head to an eagle. Ms. Rooker stated the eagle represents that she is not moving, and that although her husband has left, she will be keeping the farm. She stated she has had some difficulties with the Anoka County Courts, and has had to repurchase her own property twice. She reiterated that the sign represents that \, - -' she is not moving. She eXplained that ExecuAir Eagles is a corporate jet service she is working on in South Carolina, ExecuAir Limousine is a limousine service, also in South Carolina, and ExecuAir Farms is her farm. She explained that she intends to live on her property for 3 to 5 years, and then relocate to South Carolina. Ms. Rooker stated everything at the farm is the same, except that she is there by herself with her friends. She explained that she has spoken to her neighbors and everyone she knows is very proud that she is still there. She indicated that she has paid the fees, and nothing has changed except she is there, and she is not moving. She requested the City leave her sign alone. Commissioner Dalien inquired if the City has granted variances for similar cases in the past. Mr. Johnson stated it has not. He indicated a permit was granted in error for a sign in a residential district, which is located on Crosstown Boulevard, west of City Hall, for a pet grooming business, which exceeds four (4) square feet. He stated in this case, the property is located north of the Shadowbrook subdivision, which is scheduled for development within the next 5 years. He explained that the applicant has indicated she intends to remain at the property for approximately 3 to 5 years, therefore, the sign will likely only remain for a maximum of five years. He advised, however, a permit has not been issued for this sign. ) Commissioner Hedin inquired if the applicant had made any considerable alterations to the sign, such as adding lights or raising its height. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission J.feeting lv/inutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 13 \ ) Ms. Rooker indicated she had simply had another four by four-foot sign made, and took the horse head down. She stated a sign company created the design, and she is proud of the eagles, which represent that she has learned to fly through the course of her recent difficulties. She explained that she is an Aviation Management trainee at Metro State, and is pursuing a career in aviation. She commented that eagles symbolize flying and being free. Commissioner Jovanovich inquired if the original sign on the property, which existed for 10 years, had been issued a permit. Ms. Rooker stated she was never aware that she was required to obtain a permit for a sign on her O\\>TI property. She stated the sign has been in place for 10 years, and during that time, she has built barns, and garages, and had many County officials in her yard, however, no one has ever mentioned that there was a problem with the sign. She explained that she comes to City Hall quite often to obtain her permits, and had she been aware there was a problem, she would not have spent $300 on the eagle design to tell the world that she is not moving. Ms. Rooker stated in three to five years, when she retires from the Telephone Company, she intends to move to South Carolina with her corporate jets and her limousines. She indicated staff had \ advised that she could have one limousine on the property, and she desired to start a limousine '- ) service, however, she could not do so at this time. Ms. Rooker stated she owns ten acres of land, not a City lot, and her property borders Coon Creek. She indicated her surrounding neighbors are not opposed to the sign, but rather are happy she is there, because they are aware how hard she fought to keep her home. She reiterated that had she been aware there was a problem with the sign, she would have come to City Hall and inquired in this regard. She pointed out that the sign is in no way harmful, and if anyone has a problem with it, they should just come and ask her about it. She stated she would like to know who complained about the sign, adding that if they could come to the City and complain, they should be able to state the reason for their objections. Mr. Hinzman advised that the issue at hand is the variance, and the hardship criteria associated with the variance, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision as to whether or not this variance request meets the hardship requirements. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the 1 a-year history of the sigil had any bearing on this case. Mr. Hinzman stated this is subject to the discretion of the Commission. He indicated that the only previous situation staff could cite, is that of the sign located on Crosstown Boulevard, as previously mentioned. '\ ) Acting Chair Apel stated the ordinance has been in effect for many years. / " \. ) o Regular ..lndover Planning and Zoning Commission lvleeting Minutes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 14 o Mr. Hinzman added that the requirements continue within the new ordinance as well. Acting Chair Apel advised that the Commission could not rely upon the IO-year history of this sign to provide much leverage, as during that time, there was no permit issued. He stated he sympathized with the applicant, and he was not particularly fond of the City's sign ordinance, in that commercial ventures are permitted to erect very large advertising signs, and yet the residents, who pay the majority of the taxes, are restricted to a small amount of space. He explained however, this is his personal opinion, and the ordinance is fairly clear, and does not leave much room for argument. He indicated that if the sign is allowed to remain, it would be by the authority of the City Council, as the Planning and Zoning Commission can not proceed in this direction, via the ordinance. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the business sign process could be applicable in this situation. Mr. Hinzman stated this could not be done, due to the design requirements for the different districts. He explained that in the residential district, the City allows institutional signs for schools, and the like, and in the business districts signage is permitted at four (4) square feet, and increases from that point. ~.- -'. Acting Chair Apel explained that these requirements are to provide that people do not start an in- home occupation, and erect a huge sign in the residential district, for the purpose of advertising. ,_.J Ms. Rooker indicated that the signposts have not been changed, and the only change to the sign is the design, which has been changed from a horse head to an eagle. Acting Chair Apel stated he understood this, however, the fact that the sign has existed for ten years does not change the fact that the sign has never been issued a permit. He advised that on the basis of the ordinance, he must take the position that there is no way to do approve the variance, however, the City Council powers beyond those of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Dalien explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council, and this action would go before the Council, at which time the applicant will have another opportunity to plead her case. Acting Chair Apel stated the Commission's role is to abide by the ordinances as closely as possible. He pointed out that the chances of being granted a variance based upon the ordinance are very slim, however, the Council will consider this matter, and possibly allow the sign to remain, as they have different means to approach these types of issues. :-J Commissioner Falk stated he sided with the applicant and sympathized with what she is going through, however, the Commission's hands are tied in this matter. , '\ . ) \, / () U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission kJeeting A/in utes - December 1-1, 1999 Page 15 Ms. Rooker stated she understood this and did not expect special consideration. She suggested the City consider granting a five-year permit, or a five-year variance, after which time, she will probably be gone and will take the sign with her. Acting Chair Apel advised that this type of appeal would be best made at the Council level. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the location of the sign on the property was a factor in this consideration, and if relocation of the sign to the other side of the fence might be remedial. Mr. Hinzman stated the ordinance provides specific setback criteria for sign locations. He explained that the problem exists in terms of the size of the sign, and not its location on the property. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the applicant could make the same point with a smaller sign. Ms. Rooker explained that she had spent $300 for the sign as it is, and it has been sealed to prevent weathering. Commissioner Hedin stated he understood Ms. Rooker's position. He pointed out that if the sign was smaller, it might be permissible. . , "j Ms. Rooker commented that if she makes the sign any smaller, her eagle would have no room to fly. Commissioner Hedin reiterated that while he sympathized with Ms. Rooker's intentions, he could see no way to approve the variance without disregarding the ordinance, which could not be done. Ms. Rooker stated she understood this, and would take the matter up with the City Council. Acting Chair Apel stated he was certain the City Council would hear that the Commission would like to do something on the applicant's behalf, and possibly use that as a stepping stone in their consideration. He reiterated that the Council has broader powers than the Commission. Ms. Rooker suggested she prepare a document for the Commissioners to sign, indicating that they do not object to her sign, and that they would be agreeable to a five-year variance to allow for the sign on her property. She stated she was aware the Commission has to follow the rules, and that was why she was before them. Commissioner Dalien stated he would reluctantly move to recommend the City Council deny the applicant's request for a variance. ,- \ . I ..._~~ Motion by Dalien, seconded by Jovanovich, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _' a resolution denying the variance request of Sue Rooker to allow for the placement of a sixteen (16) square foot sign on the property located at 14191 Prairie Road NW, / , '--) () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission lvJeeting Minutes - December 14, 1999 Page 16 o legally described therein, citing the reason for denial to be that the Commission can find no hardship existing under Ordinance 8, Section 5.04. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman inquired if the maker of the Motion would amend the Motion to indicate the reasons for denial. Acting Chair Apel advised that granting the variance would be contrary to the ordinance, as the sign does not meet the square footage criteria set forth therein. He stated this is a very simple denial. Commissioner Dalien agreed to amend his motion to indicate that the Commission can find no hardship existing under Ordinance 8, Section 5.04. Mr. Hin7JIlan stated this item would be considered at the January 4, 2000 City Council Meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Hinzman stated the December 7, 1999 City Council Meeting consisted of a very a large plat agenda. He stated the Council considered the Woodland Estates 2nd Addition Plat, and the Shadowbrook 6th Addition and Sunridge Plats, including all other related items. He advised that the , Council approved the Woodland Estates 2nd Addition, and the Shadowbrook 6th Addition plats, , however, there was some discussion regarding the Sunridge Plat. He explained that the Council desired to insure that the resolution and ordinance amendment clearly indicated that this area was suited for Multiple Family development, and is unique from other areas. He advised that with this direction, staff will bring this item back for consideration at the December 21, 1999 City Council meeting, for final approval. Mr. Hinzman stated at this time, no items have been scheduled for the December 28, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and staff does not anticipate anything to come forward prior to the submittal deadline, therefore, the next meeting of the Commission will be held on January 11, 2000, at which time there will be consideration of a lot split, and the North Valley Ridge development, which is proposed to be located southwest of 161 st A venue and Nightingale Street. There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. , , j Respectfully submitted, \ r ' ~ o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 14, 1999 Page 17 / Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.