Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 9, 1996 C) (^~o.d~~ u --. r~ \ 1~ICjlP '. '---./ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 9, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on January 9, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Lynette Berry, Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam, Lorna Wells None City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 12( 1995: Correct as written. MOTION by presented. vote. Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 3-present (Apel, Berry, Wells) o PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - 17069 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW - ALAN AND EDNA BRUNKOW 7: 01 p. m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Alan and Edna Brunkow to split a 4.88-acre parcel into two lots. In addition, the request is for a Special Use Permit to allow the accessory buildings (a barn and a shed) to remain on the newly-created parcel. That parcel will not have a residential structure at this time. If approval is recommended, the Commission may wish to add a time frame in which the principal structure should be constructed on that parcel. Variances are being requested from the 300-foot lot frontage requirement for both lots. The northern lot will require a 100-foot variance, and the southerly lot will require a 75-foot variance. In addition a variance is needed on the northernmost lot, which is 2.3 acres, from the lot area requirement of 2.5 acres; and another variance is needed for the side yard setback for the barn on the southernmost parcel. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the applicable ordinances. The existing buildings meet the setback requirements from the center of the road, and there is room to construct the residential structure within the required setbacks on the newly created southerly parcel. If, however, the house is built behind the existing barn, the fF8Ht of the barn will have to have similar exterior construction. That will be monitored by the Building Department. :J Mr. Carlberg explained the property is zoned R-1 and would be served by on-site septic system and private well. Commissioner Wells was concerned with the location of the existing septic system and well and having ample room for another system and well on the newly created parcel. '-j o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 2 ; (Public Hearing: Lot Spli t/Special Use permi t/Variance - 17069 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Continued) Alan Brunkow - stated the existing well is in front of the house and the septic system is behind the house. There is no water line running to the barn. It is an old barn that has been there for years. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:16 p.m. Edna Brunkow. 17069 Crosstown Boulevard NW - requested it not be made a requirement to have residential siding put on the barn when a house is built on the southern parcel. She felt it would be a hardship on the new owner to require that. Mr. Carlberg explained that would only be required if the new home is built farther back than the barn. It is not an issue if the new house is built in front of or parallel to the barn. Commissioner Luedtke asked if it is the applicant's intent to stay on the existing parcel. Alan Brunkow - stated they would like to sell the new lot and then sell the house. They have both parcels listed for sale subject to the City's approval of the split. Commissioner Wells questioned the size and depth of the pond. She was concerned with the buildability of the new lot and the ability to meet the requirements for the septic system and well. Mr. Brunkow - stated it is a natural pond that is not very deep. The adjacent neighbor has a larger pond which is dredged deeper. The pond is approximately 50 feet from the lot line and over 100 feet from the barn. It is also an uphill slope to the barn. He is not aware of there ever being water at the barn. Mr. Carlberg explained the flood elevations will be required on the certificate of survey, and the Building Department will review it as a part of the building permit process. The lot will be 2.5 acres, so it appears there will be ample room for the utilities. Commissioner Berry asked since the barn is older, would someone take it down. Mr. Brunkow - thought it would probably be restored. It is in good shape. The siding on the west side isn't as good as the siding toward the road. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Apel stated if the items are looked at separately, each one has been before the Commission and approval recommended in the past. He thought each request would be granted if presented separately. Commissioner Peek stated the lot split could be granted without the Special Use Permit, but the barn would have to be removed. Chairperson Squires felt the frontage and side yard variances are a hardship, and it isn't reasonable to require the structure to be removed. Also, in the past the City has allowed accessory buildings on a parcel prior to the construction of a principal structure. I J ,_ J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Special Use Permit/Variance - 17069 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council the request for a lot split, Special Use Permit and variance request as discussed to the City Council with our recommendations for approval: Lot split at 17069 Crosstown Boulevard NW into two lots per Ordinance No. 40; Special Use Permit to allow the accessory buildings to remain on the newly created parcel per Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05; variance from the 300-foot minimum lot width at front setback per Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02; variance on the northernmost lot from the lot area requirement of 2.5 acres per Ordinance No.8, Section 6.12; and variance from the side yard setback for the barn on the southernmost parcel per Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02. The Commission finds the request meets the provisions of Ordinance No.8, Sections 4.05 and 5.03. Add the following conditions: 1) That construction be initiated on the principal structure on the newly created lot within one year from the sale of the lot. 2) That the newly created lot pay into the parks the appropriate park dedication fee pursuant to Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07. 3) That the Building Department ascertain that the lot is actually buildable prior to the lot split being granted. 4) In addition to the buildability issue, review the well and septic system of the existing northern portion of the property to see that they are within the required setbacks of the newly created parcel and that the principle structure is kept in mind for the new parcel and the building issue of the 110-foot setback from Crosstown Boulevard. DISCUSSION: Dan Christensen. 165 170th Avenue - backs up to the proposed southerly lot. He did not get to this meeting in time to speak at the public hearing, but he is opposed to the request. It doesn't meet the codes. Commissioner Apel noted his objection will be registered, and he does have the right to address the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This will be placed on the February 6, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CONSTRUCT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PRIOR TO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON 124 170TH LANE NW - BRIAN AND CORRINE SMITH 7:33 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Brian and Corrine Smith to construct an accessory structure prior to the construction of a principal structure on property located directly behind 124 170th Avenue NW. The Smith's own a 5-acre parcel directly behind their 2.5-acre platted parcel on which their residence is located (Lot 2, Block 2, Birchwood Pond). In addition, they own a 29-acre metes and bounds parcel to the south of the 5-acre parcel. The applicant wishes to construct a riding arena, stalls for horses and a lean-to on the 5-acre parcel. The Commission may wish to have Mr. Smith combine the 5-acre metes bounds parcel with the 29-acre metes and bounds parcel. Because the 5-acre parcel is landlocked, by tying it to the southern parcel which does have access, it too would have access. The five-acre parcel cannot RggYlJE \ J ,~) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - 124 170th Lane NW, Continued) legally be combined with Lot 2, Block 2 of Birchwood Pond except for tax purposes unless it is replatted. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:45 p.m. Brian Smith. 124 170th Avenue NW - stated his daughter and wife show horses. The structure is to be used for private purposes only. They will not board other horses. They have six horses now. He needs room to board his horses, store his hay equipment, etc. With the purchase of all of the property, it is his intent to stay there a long time. They have already lived there for ten years. If they do sell in 10, 15 or 20 years, the intent would be to sell the barn with the house. Commissioner Putnam asked if Mr. Smith considered splitting the five- acre parcel and selling the eastern half to his neighbor. Mr. Carlberg stated that may be the area were the horses will be corralled. He also reviewed the ordinance requirements for the amount of acreage needed per horse. Mr. Smith - stated they did not want to build behind their neighbor's house. He owns a total of 34 acres besides his residential parcel. He was planning to combine the 5-acre parcel with the 29-acre parcel. He did not object to a sunset clause of requiring a residential home to be built on the property within one year of its sale. Mr. Carlberg stated that provision has been included in the past, though in most cases the intent has been similar to Mr. Smith's. That is, the applicants have no intention of selling the property. Commissioner Peek felt it is odd to grant a Special Use Permit to a landlocked parcel. Mr. Carlberg stated the property owner has adjacent property with access. Commissioner Peek felt the most flexible procedure would be to look at the house as one lot and everything else as another. Mr. Carlberg stated if that is acceptable, a restrictive covenant is not needed. The condition would be to combine the two parcels into one parcel of 34 acres. Mr. Smith - stated that is fine. His intent is to zone agricultural, including those five acres. He does intend to install a sand point well for the new building, but no septic system. Mr. Carlberg stated there is no zoning problem. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Berry, to close the public hearing. 7:56 p.m. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Apel, to forward to the Andover City Council a recommendation for approval for the Special Use Permit request by Brian and Corrine Smith for an accessory structure to be constructed prior to the construction of the principal structure on the property located directly behind 124 170th Avenue NW, PIN 12-32-24-14-0012, 12- 32-24-41-0002 and 0003. A public hearing was held and there was nc negative comment. The Special Use Permit be subject to the following conditions: 1) The intent is that the property of 34 acres south of the / , / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - 124 170th Lane NW, Continued) residential property of the applicant is combined and that the Special Use Permit is for that use on that parcel. 2) There is a sunset clause in the event that the property is sold, construction of a principal structure on the property is initiated within one year of the sale of the property. 3) Applicant place the structure in accordance with the minimum setback requirements of the designated zoning district. 4) The applicant place the structure so as to accommodate the future placement and construction of a principal building. 5) The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D). DISCUSSION: Commissioner Wells suggested the motion also include the structure will be for private use only. Mr. Carlberg stated the Zoning Ordinance would dictate that it cannot be used for business purposes. Motion carried unanimously. This will be heard by the City Council on February 6, 1996. 8:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - SEWER Mr. Carlberg explained since the public hearing notice, the Staff has learned that because the City Council has chosen not to participate in the Liveable Communities Act, it is unlikely the City will be granted any future MUSA expansion. A special meeting has been scheduled for this Friday, January 12, 1996, with City, State and Metropolitan Council representatives in an attempt to resolve the issue. He requested this item be moved to the January 23 meeting. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Putnam, to table this issue to the next regularly scheduled meeting, January 23. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE - SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM STREET - 916 140TH LANE NW - TAYLOR MADE HOMES Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Taylor Made Homes for a five-foot variance from Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 for the minimum 35-yard side yard setback. It is a corner lot in an R-4 zone in Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition, and the shape of the lot is a factor contributing to the variance request. Commissioner Apel noted only a corner of the house would be within the setback, about 50 square feet of the house. He felt the shape of the parcel creates a hardship. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain some uniformity. That uniformity is within reason. If Quince Street was straightened, there would be no problem. The actual encroachment is quite insignificant. Commissioner Luedtke asked if there is a safety issue if the house is five feet closer to the heavily traveled road. , , I Mr. Carlberg stated there is no safety issue. The roads are designed to handle the traffic patterns generated by the subdivision. A setback of 30 versus 35 feet shouldn't have a negative impact. The builder spent a lot of time trying to make the proposed building fit, though a smaller house would fit on the lot. j '- ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 6 {Variance - Side Yard Setback from Street - 9016 140th Lane NW - Taylor Made Homes, Con tinuedJ Robert Dav with Tavlor Made Homes - stated Quince Street just goes to cul-de-sacs, so it is not a heavily traveled road. He tried to show on the one map that to maintain the 35-foot setback cuts the lot completely in half. He felt the intent of the ordinance was to keep the houses in line. Because of the curve, that intent cannot be met with any house on the lot. It is not a large house, only 50 x 40 feet, considering the neighborhood, though it does have a three-car garage. He believed it is a design problem on the lot, mostly where the lot begins to curve. He stated a 24 or 26-foot deep, 1,000 square-foot house would work but it wouldn't conform to the neighborhood. It was an oversight on their part when they bought the lot because most cities have a 20- or 25-foot setback. They are committed to it, however. The terrain is flat, though the house is a walkout to the southeast behind the garage where the land is somewhat lower. This lot is very deep, so it has a long back yard. The side yard adjacent to Lot 21 meets the setback requirements. The only place they are asking for an encroachment is on the road side. It is still about 50 feet from the curb to the proposed structure, which is quite a distance. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Putnam, to forward this request for a variance for Taylor Made Homes to the Andover City Council with the / recommendation for approval, and that per Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, a variance be granted based on the hardship of the configuration of the loti and that the variance will be for five feet, the side yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet. Motion carried unanimously. This will be placed on the February 6, 1996, City Council meeting agenda. DISCUSSION - SKETCH PLAN - HUNTER'S HOLLOW - SECTION 9 - NOVAK FLECK Mr. Carlberg stated Staff has met with the developer and discussed the idea of a PUD concept. The developers are looking at the concept and will bring it back to the Commission at a later date. Because of that, he asked the Commission to table the item. The Commission agreed. DISCUSSION - WALKWAYS, BIKEWAYS AND TRAILWAYS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the map prepared by Engineering which identified the trail system as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the undeveloped areas adjacent to the proposed trail routes. He asked the Commission to discuss how the trails should be built through the developed and undeveloped areas. The other issue is the possibility of requiring concrete sidewalks within plats as a part of the development process. There has been some discussion about requiring sidewalks within new plats on one side of a main street that has 1,000 or more average daily trips. Many communities are getting away from planning for just vehicular traffic and are planning for pedestrian traffic as well. The intent would be to install sidewalks in new developments where warranted and only in developed areas when the streets are redeveloped. \ i -) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 7 (Discussion - Walkways, Bikeways and Trai 1 ways , Continued) Commission comments on a trail system were that there seems to be a lot of trails proposed, especially in some of the outlying areas or where trails are parallel to one another, that may not be necessary. They felt it would be helpful if the entire trail system was planned so the total cost of construction could be determined. Then a realistic fee could be charged for new plats based on that determination. It was also pointed out that land acquisition may be a problem, though many of the proposed trails are in street right of ways. A suggestion was to combine the walkways and trail system with sidewalks, not have two separate systems. Chairperson Squires did not feel the City could require a developer to construct the trail system along the plat being developed plus contribute a fee for future trail development. He suggested a fee be charged coupled with the dedication of right of way needed for the trail. The City would construct the trail and make sure it is a connecting trail. The others agreed, but asked that the fee be based on the cost of developing the trail and on the long-term maintenance of it. Consideration might also be given to raising the general tax levy to the existing residents so they too will contribute to the construction of the trail system. It was also suggested that the trail system not only be along the arterial roads but that it take advantage of the water ways and other properties that may be difficult to develop. Comments on sidewalks within subdivisions were that most of the urban areas are already developed; that sidewalks can be a problem with people not shoveling them, maintenance and equipment to clean them; and that sidewalks would be limited to pedestrian traffic going to specific locations such as schools, commercial strips, or public facilities. Language would need to be put in the ordinance that would allow the City to request a developer to install sidewalks under certain circumstances. The basis for the requirement would be the Comprehensive Plan and the general health, safety and welfare of the community. Not everyone was in agreement with the need for sidewalks within platted developments. Some wanted only the trail system along the main roads; others thought they'd like to see sidewalks going to the areas of schools, shopping centers, etc. Commissioner Berry was told that within the next few years many children within two miles of a school will have to walk because of the budget cutbacks for bussing. If that is the case, pedestrian traffic and safety become important issues. Commissioner Wells suggested if sidewalks are not required, the streets should be wider to accommodate pedestrian traffic. She would also like to see a snowmobile trail addressed so snowmobilers can travel north to get on the main trail that runs to Duluth. After further discussion, Staff was asked to research and present three to five plats in which they felt sidewalks should have been constructed within the subdivision. The Commission also suggested that Staff check with other cities such as Coon Rapids and Fridley who have an established sidewalk and trail system as to how they coordinate its development and fund it. / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1996 Page 8 {Discussion - Walkways, Bikeways and Trai 1 ways , Continued} Chairperson Squires noted he received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Byron Westlund, Andover, who mentioned several concerns with the cost and maintenance if sidewalks are required in future developments. OTHER BUSINESS Task Force on Definition of Family - Mr. Carlberg noted a vacancy with the change in Commissioners. Chairperson Squires asked Commissioner Berry to serve on that Task Force. She agreed. Snowmobile Complaints - Mr. Carlberg stated they are documenting the snowmobile complaints that have been received by the City. There have been quite a few. The Snowmobile Club has done an excellent job in trying to reduce the problems. He hoped the signs on Round Lake will help. Commissioner Wells asked that the snowmobile issue be discussed again soon. Spur Car Wash - Commissioner Wells was concerned that there is not enough drying time for cars coming out of the car wash at the Spur Station on Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards. Often there is a sheet of ice coming out onto Hanson Boulevard which is very hazardous. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will check into it. City Council Actions - Mr. Carlberg reported the actions taken by the City Council at their December 5 and 21 meetings on items forwarded to them by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Woods, to adj ourn. unanimously. Motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Re=~~J ~ella A. Peach Recording Secretary