Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 27, 1996 / , o ~) .,,-- ,~ '--./ u u ~ . .3J 1~ICfl.p CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 27, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on February 27, 1996, 7:02 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Lynette Berry, Lorna Wells Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 13, 1996: Correct as written. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Berry, to accept the Minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRISTOFFERSON LOT SPLIT - 3982 146TH LANE NW - MARK AND SUSAN 7:03 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the lot split request of Mark and Susan Christofferson to subdivide a portion of Lot 26, Block 1, The Meadows of Round Lake. The applicants owns Lot 28, Block 1 and proposed the split to allow them to have a larger yard by using that portion of Lot 26 as their back yard. Nedegaard Construction Company currently owns Lot 26 and has agreed to the split. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the applicable ordinances and noted a variance would also be needed because the portion of the lot being split will not meet the minimum requirements in an R-4 District for lot width, depth and area. Park dedication fees would not be applicable since a lot on which a dwelling can be constructed is not being created. The City Attorney has said such splits have been done in other cities and felt this is the process that should be taken in this case. The portion being split cannot be legally combined with Lot 20 unless it is replattedi however, they will be combined for tax purposes. Mr. Carlberg stated the Staff noticed today that a storm sewer runs along the property lines from Dakota Street between Lot 28 and Lot 26 and outlets into the park property. The easement will remain and will cut across the area the Christoffersons wish to use as an enlargement to their back yard. No structures or fences will be allowed within that easement, as the City needs to have access to the storm sewer for maintenance. Even if the property were replatted, the storm sewer easement would remain and usage of the area would be limited. Lot 26 still meets the minimum requirements for buildability in an R-4 district if the request is granted. If approved, he suggested a condition be attached that a covenant would be required that would legally bind that portion of Lot 26 and Lot 28 so they cannot be sold separately. That triangle now on Lot 26 would be under the same ownership as Lot 28. The legal description will read Lot 28 and a triangular portion of Lot 26. \ \) ,~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 27, 1996 Page 2 {Public Hearing: Lot Split, 3982 146th Lane NW, Continued} Mr. Carlberg also noted both Lots 26 and 27 are vacant. The storm sewer pipe runs through the 20-foot easement between Lot 28 and Lots 26 and 27, but he was not aware of any other utilities through there. The storm sewer discharges into the wetland area, but it is not an open body of water. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Berry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:20 p.m. Mark Christofferson, 14599 Dakot~Street NW - explained they want to add onto to their back yard. He works for the Water Department for the City of Coon Rapids and understands the need to have access over easements to maintain utilities. He was aware of that and does not have a problem with it. He plans to plant grass on that area but wants the additional land to square up the yard. As platted, there is not a lot of room back there. He would like to add a deck onto the back of his house, and this additional land will open it up. A deck will not infringe on the utility easement area. Mr. Carlberg concurred. That would be addressed when the application is made for the building permit. MOTION by Berry, Seconded by Woods, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:24 p.m. .I Chairperson Squires read a letter into the record Halek, 14551 Dakota Street NW, expressing their request. It was noted the Haleks live several applicants. from Scott and Sue opposi tion to the lots south of the Commissioner Apel felt the objection was not relevant to the request. The main consideration is the underground storm sewer between the two parcels. If the Christoffersons are willing to sod or seed and understand that may be torn up if the City has to do work, he had no problem with the lot split and variance. Commissioner Berry had a concern from the platting point of view in that it was surveyed, and that is how the Christoffersons bought it. She was concerned with the large amount of drainage and utility easement involved, leaving very little land that is not included in the easement, It could create a lot of questions about lot lines in the future if not done correctly, and she is leaning toward not approving the request. Commissioner Wells felt it would be more appropriate to sod some of the park land. This would create a weird-shaped lot to do anything with aesthetically, plus the easement over both property lines. Mr. Carlberg explained they cannot encroach into the City-owned property. Resident on Lot 25, Block 1, 3970 146th Lane - stated their back yard is , across from the property in question. Now the parcel is all weeds and / grass. She has no problem with what the Christoffersons are doing. Aesthetically it looks very nice when they maintain it. \ I ./ ,-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 27, 1996 Page 3 / (Public Hearing: Lot Split, 3982 146th Lane NW; Continued) Brodwick Hill - was concerned with the affect of the market value of the lot being reduced in size. Also, would this create a precedent in the future. Commissioner Apel stated real estate law is the City cannot limit what the owners can do with their property if they do it within the confines of the ordinances and State law. Conveying it to another person is within the parameters of the ordinance. He did not think this would set a precedent. It has been done in the past, but most of the time it is done by metes and bounds. Also, he didn't think Nedegaard Construction would agree to it if it would reduce the value of their lot. This particular triangle is fairly easy to cut off the lot because of the wetlands in the back. Mr. Carlberg again noted Lot 26 still meets the requirements of the ordinance. He also understood there are restrictive covenants on those lots that are handled by the developer that dictate the price of the homes. . / Chairperson Squires also had a concern with changing a plat once it is approved because of all of the configuration that goes into it to get it to the point of approval. If changes occur too often, he thought it poses a problem with what the platting process is about. Neighborhoods could end up looking nothing like the City thought they would. On the other hand, this may be a unique situation. The developer could have included that triangle as a part of Lot 28. There is the storm sewer line underground that runs more squarely through the heart of the lot rather than on the edges. But if the owners are willing to accept the fact that they will have to resod or reseed when the City has to do maintenance, then it is all right. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Squires, the Resolution presented to the City Council recommending approval of the lot split request by the Christoffersons on Lot 26, Block 1, The Meadows of Round Lake. Add as a requirement that the sunset clause be adhered too. A covenant be required to cover the variance for lot size, width and area as required under Section 6.02. A covenant be recorded that legally binds that portion of Lot 26 and Lot 28 so they cannot be sold separately. VOTE ON MOTION: 2-Yes (Apel, Squires); 2-No (Berry, Wells); 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam). Motion goes to the City Council on March 19, 1996, with no recommendation. DISCUSSION - ADULT USES Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review Ordinance 92, the Adult Use Ordinance on 1) enacting greater restrictions on adult videos in video rental and retail stores, and 2) considering the zoning districts where they can be located. The current ordinance allows up to 40 percent of the utilized , floor area of a video store to be devoted to adult videos without the / business being considered adult use. He noted the research done of other cities which found that regulations vary from 15 to 30 percent of either floor area, stock or both can be devoted to sexually explicit materials ,j ,-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 27, 1996 Page 4 .I {Discussion - Adult Uses, Continued} or adult videos. The only other community that now allows as much floor space for adult uses as Andover is Anoka. His research of two video stores in Andover found that Speedy Video has 9 to 10 percent of its floor space for adult videos. Video Update has less than 10 percent devoted to adult videos. In both places, that section is isolated. Video Update has a large stop sign posted warning those under age 18 not to enter and one must walk past the manager's office. There are swinging doors to go through with the adult section in a separate room at Speedy Video. Mr. Carlberg stated some communities base the adult use section on the total number of videos displayed in the floor space. Those in the store room would not be counted. Commissioner Wells was concerned that the adult videos not be displayed in such a manner that young children can see them from outside the isolated area. She felt the stop sign into these places needs to be lower so young children can see it. Commissioner Berry didn't even know these places had the adult section. She didn't notice them, but she wasn't looking for them either. She liked the idea of restricting the percentage of floor area and the percentage of video stock. She also liked the idea of a separate room for this use which is clearly marked or divided where those under age 18 cannot enter or read the titles. She asked if the City could also add a not-to-exceed square footage figure for that portion of the business, say 3,000 square feet. Chairperson Squires agreed. Since they cannot be excluded from being there, they should be located such that those going to rent other videos will not just happen across the adult videos. Commissioner Apel thought the stores are already doing that, but he had no problem with reducing the percentage of floor space allowed for adult uses. After further discussion, the Commission generally agreed with an ordinance amendment to reduce the percentage of floor area for adult uses to 15 percent and 15 percent of video stock, plus include a provision requiring a separation. Because the adult use area in either video store in the City even approaches 3,000 square feet, they asked Mr. Carlberg to research the percentage of floor area versus a not-to- exceed square footage. He will then draft an ordinance amendment and schedule a public hearing on it. The Commission did not address the zoning location for these uses, but commented it would be difficult to remove the existing businesses from their current locations. Dave Ballstadt. Adventures In Video. Inc.. Speedv Video President - offered any assistance he can. They have a family-run business, and they are also concerned with this issue. They are concerned and want to have direct view to those adult use rooms for security and safety reasons. They will furnish any information the City wishes. He's had stores in 20 communities, and this is the first time he has had to get up in front of a public body on this issue. He thought their record is good and that they have a lot to add. Chairperson Squires appreciated the offer, stating it will be a benefit to the Commission to have his input at the public hearing. -- ) \ J ~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 27, 1996 Page 5 I DISCUSSION - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS Mr. Carlberg explained Planned Unit Developments allow two or more uses; and when developing in a clustered housing concept, the issue is allowing a higher density than allowed by the zone. The ordinances do allow planned unit developments, but there are no parameters o~ guidelines on density, setbacks, green space, and ownership of the open spaces. On January 16 the City Council discussed planned unit developments and generally agreed with clustered housing but with no density increase. Commissioner Apel felt it is an issue of marketability for the developers. People in this area prefer single detached homes with basements. They would rather have their 2 1/2 acres. The planned unit developments have to be interesting enough for the developer to consider, and that generally means getting an extra three or four units on the parcel. Washington County has recently approved planned unit development requirements. He suggested Staff get copies of their criteria for PUDs. The closest thing to a POD in Andover was when Oak Bluff was developed just prior to municipal sewer availability to the area. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff believes the key is the density issue. Unless there is a density increase benefit to the developer, no one is going to use the PUD concept unless it is to allow two uses. If done, the open spaces would need to be protected until municipal utilities are available, possibly through a covenant by the developer. Commissioner Wells thought planned unit developments are a good way to develop the marginal lands. She was concerned with septic systems installed right next to wetlands. Also, a condition of the open spaces should be that it be retained by private ownership, possibly some neighborhood association which charges fees to maintain it. Commissioner Apel stated there already is ample protection in place for wetlands. Chairperson Squires agreed if the POD process is going to be utilized and be a benefit to the City, and if the City wants developers to go that route, certain concessions will have to be made. He also felt the City must be sensitive to the requirements on the open spaces. Is it the intent to require the developers to establish a common interest area? Mr. Carlberg felt a POD ordinance would be more of a tool for the City to negotiate based on the situation of the land. He did not envision specific POD areas established where the property must be developed as a POD. The Commissioners generally agreed that the PUD concept must be made attractive for the developers to use, or there is no sense developing an ordinance on them because the developers will probably not utilize the PUD concept unless the density can be increased. / Mike Muskie - is involved in the proposed plan of Avalon Homes to develop property west of Nightingale. It would be nice to get something decided so they can begin to develop. They would look at clustered housing but need to know the requirements before they can proceed. , ~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 27, 1996 Page 6 (discussion - Planned Unit Developments, Continued) Without an increase in density to offset the 2 1/2-acre lots which are more marketable than I-acre lots, they would probably not go with the PUD concept. Because developers are waiting for the City to decide on the requirements for PUDs and time is of the essence, Mr. Carlberg agreed to bring this issue to the City Council for further discussion at the Mayor/Council input at the March 6 City Council meeting. He will once again ask if there is an interest in looking at a provision to allow a density increase for planned unit developments. If the Council agrees with the density increase, Staff will prepare an ordinance for the Commission's review. If they do not approve, no further work will be done on a PUD ordinance. The Commission also asked to see copies of the Washington County and Woodbury ordinances on PUDs. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions of the City Council at their February 20, 1996, regular meeting. At the request of Commissioner Wells, Mr. Carlberg stated he will provide the Commission with the most recent information on the issue of snowmobiles and the actions of the Andover Sno-Dragons Snowmobile Club. / MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Berry, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. \