Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 14, 1996 !'~ '\ '\...J o u CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 14, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order o o 2. Approval of Minutes . April23, 1996 3. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Signage and Banners for "Customer Appreciation Days" - SuperAmerica - 13727 Hanson Boulevard NW. 4. Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Sections 3.02 and 7.01- Amendment Related to Family and Single Family Uses. 5. Variance - Construct Deck Encroaching into the Side Yard Setback From Street - 14736 Crane Street NW - Craig and Kara Gunderson. 6. Variance - Construct Deck Encroaching into the Rear Yard Setback - 3220 138th Avenue NW - Karl and Terrilea Holm. 7. Variance - Construct Deck Encroaching into the Side Yard Setback from an Interior Property Line - 14677 Bluebird Street NW - Tim and Wendy Kramasz. 8. Sketch Plan - Planned Unit Development for Nightingale Properties - Section 15. 9. Sketch Plan - Planned Unit Development for Timber River Estates - Sections 1 & 12, Township 25 - Woodland Development Company. 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment , '\ o 8 ,- '\ o u (j ~ .5Ij~lq~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 14, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on May 14, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Lynnette Barry, Lorna Wells Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam City Engineering, Todd Haas City Planning, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 23, 1996: Pg 2, Public Hearing on R-1". First paragraph, change "R-l" to "R-4". Rezoning, change "4-1" to second to last sentence, MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 2-Yes, 2-Present (Apel, Squires), 3-Absent (Lu~dtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SIGNAGE AND BANNERS FOR "CUSTOMER APPRECIATION DAYS" - SUPERAMERICA- 13727 HANSON BOULEVARD NW 7:05 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Special Use Permit request of SuperAmerica to place banners, flags and similar devices, including an inflatable SA Man and the North Star Penguin, for their "Customer Appreciation Days" from June 10 through 16, 1996, at 13727 Hanson Boulevard NW. He summarized the applicable ordinances and criteria to be used when reviewing such requests. The Anoka County Highway Department responded by letter indicating they would not allow any signs in the county's right of way. The City will inspect the placement of the items to be sure they are not in the boulevards and that the line of sight for traffic is not blocked in any way. The items would be placeJ 10 feet from the boulevards. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Apel, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:12 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:12 p.m. The Commission's main concern was that the placement of these items not interfere with the line of sight triangles. It was suggested the location for the inflatable SA Man may need to be moved further east. i '\ ,-) (j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning COITllTlission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 2 , ) (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/SuperAmerica, Continued) The Commission also wanted to be sure that the height of the flags does not interfere with visibility. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will meet with SuperAmerica representatives and review the plans for the locations of these items. Staff will also drive the county roads to be sure there are no problems with visibility. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to forward to the City Council the request for a Special Use Permit by SuperArrlerica with the addition that Staff pay special attention to the SuperAmerica Man and the height of the flags. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the June 4, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC HE."4.RING: AMEl-TD ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS 3.02 AND 7.01 ,,1MEND1ofENT RELATED TO FA!>!ILY .WD SINGLE FAMILY USES ., i 7:15 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the recommendation made by the Family Task Force to amend sections of Ordinance No. 8 relating to the definition of "family" and permitted uses in a residential neighborhood. After much discussion, the Task Force felt it: would be better to focus on permitted uses in residential districts rather than try to define what does or does not constitute a family. The proposed amendment simply defines family as two or more people living together related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship. Then it goes on to list the characteristics that are desirable in a residential neighborhood. Any concern with how many people are living in a home would be regulated based on other regulations such as septic system requirements, room size, noise, etc. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:20 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:20 p.m. The Commission applauded the recommendation of the Task Force, feeling this will provide a good mechanism to deal with problems that may arise. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Apel, to forward to the City Council the amendments of the ordinance as read. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3- Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. Mr. Carlberg then read the names of the members of the 'l'as}<: Force and publicly thanked them for their effort and dedication over what proved to be a very difficult task. This item will be placed on the June 4, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:25 p.m. \ ) \, ) , " ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 3 VARIANCE - CONSTRUC'l' DECK ENCROACHING INTO 'I'HE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM STREET - 14736 CRANE STREET ml - CRAIG AND KARA GUNDERSON Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of Craig and Kara Gunderson to construct a deck encroaching 10 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback from the street at 14736 Crane Street NW, Lot 14, Block 5, Oak Bluff Second Addition. He pointed out the applicable ordinances and noted the deck cannot be constructed in the rear yard because two ground level windows are present. Mr. Carlberg also noted the ordinance was changed in 1992 to require an additional 5-foot setback when the house plans show a future deck. This house was built prior to that ordinance change. He assumed the deck was not submitted at the time the house was constructed. Commissioner Apel noted corner lots have an extra 10-foot easement on the side yard anyway. In this case, the line from the corner of the lot to the corner of the house indicates a line of sight to nearly the end of the lot. So there would be no sight line problems with const=ucting the deck as proposed. Variances have been granted in the past for similar situations. Craig and Kara Gunderson explained the access to t~he deck will be from the side of the house where the deck is proposed to go in. The deck will be at ground level with one step. There is fencing around the entire back yard, so the deck would be within that fencing. \ , J MOTION by Apr::l, Seconded by 13arr.-y, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends forwarding to the City Council for approval the variance request of Craig and Kara Gunderson for a variance from Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 of the 35-foot side yard setback, a variance of 10 feet. fl!otion carried on a 4 - Yes, 3 -Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This \"ill be placed on the June 4, 1996, Cit1, Council agenda. VARIANCE.. CONSTRUCT DECK EllCROACHING INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK - 3220 138TH l!VE~:rUE NW - Y..ARL .AZ,.rD TERRILEA HOLM Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of Karl and Terrilea Holm to construct a deck encroaching 12 feet into the required 3D-foot rear yard setback at 3220 138th Avenue N~V, Lot 5, Block 8, Woodland Creek First Addition. The property abuts commercial property. Mr. Carlberg explained in the R-4 district, a 35-foot front yard and a 3D-foot rear yard setback is required. The building W2S placed to the rear of the lot as far as possible and was built prior to September 15, 1992, when the ordinance was approved which required an additional 5-foot setback if there are plans to accommodate a ded;: in the future. He also explained the commercial zene is an o'.rerlying district in the Planned Unit Development of Woodland Creek for residential and neighborhood business development. The applicant is aWi~no t.hat the abutting property is commercial property. / ~ / 'J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Comm_ission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 4 {Variance Avenue NW, Construct Deck Encroaching Rear Yard Setback/3220 138th Cont_inuedJ The Commission generally did not have a problem with the request because of the adj acent commercial property. The ordinance amendment should also correct similar problems in the future. MOTION by vlells, Seconded by P.pel, to forward to the City Council the variance of Karl and Terrilea Holm as requested. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the June 4, 1996, City Council agenda. VARIANCE - CONSTRUCT DECK ENCROACHING INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM AN I1fTERIOR PROPERTY LINE - 14677 BLUEBIRD STREET NW - TIME AND ffENDY KRMLASZ '- / Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of Tim and Wendy Kramasz to construct a deck encroaching 4 feet into the required la-foot side yard setback from an interior lot line at 14677 Bluebird Street NW, Lot 10, Block 1, Fox Woods. He summarized the applicable ordinances and noted the house was built Clft:er the ordinance amendment in 1992, so an addi tional 5.- foot side yar'::t setback was required to accommodate an access for a deck. If a residential garage or carport were to be constructed on the side, a 6-foot setback would be allowed. The proposal is to construct a 10 x 14-foot deck, which would create a 6- foot setback from the property line. There is 27 feet between the house on this lot and the one on the adjacent lot. The deck would be 17 feet from the neighboring house. Tim Kramasz stated the deck for the neighboring house would be In the back of that house and would not wrap around to the side of it. Commissioner Apel stated the ordinance amendment tried to solve these problems. In analyzing it, a deck would be less intrusive than a garage or carport which would be allowed to be six feet from the side lot line. l'-1r. Carlberg explained the intc-::nt with the additional 5-foot setback was to allow the construction of an access area from the sliding glass doors which would wrap around to the deck in the back of the house. In many cases it is not possible to wrap the deck around in the back side because of the features on the house. They could construct a 6 x 14- root deck, but they would like to see a larger one. The question is whether their hardship warrants granting a variance. While the Commissioners were generally in favor of the variance, they suggested the Building Department look at building plans carefully to be sure enough area exists for the future placement of a deck to avoid these types of variances. There was a concern that the homeowne.c' generally doesn't know of potential problems with setbacks for the future placement of a deck, and some how that must be communicated to I the owner before the house is constructed. It was noted that part of the problem is the increased sizes of houses on the small lots. In this case, it was felt (l deck would be less intrusive than a garage or " / \ I 'J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 5 {Variance Construct Deck Encroaching Side Yard Setback from an Interior Property Line, 14677 Bluebird Street NW, Continued} carport which would be allowed to within 6 feet of the lot line and because there will be no deck on the side of the neighboring hous~ that would face this deck. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to forward to the City Council this variance, encroaching into the side yard setback by 4 feet. DISCUSSION: Chairperson Squires stated he \vould support the variance but was concerned because the encroachment is toward another existing dwelling, which differs from the previous two where the encroachment was to the street or to a commercially zoned area. l'lhile the current property owners may get along, one has to anticipate that that may not always be the case. The argument that a 6-foot setback is allowed for garages and carports sways him in favor of this request. On the other hand, the setbacks are intended to provide privacy, and 17 feet isn't a lot of space for privacy. Commissioner Wells stated she would be against this if there was a possibility of a deck being constructed on the adjoining building that would face this proposed deck. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-ADsent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the June 4, 1996, City Council agenda. SKETCH PI,AU - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR NIGHTINGALE PROPERTIES _ SECTION 15 Mr. Haas reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Nightingale Properties, LLC located in Section 15. The property is zoned R-1 and is proposed to be developed into 11 lots and 1 outlot. The property currently is not locatEd within the MUSA area, but it could be served in the future with the existing gravity sanitary sewer system. There is a half-section map which shows how future development could occur to the west. The Fire Department is requesting that Raven Street NW be constructed between this proposed development and Wittington Ridge to eliminate the long dead ends. That is outside the boundaries of this plat and is something that will need to be discussed with the Council. Commissioner Barry stated there would be only seven dwellings along the road. Commissioner Apel felt because the extension of Raven is outside of the proposed plat, the only thing the City can do now is make provisions for that extension in the future. / Mr. Haas noted the outlot would become part of the association for the development. Mr. Carlberg pointed out as a PUD, the lots do not meet the minimum requirements for the R-l district. The Council has approved the PUD Ordinance; however, Staff is bringing the item back to them for further discussion on density. The issue is whether density should be based on gross versus net acre&ge. Staff based it on net acreage plus allow a 20 percent increase in density. The developers are saying they understood it to be based on gross acreage. If it is based on gross acreage, Staff is recommending the 20-percent increase not be applied because there is no need to increase density another 20 percent. If it is based on net acreage, then the 20-percent increase would apply based on the four crite~ia listed in the PUD ordinance. , ./ ,-.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 6 (Sketch Plan - PUD - Nightingale Properties, Continued) Byron Westlund, Woodland Development, was concerned with the density issue, as he has a proposed PUD sketch plan coming up in the next agenda item. They have worked with PUDs in other communities. The increased density was a trade-off to the aesthetics and amenities added to the plat. Commissioner Apel felt that is part of the contract that would be negotiated with developers. The Commission determined that the original proposal for this plat was for nine 2 1/2-acre lots; this PUD proposal is for 11 one-acre lots plus the open area. Commissioner Wells asked if there would be trails around the wetlands area and down to the facllities at City Hall, since it is so close. Sh~ was also concerned with the gas line easement through the plat. Mr. Haas stated trails would be done at the option of the developer. The Comprehensive Plan does call for a trail coming down Nightingale along the existing shoulder. l>!r. Carlberg didn't believe the developers were lookin~ at trails but at leaving the open space in its natural state under the care of the association. Mr. Haas stated no structures will be pJ.aced within the gas line easement. The Commission generally liked the proposal as presented extension of Raven Street warrants further exploration. placed on the May 21, 1996, City Council agenda. and felt the This will be SKETCH PLAN - PL.ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR TIMBER RIVER ESTATES SBCTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 25 - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY tllr. Haas revieVled the proposed sketch plan of Timber River Estates located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 32, Range 24. The proposed Planned Unit Development is zoned R-l and would consist of 85 lots, 2 outlots and 1 park. The westerly portion is located in the Scenic River District and another portion is affected by the flood plain district. The Fire Department is very concerned that t.he westerly part of th: development does not pl:oilide a second access. The .l\ndover Review Committee is recommending the existing cul-de-sac to the south be connected, which would also provide a second access to the existing neighborhood to the south. That portion of street would be outside the plat. Ernie Pfannschmiqt - explained this land has been in his family for generations, affEctio~ately called "th2 happy hunting grounds". were approached by severai developers, but they resisted selling. have chosen Woodland Development to develop the land because believe Woodland will do the best job. four They They they i'-1r. Carlberg explained thee narrative prepared by vioodland Development gives the scope of the project. Again, the issue is the density of the PUD. He asked the Commission to make a recommendation. I Byron Ivestlund, vloodland Development, stated the lots will be a minimum of 150 feet wide, so the need for variances for decks as the Commission \ , ) , -=-j \ \J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 7 , ;' (Sketch Plan - PUD - Timber River Estates, Continued) addressed this evening should not be an issue. He explained that the density issue will affect what happens to this plat. When he determines density, he looks at the overall acreage, about 186 acres in this case, takes out what is needed for roads, leaving a net of 168 acres, and divides by 2 1/2-acre lots. That equals 67 lots for this plat. If th~ net acreage is used to calculate density as proposed by the Staff, 186 acres less the wetlands and roads would net 120 acres. With the 20- percent increase in density using the criteria in the PUD ordinance, it still doesn't total the number of lots they could get platting to a regular 2 1/2-acre subdivision. That is the concern they have. For this development, they proposed the overall acreage with a IS-percent density increase based on three of the criteria, which equals 85 lots. "'- ../ Mr. Westlund stated they talked with the family who owns the property about the kinds of things they would like to see to make this attractive to the buyers and to the City. If they can get the 85 lots as proposed, they would be able to provide a number of amenities for the City, including a fully developed park with a fishing peer, ball fields, playground equipment, a trail system around the wetlands, landscaping, sedimentation ponds, etc.. They tried to cluster the lots around the open and wetland areas. There are minimum one-acre lots on the east end and larger four+-acre lots along '[he Rum. Ri ver. They were asked by Staff to demonstrate the septic system requirements will be met on the one-acre lots, and they have shown each lot can support a five-bedroom home with the required distance between the well and septic systems and provide both the primary and secondary locations for the septic systems. Mr. Westlund wanted to know the Commission's position on density, because they would be giving a lot of amenities and benefits to the City which cannot be done if the density is not allowed. Their proposal has a 2.2-acre density overClll, which is not that far from the norm. The amount of wetlands in a plat is not an issue because lots would incorporate the wetland in the standard 2 1/2 -acre lot developments. One of the incentives to go wi th a PUD vias to be able to increase the different amenities put into the plat. Utilizing net acreage to determine acreage allows for a density too close to the standard development of the district. He would compromise with using gross acreage less the roads, divide by 2 1/2 and allow a density increase of 5 percent for each of the four categories outlined in the approved PUD ordinance. That compromise would result in a 2.3-acre overall density for the development. In discussing the issue of density, Commissioner Apel felt it is a contractual agreement between the City and the developer, which means these items have to be negotiable. Each parcel of land is different and it will not work to put restrictions in place. He did not think it would work to base the density on net acreage as suggested by Staff. The septic system and 39,000-square-foot requirement will also dictate the number of lots in the rural area. Chairperson Squires could accept / the gross acreage denBity concept knowing the Council has the flexibility to say the PUD is not warranted because the criteria isn't met. Commissioner Barry didn't see a significant difference between the / " I __I '\ " ../ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 14, 1996 Page 8 " J (Sketch Plan - PUD - Timber River Estates, Continued) gross versus net acreage density calculations on this particular parcel. She had an overall concern with density on the road system, but agreed with the density based on gross acreage with each proposal reviewed on a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Apel, to recommend the density for PUDs be based on gross acreage plus a total of 20-percent increase based ~n the four criteria in the PUD ordinance. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. In reviewing the sketch plan itself, the Commission strongly urged the developer to negotiate with the property owner immediately to the south to provide the second access out of the plat. Mr. Westlund stated they haven't addressed the ownership of the outlot yet, but because of the amenities and the invitation to all the residents of Andover, they would propose that all amenities be in City ownership. Understanding the issue of maintenance for the City, they have agreed to do the maintenance for a period of time in other communities. Commissioner Wells suggested consideration be given to a small parking lot near an access to Outlot A, though she generally liked the layout a~ proposed. This item will be placed on the May 21, 1996, Council agenda. ./ OTHER BUSINESS Update of City Council Action - Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions taken by the City Council on various items at the May 7, 1996 meeting. Metropoli tan Council Update - Mr. Carlberg reported the Metropolitan Council has begun its review of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and June 17, 1996, is the deadline. He understands the Plan will be placed on the June 13 agenda of the Metropolitan Council with their Staff recommending approval. Resident Concerns with Dogs and Weeds - Commissioner Wells noted the concerns raised in the Andover Times regarding dogs running lose and the weed issue. Mr. Ca~lberg reviewed the requirements and procedures as outlined in the no::io_H3 w=ed ordinance. That is enforced in the urban area. The problem in the rural area is how much of the lot should the City require to be maintained. The Anoka County Animal Humane Society services the City "lDen do'3s :leed to be picked up. The City also ha.c community ,3ervi.ce officers who can fCicilit'l.te in that issue. }!OTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. The meeting was adjourned at )~~~~ ~~ \M~lla A. P~, Recording Secretary