Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 23, 1996 u u o CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 23, 1996 MINUTES The. Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on July 23, 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 Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 25, 1996: Correct as written. ~ MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Apel, to approve the Minutes as written. Motion carried on a 1-Yes (Wells), 3-Present (Apel, Barry, Squires), 3- Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 15521 JUNIPER STREET NW - DEBBIE ANDERSON 7:03 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Debbie Anderson to split the southern 10 feet from her parcel at 15521 Juniper Street NW, creating a parcel that does not meet the minimum district requirements. The property is zoned R-3, Single Family Suburban. He reviewed the applicable ordinances, noting park dedication would not be required because the 10-foot parcel would not be a buildable lot. The lot split/variance is being requested to allow the applicant to sell the 10- foot parcel to the neighbor to the south, as the house on the southern parcel was constructed in 1989 two feet over the property line. The 10- foot variance is for the lot width of the applicant's remaining vacant parcel. Covenants would also be required to legally bind the 10-foot strip to the parcel to the south, Lot 4, Block 5, Nordeen Addition, 15511 Juniper Street NW. He suggested the Commission discuss the setback for the existing house to the south and the need for a two-foot side yard variance. The Staff is recommending approval with conditions. o Mr. Carlberg also explained the applicant's lot will be buildable and has been grandparented because it was created in 1963 prior to the adoption of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant did not want to split off 12 feet, which would eliminate the need for a variance on the southern loti as she feels a 90-foot lot is more marketable than an 88- foot lot. The applicant is going through this process to solve a problem created by the location of the house on the southern parcel. , / 'j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 15521 Juniper Street, Continued) The Commission wondered if there will be a problem in the future for the southern lot if the side yard setback variance is not granted at this time. Commissioner Barry stated title insurance would not be an issue. They may make that exclusion to the policy as coverage to the person buying the house. Mr. Carlberg stated if it becomes a problem, the owner of Lot 4 could go through the variance procedure at a later date. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:25 p.m. Debbie Anderson - wondered about the sunset clause provision in the proposed resolution. They are providing the 10-foot strip at the request of the property owner to the south, but now that owner is saying she cannot come up with the money to purchase the strip from them for the amount of the appraisal. What happens if this is not resolved in a year? The Commission explained the sunset clause, noting the Anderson~ might have to put a lien on the house on Lot 4, or they may consider asking for an extension of the sunset clause if it is not resolved in that time frame. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:30 p.m. The Commission did not wish to consider the two-foot side yard variance for Lot 4, feeling the application for that variance is the responsibility of the lot owner. However, it was suggested that the City Council may want to consider it. Commissioner Barry expressed a concern about approving the request, which still creates the need for a two-foot side yard setback on another parcel. She didn't want further problems in the future created by something the Planning Commission does now. Chairperson Squires stated he too questioned why not add the two feet to the strip so the 10-foot side yard setback could be attained on Lot 4; however, the applicant didn't create the problem and shouldn't have to give up any more just to solve a variance issue to the south. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to forward to the City Council the Resolution as written with the addendum the Planning Commission would like the City Council to look at any other legal aspects of this that might have detrimental sale and purchase of either house/parcel. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the August 6, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS - 1657 161ST A VENUE NW - PRAIRIE OAK COMMUNITY CHURCH 7:40 p.m. Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of prairie Oak Community Church for a Special Use Permit to erect two institutional signs on 1657 161st Avenue NW. One sign would be located on 161st Avenue, the other on Hanson Boulevard. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ',,- ) '-) Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit--Institutional Signs, Prairie Oak Community Church, Continued) be reviewed when granting a Special Use Permit. The signs will be placed 15 feet back from the property lines. The illuminated free- standing signs are identical. Mr. Carlberg noted no review is needed by Anoka County as long as the signs meet the requirements. These signs will be placed on private property, not on the county right of way. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. 7:43 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;44 p.m. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to forward to the City Council the proposal as written (granting the Special Use Permit request for Prairie Oak Community Church to erect 2 institutional signs with an aggregate square footage exceeding 32 square feet). Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3- Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the August 6, 1996, City Council agenda. 7;45 p.m. DISCUSSION - HOME OCCUPATIONS Mr. Johnson explained the City Council has requested the Commission look at the home occupations provision in the ordinance after an issue of an illegal home occupation which has been in business for almost 25 years came to their attention. He summarized the events that took plac~ with regard to James and Kathleen Junker, who have conducted the business from an accessory building of installing and servicing doors since December, 1971. The complaint questioned the City allowing a property owner to run a business in a residential area and not pay commercial taxes. In the past Staff has worked with illegal businesses and has been pro-active to be sure that all businesses comply with regulations adopted in 1990. He felt some options for the Commission to consider were to amend the ordinance to allow more flexibility, amend it to phase out all illegal businesses over a period of time, or recommend no change. Staff acts on complaints only with home occupations. Commissioner Apel felt to take some person's means of livelihood is immoral, deplorable and despicable. The residents come in to get help and the City sets up an advisory situation. The City went through the same thing with John Kunza three years ago. He questioned how many more times will this have to be argued because some faceless person files ~ complaint. He's been serving the City for 15 years and the question is always the same. Is the City going to allow people moving into the City to adversely impact those who have been here for 25+ years? For years the City Council had a policy not to act on anything unless there was a complaint. He didn't know if that has changed. One of the problems is about 1 1/2 years ago the City started looking for ordinance violations, which didn't sit well with the elected officials nor with the residents. , ) \ ,...J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 4 (Discussion - Home Occupations, Continued) Mr. Carlberg explained this is not an issue of grandparenting, as th) problem occurs with businesses which have begun after the adoption of the ordinance. The home occupation ordinance was amended in 1990 which expanded home occupations. Since then Staff has insured that all businesses comply with the regulations; however, Staff cannot arbitrarily enforce the ordinance and must react when complaints are received. He also noted that Anoka County now taxes that portion of a home being used for commercial businesses at the commercial rate. In discussing the home occupation ordinance provisions in general, several Commissioners did not want to allow home occupations without regulations. Commissioner Apel also agreed but felt that common sense must prevail. If someone has been in business since 1971 and the City allowed the construction of a garage in 1980 knowing it was for a home- based businesses, that person gets the idea that the acti vi ty is permissible. A very lengthy discussion ensued on the problems and possible solutions. Generally it was felt a problem has been the lack of enforcement on the part of the City prior to 1990; and the issue relates to those home businesses operating contrary to ordinance requirements that started between 1971 and 1990. It was also recognized that home-based businesses are becoming more prevalent, even being promoted on TV through infomercials. One suggestion was to establish a task force comprising of both businesses owners and those wanting to start a business be established to review options and provide a forum for input. Another suggestion was to establish an amortization schedule in which those businesses will cease to operate from the home, whether it be over one to five years or until retirement or until the house is sold. It was also pointed out that while many businesses do not cause a problem for the neighbors, there may be those that do that must be dealt with. One opinion was to allow the neighborhoods to police themselves, as many times the business is supported by the neighbors; and that each situation be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A business cannot be supported if it endangers the health, safety and welfare of the community. \ / Commissioner Wells then stated a preference of amortization to cease operations over a period of time, possibly over 10 years with annual reviews, as long as the business is meeting the health, safety and welfare factors. Commissioner Barry preferred to allow those home businesses established between 1971 and 1990 when the ordinances were not enforced to remain until the house is sold. Chairperson Squires felt that would mean an ordinance revision declaring all home businesses established prior to 1990 as lawfully existing nonconforming uses. He didn't know if he would support a blanket nonconformance to continue for an indefinite period of time or until the property is sold. He'd like Staff to brainstorm more about an amortization period to have more options available. If the Commission can conclude that those established during this time period should be allowed some latitude because the ordinance wasn't enforced, it can decide at a later date how .j ..../ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 5 (Discussion - Home Occupations, Continued) much latitude to give them. Commissioner Wells stated she would be opposed to allowing the businesses to pass from one generation to another in the same residence. Kathleen Junker - stated they do not manufacture anything. They ge~ doors delivered to the business site, and they install them. No work is done on the property except for the office. They are in compliance. If the ordinance is changed, she felt they should be allowed to operate until retirement or until they sell the property. The Commission recessed at this time, 8:44; reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Charlie Veiman - felt this may be a good situation to use the mediation services that are available from the county. The Junkers have been in business for 25 years, and few people even knew the business was there. He felt the Council and City did not do a good job of educating Mr. Johnson and Staff on how to approach people with possible ordinance violations. There are techniques for approaching people and problems, but he did not approve of the way residents are treated in this City. He asked that Staff change direction as to its approach to the residents. Mavor Jack McKelvev - didn't think Staff has proved there is an illegal business operated by the Junkers because all the rules are being followed. They are allowed to have an office, to use the phone and to drive trucks to and from work. He felt many of the ordinances need to be updated and brought into modern times, not only with this provision. He also thought that possibly it should take three different complaints in situations such as this. He's driven past that area many times over the years and never even knew the business was back there. The neighbors aren't complaining. He also served on a committee that made suggestions on ordinance revisions, but he did not know what happened to that report. Ken Orttel, 2772 Bunker Lake Boulevard - gave some background on why the ordinance was amended over the years to allow businesses in accessory buildings on parcels of 3+ acres in size, which eliminated most platted areas. The City has taken a very cautious approach to this but realized there was a lot of demand for home businesses. The Junkers have been there a number of years, but it has never been evident that they operated a business. He didn't think the Planning Commission should be reluctant to change the ordinance if the times and the public demand is there. This issue was discussed before regarding Mr. Kunza's business and another one on Prairie Road, and he found several things in common. Typically they are in older areas of the City, on thoroughfare streets, and are basically anonymous type businesses that few people know about. Maybe that is the basis to allow someone to look at this and set some extremely strict criteria under which these can continue to operate. Possibly the lot has to be 20 percent larger than the minimum requirements. It is common for businesses to have an office in a home, maybe a small amount of supplies in the garage, and to bring a truck home. Mr. Orttel also stated the City only operated by complaint for a '-. / \_J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 6 (Discussion - Home Occupations, Continued) period of time. Any amendment to the ordinance to allow these businesses to remain should have very strict provisions and not be allowed without the approval of the neighbors. He asked the difference of someone running a business out of their home and someone who works out of their home for a business. Mr. Carlberg explained a home business can have one commercial vehicle owned by the business and an office. It really relates to accessory structures. They often see vans with the equipment from the business, which is no problem as long as it doesn't exceed the vehicle weight restrictions. Ms. Jirasek, 13563 Crooked Lake Boulevard is a neighbor of the Junkers. She claimed the City knew about the business, even requiring special fire doors for the garage for the business. Her family is perfectly happy with the Junkers there and would like them to stay until retirement. She felt Andover is pushing out the people who created Andover. She felt there should be some common sense in the way people who created the City are treated. Also, she did not foresee a problem with the accessory building once the Junkers are no longer there, as many are used by car collectors. Chairperson Squires summarized the direction from the Commission of the desire to explore alternatives to provide relief or accommodation to some of these operations that sprang up between 1971 and 1990 that would allow an undefined period of time until certain events happen. That could possibly be an amortized period. The Commission would like Staff to come up with more ideas and alternatives for their review. He felt Mr. Orttel had some good suggestions about defining the class of home occupations that would be accommodated as narrowly as possible based on common denominators, such as length of time they have been there, neighborhood opposition, size of the building, location on a thoroughfare, etc., yet leaving the home occupation provision in the ordinance in tact so that at some future time a Commission or Council will not have to deal with this situation again. A resident stated a resident committee spent hours going through the ordinances and made recommendations, but he did not know what happened to their report. The Commission asked to see that report. Mr. Carlberg stated he will look for it and make it available. SKETCH PLAN - ROUND LAKE SITE - SECTION 29 L/ Mr. Haas reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Round Lake Site as presented by Sumathy Ambrose. The plan is located in an R-4 Single Family Urban District, is within the MUSA area and consists of five lots. The proposed street alignment that will access Round Lake Boulevard will have an offset jog of 50 feet with South Coon Creek Drive. The minimum is jog is 150 feet and Anoka County will review this, but he didn't know how that could be resolved. The Wetland Buffer Ordinance requires a 16 1/2-foot buffer zone around the wetland to _J '- / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 7 (Sketch Plan - Round Lake Site - Section 29, Continued) remain undisturbed. The outlot to the south will not be allowed to be developed because of the new state law that tax forfeit properties cannot be used other than for open space areas. The Commission had a concern with the flood plain and traffic on Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Haas stated the flood boundary is defined at 869, but the engineers will double check the contours when the preliminary plat is done. The traffic volume is high on Round Lake Boulevard, but someone's house would have to be removed to make a full intersection with South Coon Creek Drive. Again, the county will review the proposal, but they do not comment on the capacity of the roads. Commissioner Barry had a concern that a traffic study is not done when these developments are presented. Commissioner Wells had general concerns with the high traffic count on Round Lake Boulevard and with the jog at South Coon Creek Drive. Also, there are a lot of children riding bikes on the side of that road. How does this tie into the trail system? She was also concerned with the water level on the lake. Mr. Haas stated the Park Commission will be setting up the guidelines for trails and recommending a master trails plan. There is a potential for a separate bike lane through the area, plus there is the potential that Round Lake Boulevard will some day be widened to four lanes. They will be following up on the water levels during the preliminary plat stage. There were no further comments from the Commission. SKETCH PLAN - CHESTERTON COMMONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. SECTIONS 14 AND 23 ASHFORD Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Chesterton Commons, a Planned Unit Development which consists of 345 units. It is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Rural; and is proposed to be rezoned to R-4, Single Family Urban. The property is located within the new MUSA area. Single family homes, townhomes and a commercial area are being proposed. The Comprehensive Plan proposes the area for senior housing and open space, potentially a golf course. The developer is looking at developing 45 acres in 1997 as the first phase. An environmental Assessment Worksheet will be required to be done by State Statute. The Andover Review Committee has requested the developer provide a sketch of possible development of adjacent properties. He understood Mr. Windschitl has done that, though the Committee has not had an opportunity to review it. The ARC is also recommending a second access be provided to the townhome area and that there be no ponding along Hanson Boulevard. Sewer and water does not abut the property but are located a few feet to the south. The Committee is also recommending the outlot be eliminated, plus trailways need to be discussed. Commissioner Wells wondered if the school district has looked at this. She was on the boundary committee for the new middle school, and they had no idea these 300+ lots were being proposed. Had they known, they may have made different recommendations. Mr. Carlberg did not believe the school district has reviewed this, though the City has kept the / '. ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 8 (Sketch Plan - Chesterton Commons - Sections 14 and 23, ContinueG) school district informed of its proposed and potential growth over the last few years. He also reviewed the proposal of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force in 1991 to designate this area for recreational development, though the actual designation of a golf course was removed from the Plan. Jerry Windschitl, Ashford Development Corporation, stated the golf course was removed as a result of a joint meeting of the Task Force and the City Council. In referencing the ARC's proposal to eliminate the outlot, he explained the outlot exists for the wetland. They are proposing no alteration to the wetland. It is proposed as an outlot because the LGU doesn't want them to have radial lines from the lots carried back to the wetlands. If the lot lines are carried back through the wetlands, the people feel they own the wetland and have a right to go into them. The Watershed Board does not want that to happen, so the City and the Watershed will have to discuss what they want him to d~ with this issue. If the City's only concern with the outlot is maintenance, he would propose looking at some donation of that land to a conservatory or the DNR once all easements are satisfied for the City. He felt the ownership of the outlot could be resolved without extending the lot lines back into the wetlands. Mr. Windschitl stated the plat was designed to contain no variances. ,I Many of the lots are larger. The traffic patterns have been planned to prevent the problems occurring in Woodland Terrace. The Hamilton property to the south is planned for commercial development. There will be quite a bit of ponding required for the plat, and he felt ponding along Hanson Boulevard will be unavoidable to satisfy the Watershed Board. He felt the ponds could be landscaped. It would be possible to provide another access to the townhome area by going to the north, but for aesthetics and the view of the townhomes, it would be preferable not to add that road. He asked if the Commission felt it is necessary to provide another access. Mr. Windschitl also reviewed a draft proposal for the subdivision of the adjacent properties to the east and north. The property to the east is not included in the MUSA area recently received by the City; however, he felt may be able to be served with sewer in the future. He asked if thp. Commission wanted him to show that as an urban or rural subdivision. After some discussion, the Commission felt that if the Engineers determine that area can indeed by served by utilities, that it should be shown as an urban subdivision. If not, then the proposed subdivision should be to the rural standards. / Mr. Windschitl noted the 40 above this property has been divided in a number of lots. He has a purchase agreement to purchase the parcel to the north, and there will be a lot split coming in. He will be trying to clean up some of the parcels, possibly blending the northern parcel with the plat so a remnant is not left. There is wetland to the east on the bottom portion of the plat, plus the property that is in the 1991 MUSA designation for smaller lot resubdivision. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 9 (Sketch Plan - Chesterton Commons - Sections 14 and 23, Continued) In further discussion with the Commission, Mr. Windschitl explained the townhomes, done by association, are not being designed for senior housing; but the intent of the market is for the empty nesters such as seniors. Off-street parking will be provided in that area. The location is the nicest part of the plat. He anticipated tying tha park and the common area together with a trail system, though he did not know if they would be successful because of the DNR wetland. There is an existing old farm road and crossing. He also felt the park area should not compete with the activities around City Hall, envisioning there be more picnic, volleyball, horseshoe, etc., activities. The bulk of the park is high and dry with trees all the way around. The plat accesses two major county roads, and the exists on Hanson Boulevard match the driveways of the middle school. The Commissioners liked the idea of doing something with the remnant parcel to the north. They also liked the central park idea and placing activities in the park that do not compete with the City Hall parks. The Commission did not see a benefit to providing another road to the north from the townhome area. The reason people like the development a8 proposed with only one access is for privacy and security reasons. The Commission also felt it would be nice to incorporate some kind of trail system through the development to accommodate pedestrian traffic flow, but nothing specific was discussed. They felt an overall master trails plan needs to be developed so these trails would tie into an overall system. They encouraged the Park and Recreation Commission to consider a system through this plat. Mr. Windschitl noted people do not like to have trails through their back yards, so it becomes difficult to get a trail through a development. There will be some trails in the common area. He also explained the reason Andover does not have a trail system is that 12 to 15 years ago a Task Force decided not to have one. There was some concern with having a commercial district across from a middle school, noting the problems that can be created with convenience stores near schools. The preference of the Commission was to see an area with more restrictions such as the Light Business zoning with office or medical/dental buildings. They suggested the school district be asked to comment on the location of the proposed commercial area. They noted a commercial zone is inconsistent with the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. They did not see the need to review the sketch plan again after the Andover Review Committee has looked at th~ sketches for the development of adjacent property. The item is to be forwarded to the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions taken by the City Council at its July 2, 1996, meeting. There was also a discussion on protocol, the airing of concerns, the treatment of residents by Staff and the Commission, and appropriate actions as Commissioners. , I Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 23, 1996 Page 10 MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4.. Yes, 3-Absent (Luedtke, Peek, Putnam) vote. The meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m.