Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 27, 1996 \.J u u CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755..5100 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda August 27, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order o o 2. Approval of Minutes - August 13, 1996 3. Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance (L.S. 96-06) -1422 161st Avenue NW - Ashford Development Corporation, Inc. 4. Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance (L.S. 96-07)- 1444 161st Avenue NW - Ashford Development Corporation, Inc. 5. Variance (V AR 96-7) - 3552 134th Avenue NW - Construct Deck Encroaching into the Required Sideyard Setback from an Interior Lot Line - Todd Lewis. 6. Discussion: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home Occupations 7. Sketch Plan Continued - Woodland Estates - Section 22 - Woodland Development Company. 8. Public Hearing Continued: Amend Ordinance No 10, the Platting and Subdividing Ordinance. 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment o u , '\ '0 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755..5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 27, 1996 MINUTES 4 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 27, 1996, 7:03 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Lynnette Barry, Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Lorna Wells Jerry Putnam City Engineering, Todd Haas Planning Intern, John Hinsman City Planning, Jeff Johnson Community Development Director, Dave Carlber~ Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 13, 1996: Correct as written. , \ o MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, approval of the Minutes. carried on a 5-Yes, 1-Present (Peek), 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. Motion PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 1422 161ST AVENUE NW - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. 7: 04 p. m. Mr. Hinsman reviewed the request of Ashford Development Corporation to split approximately the northwestern 30 feet and the southern 851.06 feet from a parcel owned by Douglas and Janet Boyer located at 1422 161st Avenue NW. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural. The lot split and variance will allow the property owner to sell the western and southern portion to Ashford Development. The intent is to combine those pieces with the parcel to the south being platted as Chesterton Commons. A variance is also requested to reduc~ the lot width from 300 feet to 270 feet. The variance request is for 30 feet, not 57 feet as shown in the Staff report. He reviewed the applicable ordinances and options. No park dedication fees are required. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. ./ \ V Mr. Hinsman stated at this point the 30-foot strip and an adjacent 30- foot strip to be created in the next agenda item would be in the ownership of Ashford Development. When developed, a road could be constructed and dedicated to the City. Mr. Carlberg stated the Engineering Staff is looking at the possibility of being able to service this area with municipal sewer, but it is not in the urban service area at this time. The resulting parcels being created by the splits in this item and the next will all be combined to the parcel to the south that does have frontage. \ \ ) , \.J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 2 / (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 1422 161st Avenue, Continued) Commissioner Peek questioned the need for a variance on this parcel when the parcel to be split in the next item will have an excess of 14 feet. Jerry Windschitl, Ashford Development, explained there is a large stand of Norway pine on the Tibbetts property that they are attempting to save. That is the reason for placing the 60-foot strip as requested. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:12 p.m. There public testimony. Motion was no MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Barry, to close the public hearing. carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:12 p.m. Motion MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to send to the Council a recommendation for approval of the Resolution as presented by Staff pertaining to this parcel. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 17, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:13 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - 1444 161ST AVENUE NW - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. 7: 13 p. m. Mr. Hinsman reviewed the request of Ashford Development Corporation to split approximately the southern 292.08 feet and the eastern 30 feet from a parcel owned by Mark Tibbetts at 1444 161st Avenue NW. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural. There is no variance needed, and park dedication is not required. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:16 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Barry, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:16 p.m. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to forward the Staff prepared Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 17, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:17 p.m. VARIANCE - 3552 134TH AVENUE NW - CONSTRUCT DECK ENCROACHING INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM AN INTERIOR LOT LINE - TODD LEWIS Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of Todd Lewis to allow the construction and placement of a deck that encroaches two feet into the required 10- foot side yard setback from the interior lot line on Lot 1, Block 3, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition. The property is zoned R-4, Single Family \ '--./ \.~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 3 , / {Variance - 3552 134th Avenue NW - Construct Deck Encroaching intc Required Side Yard Setback from Interior Lot Line, Continued} Urban. He noted the applicable ordinances. The applicant would not have reasonable access to the ground level from the second floor if a deck was constructed without a variance. The house was constructed prior to the amendment of the ordinance that requires an additional five-foot setback from the principal structure when the plans for that structure accommodate an access for a deck. The applicant also submitted a letter from the next door neighbor who has no objection to the request. Chairperson Squires stated the August 22 fax letter indicates the deck would be 7.5 x 12 feet; yet the request for a variance suggests it is 5.5 x 12 feet. Mr. Johnson stated the ordinance allows a two-foot cantilever, which is an additional two feet that is permitted to encroach over the setback. Mr. Carlberg stated Mr. Lewis is looking for 7.5 feet total. The Commission discussion noted several variances have been granted for similar requests and that the ordinance amendment has eliminated the need for these requests. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Wells, to forward the attached Staff prepared Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 17, 1996, City Council agenda. J DISCUSSION - AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.30, HOME OCCUPATIONS Mr. Johnson reviewed the background on the issue of home occupations that began operating in the City between the time the ordinance was first adopted and when it was amended on May 15, 1990, after which the City began to strictly enforce the ordinance provisions. No changes to the existing language is being proposed, though Staff has added provisions to accommodate those home occupations conducting business prior to May 15, 1990 and which do not comply with the home occupation ordinance. The proposal, which is similar to the City of Blaine, allows these home occupations to continue to operate or conduct business at their residences in the same manner with an approved Special Use Permit. He also reviewed the process of obtaining that Special Use Permit. Commissioner Wells noted if the surviving spouse is allowed to continue the home occupation, it would mean the need for an additional employee. The other Commissioners noted even so, the number of people remains the same. Also, the number of employees allowed is spelled out in the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Barry wondered if the term surviving "spouse" should be surviving "family member"r which would allowr for example, a father-son operation or other relative to continue the operation in case of death. Commissioner Apel was concerned with micro-managing the businesses. He noted a spouse has more rights than the children, thinking the terminology is appropriate. / " ,-..--J \ U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 4 ) (Discussion: Amend Ordinance 8, 4.30, Home Occupations, Continued) Commissioner Peek questioned what standards will be used for existing home occupations. Mr. Carlberg stated no criteria has been established other than the general criteria when granting a Special Use Permit. City Staff will observe the property with the cooperation of the property owner. Staff can explore that further and some criteria as to why a permit would not be granted. During the permit process, consideration would be given to input of the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Peek felt those standards would be subj ect to interpretation. There is the potential to get into areas where it is more difficult to apply the traditional standards of use. It may be difficult to prove the date on which the home occupation began. Mr. Carlberg felt a combination of receipts and neighborhood testimony may be needed. The Commission agreed that tax forms, other proof of operation or public testimony proving the operation of the home-based business prior to May 15r 1990, should be required as a part of the permit process. Section (E) should contain a statement that the business "can demonstrate written proof that they have continued business in that location" prior to May 15, 1990. No specific list of documents showing that proof needs to be listed, as that can be handled by the Staff. Commissioner Barry had a concern with the number of complaints. She felt there needs to be something more concrete to avoid situations of j neighbors making a call for some personal vendetta or to hurt th~ competition. It may hinder those types of complaints if people have tc write the complaint and provide their names and addresses rather than simply make a call. Mr. Johnson stated the proposal is that three complaints within 350 feet of the parcel are needed to initiate the revocation of a permit, which is similar to the requirements in Blaine. The Planning Commission could also initiate the revocation process. In discussing the process, the general feeling of the other Commissioners was that three complaints from neighbors should prevent the personal grudge situation. Also r that many complaints should heighten the awareness that maybe something is inappropriate as far as that home business is concerned. There is also protection for the business because even with the complaints, the Council would have to prove cause to warrant a revocation. Mr. Carlberg explained the Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Then, as complaints on existing home based businesses occur, they will go through the Special Use Permit procedure. If they don't make application, the penalty will then have to be legal action to cease the operation. Chairperson Squires suggested on Page 4, (F)4, the provision allowing the application by the spouse to continue the permit after the death of the permit holder should apply only to those permits issued to businesses which began operation prior to May 15, 1990. The Commission agreed. ) Mr. Carlberg announced the public hearing for the amendment will be scheduled for the Planning Commission's September 10 meeting. \ " ) , .....J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 5 J SKETCH PLAN CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WOODLAND ESTATES SECTION 22 WOODLAND Mr. Haas outlined the three alternative locations for a Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation that would affect the proposed Woodland Estates plat and the pros and cons of each. The MSA designation runs basicall~' from Crosstown Boulevard west to Round Lake Boulevard. In looking at the soils maps and wetlands, he and the City Engineer feel that any of the three alternatives would be buildable. This directly affects development, as lots are not allowed to face onto MSA roads. Those roads are designed to disperse traffic to the county roads. The City Engineer has discussed with the county the possibility of reconstructing the intersection of Nightingale and Crosstown Boulevard, but the City has received no written document to confirm it. The minimum width of MSA roads is 66 feet, but it should be a minimum of 80 feet if there are sidewalks or bike paths in the boulevard area. Mr. Haas stated the strip of land immediately north of this proposed development is used for private purposes. It is high, dry land. There is no time table as to when the MSA road would be constructed. It could be done in sections as property develops. He also explained the process of designating MSA routes in the City each year and the funds received for the construction of MSA roads by the State. He did not know when this route had been designated, but it has been on the official MSA map for many years. The portion of the designation to the west from Round Lake Boulevard is an existing minimum maintenance right of way. , ~ Lawrence Carlson, representing Woodland Development, has lived in thp. community for 25 years and developed and worked with the City for about 30 years. He is totally opposed to the MSA road right of way. It would be disastrous to his plat and to his neighbor's property to the north. It would mean a row of lots would have a road in front and a road in back, which is against the ordinance. He felt the issue is what can the City afford and what is really needed. The MSA dollars come from the residents. There is a highly traveled road about one mile to the north, CoRd 20, that can be expanded easily. Another east-west route is two miles north of that, CoRd 22. One mile to the south is Bunke~ Lake Boulevard, and one-half mile south is South Coon Creek Drive. He argued there are enough east-west roads to bear the traffic, and there is no need for any more. He also stated the lines showing MSA designations on a map are really meaningless. Any alignment will impact both wetlands and agricultural land. It would also impact a line of lots because they would back up to the MSA street and would be priced lower. It is also a terribly expensive road because local builders will not be able to bid on it since the State requires paying competitive wages, plus there is a huge peat bog area that must be crossed. Mr. Carlson also argued that most of the traffic will be going south and slightly east where their employment is located. There is also very little land left to be developed in that vicinity because of the peat land to the west. There is some developable area to the north. Again, he felt there are sufficient east-west routes already built. He is speaking both as d developer and as a concerned citizen. \ \....J \ 'J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 6 J (Sketch Plan: Woodland Estates - Seeton 22, Continued) John Novell, 149th, stated this same MSA route came up at a Planning Commission meeting about a year ago when a property owner along 149th wanted to develop. He understand at that time that the City decided it really didn't make sense to spend the money to build that route when there are other roads already in place. The property owners along 149th are opposed to any improvement of the road. The road would also d~ great harm to Ken Slyzuk, who owns a large parcel of farm land on both sides of the proposed road. He would have limited access to his fields. Mr. Slyzuk makes his living off the fields, and trucks and tractors would have to be coming onto the road all summer long. He noted the residents along 149th have signed a petition against the State Aid road going through. They opposed investing money into the road for little benefit. He also noted the problems with building through wetland, pointing out the difficulties the county has had with portions of Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard that were built through low areas. Mr. Haas stated based on the soils map, the City Engineering Department feels that road could be constructed. There are other areas that could be considered for the route. The exact location for the road through the low area has not yet been determined. The Commission discussed the issue at length. It was pointed out that Round Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard are already very busy routes. Frustration was also expressed at the county's lack of response to the transportation needs in Andover. Mr. Haas reviewed the procedure for designating MSA routes and receipt of the funds. He noted the county's problem is lack of funding to upgrade the roads as needed. Mr. Carlberg also explained the county makes its improvements based on warrants, not on future needs. The City Staff does keep in contact with the county about the City's plans and needs. In responding to Mr. Carlson's remark on double frontage lots, he explained the City grants variances for lots backing onto collector streets. Those lots are also required to have larger rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Barry felt it is time that the development issues such as transportation be viewed from a different approach, that there be foresight into the planning, not always responding to problem situations. ) Mr. Carlson questioned the ability of the City to take 40 feet of land from them and they would still have to construct all of their interior roads. Or would the City have to purchase the easement? If it is a city-wide benefit, the City should buy the easement. He also noted that this MSA designation is not recorded on the title. He did not know about it until the sketch plan was presented to the City. Commissioner Apel felt it is a due process and just compensation issue. He too questioned the City's ability to ask someone to give up property or withhold the approval for developing the land. He felt it is a constitutional issue. He would not be in favor of requiring any right of way for an MSA road from this plat i but if the City is really serious, it should use its MSA funds to buy the right of way. j \ ) \ , \J ( ) -" '. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 7 ) (Sketch Plan: Woodland Estates - Seeton 22, Continued) Mr. Carlson stated the MSA line means nothing. It is just a concept and it can move any where along there. There is nothing legally binding to build or dedicate that roadway. How long can the City wait legally to build the road. Mr. Haas stated potentially forever. Chairperson Squires asked if the line was drawn for the purpose of getting state funds or was there some thought given to developing an east-west route in the City. He also noted the decision is not whether or not to build the road but to decide about the preservation of options for the future. Chairperson Squires understood that when Mr. Westlund was before the Commission on the sketch plan for Woodland Estates, he commented that he was aware of the MSA designation in that area. Mr. Carlson stated he personally did not know about it. He is aware of the process for designating such routes, but knew nothing of this one. Mr. Carlberg noted the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation section references an MSA designation similar to the northerly one shown this evening. Mr. Novell stated the designation affects a lot of reople adversely. When does it get to the point that people can feel save that the road will not be constructed. If they had known about the designation, they would not have constructed their home where it is. He expressed frustration that now they are left hanging not knowing if or when a major road will come through. Ken Slyzuk stated years ago the Fire Department expressed the need for another east-west road. Since then, the taxpayers built another fire station in the northwest part of the City to respond to that area. It doesn't make sense that a fire truck would bypass South Coon Creek Drive to get to Round Lake Boulevard via a road that zigzags through swamp. The City talks about green spaces and ag land, yet this would greatly impact that. He also chided the City for not having the courtesy to contact property owners that are directly affected as to what is being planned for their land. He stated the City complains it doesn't have enough money to maintain the roads, yet it is trying to drive all of them out of the City by planning major roads through their property. There is no one protecting them on this issue He also noted the problem of vandalism in the area, which he speculated will increase once that area is opened up to the public. It was the opinion of the Commission that from a planning point of view, it makes sense to accommodate the plan for an east-west route in this vicinity of the City. The decision tonight is not when the road should go through, as that is a Council decision, but to determine as a part of the sketch plan for Woodland Estates if there should be a provision to accommodate a road for future construction. The Commission felt the Council needs to decide whether the MSA designation was just a line on the paper or whether the City seriously needs it. If they determine the route is needed and if it would affect this plat, the Commission felt consideration should be given to putting it in the least disruptive location as possible. From the options given this evening, it seems the route along the northern property line would be best. While that route seems the most logical, another option would be to construct the road even further north and not affect this plat at all. Mr. Carlberg stated this will be forwarded to the September 3 City Council agenda. J / ) '-j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10, THE PLATTING AND SUBDIVIDING ORDINANCE 9: 43 p. m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the changes being proposed to Ordinance 10, Sections 4. 6, 8, and 9 relating to buildability, sketch plans, restrictive covenants, horizontal curves and septic drainfield location requirements. The reduction in the 39,000 square-foot requirement for on-site septic systems is being reduced to 22,500, which is the size of the building pad. The reason for the reduction is to preserve trees and because of the amended regulations to Chapter 7080. Also, there have been technological advances made in determining the high water table. The City has granted variances for many of the items. Now these items are being added to the ordinance. There was some question that the City is less restrictive than FlL~, requirements. Dave Almgren, Building Official, explained this does not affect FHA requirements. There are many FHA requirements that must be followed that are more restrictive than the City's. Builders decide to which design standard they will construct a house and finance it. Section 6, Sketch Plan, 6.03(B} Mr. Carlberg stated given the discussion on the previous item, Staff is suggesting the sketch plan also include any Municipal State Aid designation. The Commission agreed. " ) MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Putnam) vote. 10:05 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Apel, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 10:05 p.m. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Barry, to forward to the City Council the ordinance as read with the addendum of the sketch plan showing the MSA designations. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 17 City Council agenda. 10:07 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS -' Commissioner Wells provided maps of the Anoka-Hennepin School District elementary and high school attendance areas. She explained the district is unaware of the proposed developments in Andover such as Chesterton Commons and Woodland Estates that will greatly impact the schools. She is concerned with the building in Andover and its affect on the schools. The schools also will have the additional enrollment problems after the year 2000 when students will be required to remain in school until age 18. Commissioner Apel explained the City cannot legally stop a plat because of its affect on the schools. Nor can Andover help the school district by itself. This is a regional problem that will take the cooperation of all the cities. Mr. Carlberg explained he has been providing information to the school district via Bill Gallager, Principal at the Andover Elementary School. If the district would like copies of the preliminary plats and/or sketch plans, the City would be , I \ ....._J able to provide them. , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 27, 1996 Page 9 (Other Business, Continued) Further discussion noted this is part of the externalities discussion initiated last year by the Council. Transportation is another area that is impacted greatly by development. Commissioners Wells and Barry expressed frustration that the city, county and state governments are not working together to resolve these problems. They again suggested it is time to start looking at this from another direction or taking a different approach. It was agreed that the issue is of sufficient importance that a special meeting should be set to discuss it. They also felt it is important that it be a joint session with the City Council. Mr. Carlberg stated he will inform the Council of the Commission's interest in having a joint meeting to discuss traffic, schools and other issues. Commissioner Wells understood another reason the Woodland Estates sketch plan was tabled was to gather more information on providing water service to the plat. Mr. Carlberg explained the procedure for the expansion of the water system according to the Water Resources Management Plan. He agreed to provide a copy of that plan to the Commissioners for their review and noted more information on the water will be available during the preliminary plat stage. \ Commissioner Wells noted Andover residents are paying a tax for the MTC, yet there is no public transportation in the City. She would like to see some park and ride areas established. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff is trying to make contact with the MTC on that issue. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the meeting. carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. Motion The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Recording Secretary