Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 12, 1996 o o o o o CITY of ANDOVER Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda November 12, 1996 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - October 22, 1996 3. Public Hearing: Special Use Permit (SUP 96-21) - Real Estate Sign - 170xx Roanoke Street NW - Timber River Estates - Woodland Development Company. 4. Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance (96-08) - 17841 Bluebird Street NW - Jill Spurgin. 5. Discussion - Review of the following Ordinances for Amending: Ordinance No.4, Moving of Buildings Ordinance No.6, Regulating Mobile Home Parks Ordinance No.7, Materials Used for Building Construction Ordinance No. 11, Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance No. 13, Sewer Service/Reserve Capacity Costs 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment o o o o o CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 12, 1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on November 12, 1996, 7:04 p.m. at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioner absent: Also present: Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Lorna Wells Maynard Apel, Lynette Barry, Jerry Putnam Planning Intern, John Hinzman City Planning, Jeff Johnson Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 22, 1996: Correct as written. MOTION by presented. vote. Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - REAL ESTATE SIGN - 170XX ROANOKE STREET NW - TIMBER RIVER ESTATES - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 7:05 p.m. Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of Woodland Development to erect a real estate sign at 170xx Roanoke Street, Timber River Estates. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be considered. The sign is 32 square feet, located at the proposed entrance to the subdivision at 170th Avenue, 10 to 20 feet off the right of way. It fronts on CoRd 7 and the proposed 170thAvenue. It is already in place. Commissioner Wells was concerned with marketing lots before a plat is approved because of the legal problems it can cause. Commissioner Peek was concerned because they have seen a lot of requests recently for signs that were erected prior to receiving the permit. Is there any mechanism for a penalty in these cases? Mr. Johnson stated there is none in the ordinance at this time. Staff could request that the sign be removed before the item comes to the Planning Commission. The county is not notified because the sign is outside of the right of way. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Peek, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:14 p.m. Garv Brown. representinq Woodland Development - stated they are not selling real estate off that site. It is a temporary sign is to announce the future development. It is a 4xB-foot piece of plywood. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:17 p.m. u u Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 2 ~) (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign, Timber River Estates, Continued) The Commission noted it is troublesome that this sign plus several others have been erected before receiving the proper permits. In this case, the applicant is a developer who has worked in the City and should know the regulations. Commissioner Peek felt it is a policy decision of the Council as to whether to remove the signs until the Special Use Permit is issued. Chairperson Squires concurred with that issue and felt it should be addressed, but he also felt the sign meets the cri teria for the Permit. Commissioner Wells was concerned with the developer selling lots before the property is platted. Commissioner Peek pointed out the content of the sign indicates it is not platted. Chairperson Squires indicated if contracts are signed, it is between the person and Woodland; the City is not involved. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Peek, to forward to the City Council for approval the Resolution prepared by Staff for the request for a sign by Woodland Development, with an attention to the City Council to review the policy of signage. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the December 3, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:23 p.m. ..- " '-J PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 17841 BLUEBIRD STREET NW - JILL SPURGIN 7:23 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of Jill Spurgin to split the southern 2.05 acres from a 4.2-acre parcel at 17841 Bluebird Street. The existing home was constructed in 1972 and was purchased by the applicant in 1992. Parcel A is proposed to be 2.15 acres containing the existing home, which would be sold. Parcel B would be 2.05 acres and would be retained by the applicant for the construction of a new house. Variances are being requested to the minimum lot size and lot width at the front setback. Staff has looked at other options to split the parcel so one lot would meet the minimum size requirements, but it appears the split as proposed would have the least impact to the property owner to the south and would provide the least amount of tree loss. The current septic system is located on the south side of the house and the well is in the front. The septic system would have to be updated to current standards before it is sold. Borings have been taken for the relocation of that system. No variances would be needed for the existing house if the lot is split as proposed. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:28 p.m. Jeff Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - is located immediately south of this parcel. He is concerned with the variance and with setting a .' '\ precedent in the neighborhood of subdividing lots. The entire street ,~ has lots of 2.75 acres or more. The homes are staggered down the road. The concern is the subdivision to smaller lots will decrease their property value. From their property, they are able to see Ms. Spurgin's u o Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 3 , " \..-J (Public Hearing: Lot Spli t/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued) house now that the leaves are gone. Another house between them would mean they could see it all of the time. Their house is on the north end of their lot. He is against the variance. Commissioner Peek noted almost all of the other lots have 300-foot frontages, and this seems to be a unique lot in terms of its size. As for precedence, this is a different situation from all of the other lots which are basically rectangular and could not be subdivided. Lori Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - stated it is also a privacy factor for them, which was the biggest reason they bought their house. She felt the quality of that woods and privacy would definitely go down in that they would be able to view a house looking out the side window. They also have a pool in the back in a private area, and this would definitely decrease the value of that privacy as well. They purchased their house in 1990 before Ms. Spurgin. Jill Sourqin. 17841 Bluebird Street NW - stated she has the same concern as the Zinneckers. That is why she is asking for a variance. She too enjoys the trees. It would be her intent to keep as many trees for her own privacy as well. That is why she likes living out there. " -, '-J Vione Luikens. 17844 Bluebird Street NW - built their house in 1972. She has the same concerns as the Zinneckers. If everyone started subdividing their lots, it would ruin the aesthetics of the development. They expected their privacy to be maintained, which is the reason they moved out there. They get a lot of comments about how beautiful Bluebird Street is, and she felt it would take away from the value of the properties if the lots were subdivided to build more houses. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:36 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reminded the Commission that one of the criteria for a variance is that the owner is denied unreasonable use of the land due to a hardship caused by the characteristic of the land. That term can be elusive because the hardship cannot be created by the property owner nor be an economic factor. One of the determinations being considered for a variance is the significant frontage along Bluebird Street of the lot, which would allow adequate room for another house to be built if the lot was split in two. Commissioner Wells noted the newly created lot would be smaller than all of the other existing lots. Doesn't that create a hardship on the other end for all of the other property owners? She felt the construction of a new house would mean a significant amount of tree loss. There is also the issue of oak wilt through that area, which could preclude existing privacy. o Commissioner Peek asked if this area was platted under the current City ordinance or before it. In the past they have considered variances similar to this primarily because the properties were developed prior to the adoption of the platting ordinance. If this area was platted prior to the adoption of the ordinance, it would be consistent with variances u (j Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 4 :.J {Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued} approved in the past. This hardship is primarily one of the platting process. He doesn't see this as an issue of setting a precedent for the subdivision in the rest of the development. If this was platted under the ordinance, is it pushing it in terms of lot acreage with the 20 percent variance on lot size for Parcel B. Mr. Hinzman suggested the Commission table the item temporarily while he goes to City Hall to research the date this area was platted. The Commission agreed. This item was continued later in the meeting. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO.4, MOVING OF BUILDINGS :.J Mr. Johnson explained Staff will be placing three to five ordinances on the Planning Commission agenda for discussion of updating and revision. The first one is Ordinance 4, Moving of Buildings. All references to Grow Township will be changed to City of Andover. Staff feels the ordinance requires a lot of red tape and that the requirements for insurance, bonding and cash deposit should be deleted. Many other communities do not have a moving ordinance because of the regulations under the Uniform Building Code and State Statutes. There is also a provision in Ordinance 8, Section 4.11 that addresses the relocation of structures. Staff is recommending that provision be moved to this ordinance. It is also the Staff's recommendation that an applicant should go through a Special Use Permit process, so the residents of an area where a structure will be brought to will be notified. Chairperson Squires stated that the provisions of Ordinance 4 and the section in Ordinance 8 are different, in that Ordinance 4 relates to moving the structure, and Ordinance 8 deals with the requirements once the structure reaches its final destination. Though they are different, he thought they could be combined to one moving and placement of buildings ordinance. He also felt that since 1968 when the ordinance was adopted and 1979 when it was amended, State law has regulated many of the things this ordinance tried to address. Any conflicts with State law should be removed from the ordinance, including the entire Section 4 dealing with cash deposits, bonds and insurance. The Commission generally agreed to the revisions to the ordinance as outlined by Staff. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCES NO.6, REGULATING MOBILE HOME PARKS o Mr. Johnson stated Staff feels there is a need to keep the ordinance in place even though there are no areas zoned for mobile home parks in the City. He also suggested Staff contact several of the surrounding cities to compare ordinance requirements. The Planning commission suggested the League of Minnesota Cities be contacted and that the City Attorney be contacted to be sure the ordinance is in line with other ordinances and current State law. / " ~-~ ~) ~- -, ,-.J I '1 U u Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 5 LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 17841 BLUEBIRD STREET NW - CONTINUED Mr. Hinzman reported the Zoning Ordinance was adopted October 21, 1970. The plat for the area including Bluebird Street was recorded December 9, 1971, about one year into the present Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Luedtke stated the lot in question is large compared to the other ones, but he would be opposed to a lot split because someone wants to build a new house in a development that requires 2.5-acre lots. He did not see the hardship. Commissioner Peek stated because the property was platted after the adoption of the ordinance, the issue of grandfathering does not apply. From his perspective, the question becomes does the degree of the variance alter the other quantities and qualities of the neighborhood. He felt the magnitude of the variance does impact it. Commissioner Wells noted from the public testimony of existing neighbors definitely opposing this and that the granting of the request might create more problems in the neighborhood, she too is against it. Chairperson Squires stated in looking at the standards the City has in the ordinance and the hardship required when dealing with variances, it comes down to whether there is a reasonable use of the property without the variance. There is nothing that suggests any factors that there would be an undue hardship created if the variance wasn't granted. The only thing that would have been significant to him is if this plat would have predated the ordinance. That is not the case here. MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Peek, to recommend denial to the City Council of the lot split and variance at 17841 Bluebird Street NW for the following reasons: 1) Lack of evidentiary hardship according to lot use; 2) possible drainage problem with the drain field of the septic .system; 3) public testimony of adj acent neighbors were definitely against it as recorded for the public hearing; 4) denial of the variance does not preclude reasonable use of the property; and 5) granting the variance would have significant impact on the locale, namely that the size of the newly created parcels would not be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. This will be on the December 3, 1996, City Council agenda. 8:10 p.m. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO.7, MATERIALS USED FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Mr. Johnson stated the Building Official has reviewed this ordinance and recommends that it be removed entirely because all of the information given is also in the Uniform Building Code. The Commission agreed. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO. 11, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Mr. Johnson stated Staff is recommending more information be placed in the ordinance about the duties of the Commission, plus do general housekeeping of the ordinance to make it flow properly. The Commission discussed the following: , \ ~,J () Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 6 , '\ "... _....J {Discussion - Review of Ordinance 11, Planning and Zoning Commission, Continued} Section 1, Subdivision 1, note the City Attorney, engineering, planning and building inspector shall attend meetings at the request of the Chairperson. It was suggested that provision remain. Section 1, Subdivision 2, was adopted when the Planning Commission was created. After that, it doesn't specify the terms of office. It has been the understanding that each term is for three years. That should be specified. Section 2, appointment of chairperson for a term of one year. The term should be consistent with Council policy, which has been to serve two- year terms. Also, make the ordinance gender neutral. Because the Chairperson is no longer required to attend all regular Council meeting, that sentence should be deleted. Section 3. Commissioner Wells expressed a desire to see something more on this issue to avoid having only two or three Commissioners at a meeting. Possibly when a Commissioner is going to be absent, he/she should provide comments to the Staff on the agenda items. No change was recommended. , , '_.j Section 4. Mr. Johnson stated the thought was to list the duties of the Commission. Chairperson Squires stated the Section references Minnesota 1965, Chapter 670. That may be outdated and should be updated to include only a reference to the name of the statute. The State Statute also talks about the powers and duties of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Squires stated most other cities have a Board of Appeals and Adjustments that deals with variances. He has never seen a process like that of Andover, as typically a separate body handles variances and appeals from determinations made by Staff. He doesn't disagree it may make some sense to have this body involved, but State law says the final authority over the granting of variances has to be done by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Maybe the City Council can be designated that Board. He suggested Staff look into that and consult with the City Attorney. Possibly something must be added to the ordinance to allow the Commission to do what it is doing. Or possibly the City Council, given the growth of the City, wants to have the Planning and Zoning Commission be the final authority over variances. " " <.~) Discussion was also on the appointment process of Commissioners. That process has changed over the years from interviews by the Council, to interviews by the Commission, to no interviews at all. The general feeling was that applicants should be interviewed prior to appointment to the Commission. Generally, the Commissioners stated they would be receptive to interviewing the applicants, then make a recommendation to the City Council. While there was some discussion on the requirements to become a Commissioner, the general feeling was that the only qualification is that the person be a resident. That point is not mentioned in the ordinance and probably should be. t' "\ 1,--// ;,J Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 7 . ... ". ,J DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO. 13, SEWER SERVICE/RESERVE CAPACITY COSTS Mr. Johnson stated the Building Official and City Engineer have recommended no change to the ordinance, that it should remain on file as is. The Commission felt Section 4, Penalty, should be updated to reflect current law. They also questioned whether the rates in Section 2 need to be updated. "Metropolitan Waste Control Commission" mentioned in the first paragraph is to be corrected to the current name of that board. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Johnson noted the terms of Commissioners Luedtke and Putnam expire at the end of 1996. He encouraged them to write a letter to Mr. Carlberg by November 26 if they wish to be reappointed to the Commission. Mr. Johnson also reported the actions taken by the City Council on Planning Commission items at its November 6, 1996, meeting.. There was a brief discussion on the criteria to be considered when reviewing requests for Special Use Permits on nonconforming home occupations. The Commission suggested the Fire Marshal or Building Official be involved in the inspections of the sites so they will be ~ J given expert opinions in those areas prior to the public hearings. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectful~y submitted, '[1"\ . . ,(\ " I I . ( .... / \, i \\..Iv~-'~, ....\..' \ l<-<<:.-I \ ~. Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary , \ j .... _,1