Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 13, 1995 () () o o "l'rMtocA ~ ~ '-'\J"r (; I 01.1/95 CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 13, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on June 13, 1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam Maynard Apel Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 23, , 1995, Special Joint Meeting with City Council: Correct as written. 1995, Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Correct as written. May 23, MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Peek, approval of the Minutes as written. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - ANDOVER CENTER SECOND ADDITION - RADEMACHER 7:01 p.m. Mr. Haas explained the request by William and Karen Rademacher to replat a parcel zoned Shopping Center from two lots to three lots. The 4.487 acres is within the MUSA, and park dedication was paid in the mid-1980's with the original plat. No variances are being requested. The frontages are sufficient for access off Round Lake Boulevard, which is a part of the site development and subject to permission from Anoka County. The replatting will have no effect on the existing developed parcel. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open Motion carried on a 6-Yesr 1-Absent (Apel) vote. no public testimony. the public hearing. 7:07 p.m. 'There was MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Putnam commented the county may have a concern with access onto Round Lake Boulevard because of all the traffic. Chairperson Squires noted this only approves the change from two to three lots. u u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 ::,) Page 2 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat, Andover Center 2nd, Continued) MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich. to forward the attached Resolution to the Council with the recommendation of approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. This will be placed on the July 5, 1995, City Council agenda. SKETCH PLAN - SECTION 28 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr. Haas reviewed the comments of the Andover Review Committee regarding the sketch plan of the development proposed by Ashford Development in Section 28. The development would consist of 14 rural residential lots. The City Council will need to determine if 149th Avenue will be constructed to service the development. It is currently designated as an MSA Street, but is posted as a minimum maintenance road. The City does maintain about one-fourth of a mile to service a home, then it becomes a field road. A number of lots may need variances because of lot widths since the ordinance has not yet been amended regarding that issue. If the ordinance is amended before the preliminary plat, those variances will not be required. Mr. Haas also noted that Lots 1 and 8 of Block 2 are less than 2.5 acres and will require variances for size. (~ Jerrv Windschitl. Ashford Development - explained the reason Lots 1 and 8 of Block 2 are less than 2.5 acres. They are about 15 feet less than what is needed to meet the acreage. They prepared several sketches; and in working with the Staff, Staff preferred the one before the Commission. Assuming a proposal to construct a full-width MSA street, which is wider than a typical city street, the additional right of way is being dedicated with the plat so it does not have to be acquired in the future. In doing that, two lots are undersized. If the MSA road is removed, the lots would not be undersized. Commissioner Peek felt it would make more sense to have the smaller lots internalized rather than the corner lots being undersized. Mr. Windschitl stated he would have no objection to the interior lots platted as the smaller lots, either Lots 2 and 7 or Lots 6 and 3. To his knowledge, there are no wetland issues on the property. The property is basically a sand hill with one row of trees through the center of it. The consensus of the Commission was to approve the sketch plan with the request that consideration be given to shifting the lot variances on size to the interior lots. They also acknowledged that the variances being noted for lot width may change if the ordinance is amended, but the two variances in lot size will not. The item is to be forwarded to the City Council for review. ~-) PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - REPAIR GARAGE IN AN I, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - 1714 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW - ROBERT BENDTSEN 7:21 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Robert Bendtsen for a Special Use Permit to operate a repair garage at 1714 Bunker Lake u u (J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit-Repair Garage, Bendtsen, Continued) Boulevard NW, the East Half of Lot 3, Block 1, pankonin Addition. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be examined. Access for the operation will be on the new frontage road, which is linked to Jay Street. Mr. Bendtsen was granted a Special Use Permit for a repair garage at 1716 Bunker Lake Boulevard on July 19, 1994; and he would like to relocate the operation because the current building does not meet his needs. Because Mr. Bendtsen indicated the existing business would no longer be operating if granted this Permit, Staff has included a condition in the Resolution to declare the first Permit null and void. The City has received no complaints on the existing operation. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:28 p.m. ' Bob Bendtsen - explained he is sharing a building now, and the other business is expanding. There are three buildings on one parcelr and he will be moving from one building to the other. Mr. Carlberg explained the voiding of the existing Special Use Permit will have no effect on the other businesses operating in the current building because they are permitted uses under the Ordinances. He also reported the Commission may be seeing a request for a Special Use Permit for Andover Firearms to (J operate out of the other building on the site. Mr. Bendtsen - explained he owns all three buildings. He agrees to all of the stipulations in the proposed Resolution. The outdoor storage is all screened; and he outlined the location of the existing fencing, which is one fenced area behind the current building and the building he wishes to move to. He has some vehicle storage. The building he is moving to does not have restroom facilities. The Commission suggested the legal description include only that portion which has the building in question, that is "The East half of Lot 3, Block 1, pankonin Addition" and exclude "The West 148 feet of Lot 4, Block 1". Mr. Bendtsen had no problem with that change. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Peek, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:32 p.m. Chairperson Squires was also concerned that the voiding of the existing Permit be recorded with the County to avoid a problem in the future. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff will draft a separate Resolution for Council approval specifically revoking the existing Permit within 60 days of approval of the new Permit with the proper legal description. :~) MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Peek, to forward to the City Council the Resolution granting the Special Use Permit request of Robert Bendtsen to allow for the operation of a repair garage located at 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard. In the Resolution where it says the East half of Lot 3, Block 1, include that part but omit the remainder of the sentence. Condition No.8, to allow 60 days to get the building up to coder or whatever time is necessary. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1- Absent (Apel) vote. This will be placed on the July 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:39 p.m. u (j (J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE - 14621 GROUSE STREET NW - MATTHEW LARSON 7:39 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Matthew Larson for a Special Use Permit to construct a 26' x 30' accessory structure prior to the construction of a principal structure on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinewood Estates Second Addition. Mr. Larson's principal structure is on Lot 8, and he has a purchase agreement on Lot 9 contingent upon receipt of the requested Special Use Permit. The property is zoned R-4, urban residential; and Mr. Carlberg reviewed the applicable ordinances and criteria to be examined. In the past the City considered each request on its own merits. One such request was denied because there were no residents in the vicinity and maintenance was a concern; another was approved because it was across the street from the applicant and was on larger acreage for the purpose of keeping horses. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. 7:45 p.m. Georqe Parvey, 14660 Grove Street - moved here to get away from the farm yard buildings. This is a residential area, and he felt it'should be r-\ kept that way. It is a nice neighborhood; and he is concerned that once ~~ the building is built, it will become an eye sore with junk cars, RV's and trailers accumulating on the lot. Mr. Carlberg explained a pole building would not be allowed in the urban area. It must be a framed stick structure of similar design and exterior finish as the residence. Candy Spelmann, 1678 146th Avenue NW - doesn't want a structure like this just a few blocks away degrading the value of her home. She didn't know what things would be stored there. Matthew Larson - stated his father is living with him now, so there is an extra vehicle. Ms. Spelmann - stated most homes have three-car garages. She too didn't want junk setting around in front of the garage. She stated it will be unattractive to other buyers in the neighborhood and will make their area look more commercialized. She felt it is a large building. Who will want to purchase that lot with a garage already on it? She is not happy about this at all. Mr. Carlberg stated if Lot 9 is to be sold separately, a principal structure would be required to be built. If it is sold and a house is not built, the City would have to take legal action against the owner. However, there is no time limit as tp when Mr. Larson has to sell the lot. (J Carol Cooper, 1690 146th Avenue NW agreed with Ms. Spelmann, especially since there is no time limit as to when a house must be built on the lot. It is a huge garage in a neighborhood where all the houses are similar in size and appearance. She also agreed it will bring down the value of everyone's house and it won't look right. There are three lots open how, and she didn't feel they would sell because of having this garage to look at. She'd rather see the open space, which is full f \ U () () Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit-Accessory Structure Prior to Construction of Principal Structure-Larson, Continued) of trees and is a pretty area. She's seen a trailer there now; and rather than a garage, she'd prefer to have the trailer next to the house or stored elsewhere. Without a time limit on when a house is built, it could be there 20 years without a house. In her opinion, the garage would have to be very tall to house a mobile home and will be an eye sore. Is he planning to do business out of the garage? Mr~ Carlberg stated businesses in accessory buildings are not allowed in that area. Patty ? , Lot 12 - would rather have a neighbor rather than look out at a garage. She worries about the value of her house going down. Who will want to buy those two lots with the garage sitting there? She asked if there is a requirement on the value of the garage? Mr. Carlberg explained the City can't regulate values. Ms.? - stated the buildings in that area are about the same price range, and she'd hate to see a garage go up without a house. The two lots would remain open because no one would want to buy them and look at this huge garage. She also felt things will end up being left outside and it will become an eye sore. () Firmin Janske, 1685 146th Avenue NW - stated this is a residential area, and this is not the place for a garage standing by itself. He can see this area fron his property and felt it should stay residential. Mr. Larson, Matthew Larson's father - explained the purpose for the garage is for storage because there isn't enough room at the home and they don't want it in the yard. Right now the lot is a dump with contractors dumping tar in it. They would clean it up, and possibly within a few years he will buy the property from his son. That was his intention. He didn't think this was any different than putting an accessory structure on the lot he owns, or putting up a garage before the house. The plans of the proposed garage show walls that are nine feet tall. A resident stated she hasn't been on the lot, but she hoped the contractors or the neighborhood could get the lot cleaned up. She'd rather do that than have the loss of trees and a garage constructed. In her opinion it does not look junky now. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Apel) vote. 8:00 p.m. f - '\ <.....J The Commission and Mr. Carlberg discussed the ordinance requirements on the size of house, size of accessory structures and land coverage per lot. The Commission commented with the garage size proposed, a good- sized house would be required on the lot. Mr. Carlberg stated the ordinance does not require landscaping, just weed control. The driveway width cannot exceed 30 feet. City Engineering approval would be needed for a second curb cut for a lot if one is granted for this garage and another is desired in the future for a residential ~tructure. Commissioner Luedtke thought the length of the driveway to the garage u () () Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 6 (Public Hearing: Special Use permit-Accessory Structure Prior to Construction of Principal Structure-Larson, Continued) would be almost 80 feet. Commissioner Doucette saw Lot 9 as a yard enlargement of Lot 8 with a request for an accessory structure. Could the Commission require the exterior of the garage to be compatible with the principal structure on Lot 8? Mr. Carlberg stated the Commission has that ability. Commissioner Peek noted the approval granted by the City in a similar situation in the northern part of the city was on a larger lot and was for a better defined use. This request has a significantly greater impact on the neighbors because of the density. He understood the concerns of the neighbors about the property values. Because of the density and the open-ended use, he did not think the proposal is good planning. Also, it could create a situation where the owners would corne back to the City at some point asking for a variance. Commissioner Jovanovich agreed. If there is a trailer there,'who is to say someone won't be living in it, which might be a problem. Mr. Carlberg explained the only way to combine the two lots would be to replat it. Then a Special Use Permit would not be required. The issue is because it is two separate legal lots of record. Commissioner Putnam stated he would be more in favor if the two lots were a single lot with an accessory structure behind the principal structure and sold r\ and maintained as one parcel. It doesn' t make sense to require new \.-.-J owners in the future to have to accept the garage as located; it is not good planning. Chairperson Squires also agreed, feeling this would establish a precedence in an R-4 area. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to deny the request for a Special Use Permit request by Matthew Larson for Lot 9, Block I for the construction of an accessory structure in advance of the principal structure. A public hearing was held and there was considerable opposition from neighboring property owners and adjacent property owners. It is out of character for the R-4 district. It would be setting a precedent. It may set up a situation for future request for variances, and so forth, that are really unnecessary if we deny this action now. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposal may have an effect on the surrounding property values. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. This will b~placed on the July 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:14 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SHIRLEY LeFEBVRE 1J...I~"8 LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 1278 UNDERCLIFT STREET NW - ~J 8:14 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained Shirley LeFebvre has requested a lot split of .7 acres at 14278 Underclift Street NW into two lots of .31 and .39 acres to create a lot for the construction of a single family residence. Variances are also required for the lot size. The property is zoned R-3, with lot dimensions in that district based on not having municipal utilities. Howeve~, because city sewer and water are available, the lot split and variance should be reviewed as if it were zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. The R-4 district is immediately to the south of the parcel. The two lots do meet the minimum requirements of an _______ I C) u <J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 7 (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance-Underc1ift St., Continued) R-4 zone, but variances are being requested because of the current R-3 zone. If and when the City's Comprehensive Plan is approved, all urban areas will be rezoned to the same district. Mr. Carlberg stated the other option would be to rezone this one lot to R-4. The reason it is being presented as a lot split/variance is because a very similar process was done in 1991 to a parcel about a block north on 143rd and Vintage. That one could not be rezoned because it would be considered spot zoning. The City's intent was to allow this lot, which is one of the larger ones in the subdivision, to be split, as utilities are provided for a second parcel. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Peek noted a pattern of 100' x 150' lots in the area. He asked the applicant it she would be willing to move the lot line 10 feet to the north so the width for the proposed lot would be 100 feet. Then a variance would not be required for lot width. (', Shirlev LeFebvre - did not have a problem with the suggestio~. '.J MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. 8:29 p.m. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, to forward the attached Resolution on to the City Council with the recommendation for approval with the added condition that the lot width to the southern property be adjusted from 90 feet to 100 feet. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-No (Squires as he felt a better process would be to rezone the parcel), I-Absent (Apel) vote. This will be placed on the July 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:30 p.m. VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH AT FRONT SETBACK LINE, 15425 PRAIRIE ROAD - DURWOOD AND LORNA SAGVOLD Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Durwood and Loran Sagvo~~/~or a variance on lot width at 15425 prairie Road. The parcel is~ feet wide, and the ordinance requires a width of at least 300 feet as measured at the front setback line. There are existing lots with houses on either side of the parcel, so there is no ability to add to the lot width. The lot is seven acres and all other requirements will be met. The Sagvold's are also moving the interior lot line of the parcel, which will be handled by Staff and recorded with the county. Staff is recommending approval. , -, ;"-) MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to forward the attached Resolution to the Council with the recommendation for approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Apel) vote. This will be placed on the July 5, 1995, City Council agenda. r) ~./ ,- , , \ l .I '-" ,~ - , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1995 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Council's action taken on various items at their June 6, 1995, meeting. Commissioner Jovanovich noticed in driving through other cities that most of the major boulevards are lined with trees, and Andover is so bare when driving through it. Can something be done to beautify the City? Possibly the park donations from developers can be put toward the purchase of trees. Mr. Carlberg explained some cities have gone the route of requiring trees in the boulevards. Andover has not because it does not have the Staff to maintain and trim the boulevard trees. The Commission may want to review the boulevard encroachment portion of the ordinance at some point in the future. That issue may also be brought to the attention of the Park and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Putnam stated he has drafted the goals and a mission statement for the City as agreed to at the May 23 special meeting with the City Council. That draft has been given to the Mayor and the City Administrator. Mr. Carlberg stated that item is being placed on the June 20, 1995, Council agenda. ~~ MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Luedtke, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Apel) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, \"i\cw-&LC~ ;::c L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary r-, . \ , ./