Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 13, 1991 o o o o o (j\ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 13. 1991 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Randy Peek on August 13. 1991,7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel. Bonnie Dehn (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich. Marc McMul len, Becky Pease None City Planner, David Carlberg; and others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9. 1991: Correct as written. MOTION by Pease. Seconded by Jovanovich, to approve the July 19 Minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Dehn) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT. 14122 PRAIRIE ROAD NW. ROBERT NEHRING 7:31 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Robert Nehring, 14122 Prairie Road NW to split a 2.5-acre parcel from a 20-acre parcel in an R-l, Single Family Rural District. It has been discovered that the 20-acre parcel is really two 10-acre parcels described by metes and bounds from the center line of Prairie Road. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the two lots being combined to meet the minimum lot frontage requirements for the larger lot. Mr. Carlberg also noted the applicable ordinances: Ordinance 40, Ordinance 8, 6.02, Ordinance 10, 9.06a(3) and 9.07.10. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the combining of the two lots, the calculation of the 2.5 acres to exclude the 30-foot right of way of Prairie Road, and a park dedication fee of $400. (Commissioner Dehn arrived at this time. 7:35 p.m.) Commissioner Apel argued past practice has been to include the right of way when splitting metes and bounds parcels; otherwise he considered it a taking on the part of the City. He understood why the easement is not included on platted parcels. but for metes and ~ounds it is considered in the acreage of the property owner. He felt-this change constitutes the Staff making policy rather than the City Council. which irritates him. , \ ,~ ~ \ o '\ , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Lot Spl it, 14122 Prairie Road NW, Continued) Mr. Carlberg stated since he has been on Staff the acreage has excluded right of way; and if the minimum acreage cannot be met, a variance has been granted. He intends to bring this to the attention of the Council to get an Interpretation. Councilmember McMullen questioned the park dedication. Mr. Carlberg explained $400 for a lot split is set by Council resolution. When platting larger areas, 10 percent of the land value is used. Usually a cash dedication is taken for lot splits rather than land. The hearing was opened for public testimony. , "- , j Jerry Windschitl. 3640 152nd Lane - agreed to the requirement of combining the two 10-acre parcels, as they were working under the opinion that it was one parcel to begin with. They do have an objection to the requirement of excluding the 30-foot right of way of Prairie Road in the acreage calculations. Since the ordinance was enacted in 1977 to recent history, the City has included the easement in the lot split calculations on metes and bounds parcels. He stated he researched the City's files on lot splits, stating he pul led out just ten examples and quoted four of them for the Commission where in virtually exact situations, the acreage calculations included the right of way. Two of those lot splits he quoted occurred in 1990, two in 1985 to show that including the right of way has been done consistently since 1977. Mr. Windschitl acknowledged the Planning Commission and City Council have the authority to change policy; however, he felt any policy change should be discussed separately and be applicable when the decision is made, not retroactively. He stated he should not be required to do something no one else has been required to do. Mr. Carlberg again stated he wil I ask Council to make a determination when it comes before them. Commissioner Apel stated the Council has already made a determination by past practices by its actions historically and by what is in the ordinance. He stated Staff should not be making policy, and this is not the way to change policy. Chairperson Peek stated typically there have been variances when the minimum acreages cannot be met. \ ,,) Mr. Windschitl - stated the variances are a relatively new thing. He had a part in passing that ordinance which specifically gave the Council a lot of authority to try to accommodate metes and bounds descriptions. There is no provision in the Lot Split Ordinance for him to apply for a variance. He again noted the Field lot split which was approved on June 5, 1990, which is identical to this one but the description was from the center of the road and no variance was granted. " '\ lJ / " u Planning and Zoning Commission "I Minutes - August 13, 1991 '_./ Page 3 (Public Hearing: Lot Split, 14122 Prairie Road NW, Continued) There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Peek asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the Staff recommendation regarding the exclusion of easement in the acreage calculations, the recent Commission recommendations to Council to also exclude the easement but to grant variances if the required dimensions cannot be met, and the testimony this evening that historically the easement is included on metes and bounds parcels and the iack of a provision for variances in the ordinance. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Jonak, that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council with a recommendation to approve this lot spiit subject to: \ '- -' 1) Combining the two 10-acre parcels: 2) To exclude the 3D-foot right of way in the calculation and primarily to have this point to clarify which policy to follow: and 3) To pay a park dedication fee of $400 to the City Council. The legal description would fol low the parcels. Note that a public hearing was held and considerable discussion occurred with the notion of excluding or including the 30-foot right of way. DISCUSSION: Mr. Windschitl asked for clarification why a year ago a gentleman with the same conditions as this had no conditions made on him when there has been no change in the ordinance. The Commission again discussed the issue of calculating acreage including or excluding the right of way. Mr. Carlberg understood those calculations have been done both ways in the past. Commissioner Apel clarified that in the past when dealing with platted property, the easement is excluded; but when working with metes and bounds property, the easement is included because metes and bounds transfers are always made from the center of the survey line. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by McMul len, Seconded by Apel, to al low Mr. Nehring a variance in the acreage calculation provided he applies for it. DISCUSSION: Mr. Windschitl stated his research shows that the Planning Commission recommended approval including the easement of the four lot splits previously mentioned, and the Council approved them as recommended. Commissioner Jonak stated the Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council and City Attorney that the policy be ') clarified. Commissioner McMullen felt the amendment must be accepted '-~ based on the history. There is no way for Mr. Nehring to know he has : , ~J / \ \J \ / Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Lot Split, 14122 Prairie Road NW, Continued) to apply for a variance: and apparently Staff has not said he has that option. Commissioner Dehn didn't feel the variance was needed since the ordinance was not changed and history shows the easement should be included in this case. Mr. Windschitl stated if the regulations and past practices of the City had required him to remove the road right of way, they would have done it. But that is not how it has been done in the past. inviting the Commission to look through the files themselves. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Apel, McMul len, Pease: NO-Dehn feeling it is not a significant amendment, Jonak, Jovanovich, Peek. Motion fails on a 3 to 4 vote. ADDITION TO MOTION by Pease to add a one-year sunset clause to file the lot split. Second Stands. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jonak, Jovanovich, Pease, Peek: NO-Apel, Dehn, McMullen. Motion carries. Commissioner Dehn felt the easement should be included as has been the policy in the past. ,) Commissioners McMullen and Aple both stated they believe the right of way should be included. Commissioner Pease thought this was the best way to bring it to the Council's attention to clarify the policy. Mr. Windschitl asked the four voting in favor of the motion on what legal basis they have placed a requirement on him that has not been required of others. Chairperson Peek stated on the last lot split, the right of way was subtracted from the lot parcel. Mr. Windschitl stated the county right of way was subtracted, not the City's right of way. Chairperson Peek felt the motion is clear that it is a policy issue and requests a clarification from the Council on policy. He felt that is the best way to get the issue before the City Council for that clarification. Mr. Windschitl stated a separate request would have been more appropriate. but this has the effect of placing a requirement on him that has not been placed on anyone else since 1977 under the same ordinance, once again referring to the four identical lot splits he mentioned earlier this evening, two of them as recent as a year ago. He again asked for a provision in the ordinance for the requirement and why he has to exclude the right of way when others have not had to. Commissioner Pease again stated the motion was strictly to get a clarification of the policy from the Council. \ , ) The item wil I go to the City Council on September 3, 1991. 8:27 p.m. , \ ~~ u Planning and Zoning Commission i Minutes - August 13, 1991 'J Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 1.000-GALLON ABOVE-GROUND DIESEL STORAGE TANK. 13586 THRUSH STREET NW. M & S DRYWALL SUPPLY 8:27 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of M & S Drywal I to locate an above-ground 1,000-gallon diesel storage tank on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Andover Commercial Park, 13586 Thrush Street NW. He reviewed the applicable ordinances of Ordinance 8, Sections 4.26 and 5.03. Staff had some concerns about its location: however, the Fire Marshal has reviewed the installation plans and has approved it as long as it is instal led per State guidelines. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the applicant providing written proof to the City that the tank meets al I State requirements and regulations, on a one-year sunset clause, and annual reviews. The actual gas pump wil I be remote from the tank, located across from one of the entrances. Michael BrinGS. applicant - stated there is a 125 percent spillage built in case the tank leaks. There is also something built around the pump, which is 60 feet from the tank. There wll I be concrete pillers around both the tank and the pump plus an apron at the pump according to State regulations. f ~ There was no public testimony. Chairperson Peek asked for a motion to close the public hearing. ~) MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Dehn, based on the Staff's recommendation, to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit as requested by M & S Drywall for an above-ground 1,000-gallon diesel storage tank with the conditions: 1) The applicant provide to the City, in writing, proof that the tank meets all State requirements and regulations. 2) A sunset clause of one year as specified per Ordinance 8, Section 5.08d. 3) Annual review by Staff. A public hearing was held on August 13. Motion carried unanimously. The item wil I go before the City Council on September 3, 1991. 8:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. 17913 AZTEC STREET. GREG SMEDSRUD \ 8:33 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Greg Smedsrud to ,) construct an accessory structure prior to the construction of a principal structure on Lot 7, Block 2, Cedar Hills River Estates Second Addition, 17913 Aztec Street NW. It Is a 1.75-acre lot and zoned R-2, Single Family Estate. \ '- ) :'1 LJ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 ,) Page 6 <Public Hearing: SUP, Construction of Accessory Structure prior to the Construction of Principal Structure, 17913 AZTEC, Continued) Applicable ordinances are Ordinance 8, Sections 4.05 and 5.03. He would not be al lowed to construct a pole building because the lot is less than three acre. Lary Carlson, Woodland Development Corporation, has given approval to construct the accessory building at the location shown on the map before the Commission. The applicant is in the process of purchasing both Lots 6 and 7 and has indicated a desire to have horses. If that is the case, a replatting must be done to combine the two lots to meet the acreage requirement for horses: and then a pole barn could be constructed. Mr. Carlberg explained the structure will be in a wooded area: and though there is no requirement that a principal structure be built, one Permit given in the past required it to be built within two years. There are no plans by the applicant to build a principal structure at this time, as he lives across the street from Lot 7. However, he cannot construct an accessory building on his present lot because of the restrictions of the Scenic Rum River Ordinance. Staff is recommending approval subject to meeting the setback requirements and that it be placed to accommodate the future placement of the principal " bu i I di ng. ) The Commission discussed the placing of a principal structure on Lot 7 or if Lots 6 and 7 are combined. If they are combined, the feeling was a principal structure would face Aztec, cautioning the need to meet setback requirements if the intent is to have horses on the property. Mr. Carlberg explained he has discussed with Mr. Smedsrud the necessity of obtaining an approved site plan from the Equestrian Council if he wishes to raise horses. The hearing was opened for public testimony. Greq Smedsrud - explained he already has horses housed about three hours away. He would like to have them closer. He has an option to purchase Lots 6 and 7 and build the accessory structure to be able to have horses, though he does not intend to build a principal structure. He said he is doing this so he can remain an Andover resident. He asked why he has to legaily replat the two lots to combine them, sating he would be agreeable to a provision to use the lots for horses until he sel Is the lots. Then it would not be an issue for the new landowner, since horses would not be allowed. The Commission didn't feel that stipulation could be made since the permit does not deal with the issue of horses. The horse issue cannot be dealt with unless or until the lots are combined. Mr. Carlberg also \ explained the legalities of combining platted lots. ) ~) u , , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 Page 7 (Public Hearing: SUP, Construction of Accessory Structure prior to the Construction of Principal Structure, 17913 AZTEC, Continued) Bruce Lindbero, 17822 Aztec - stated Mr. Smedsrud approached him about buying the two lots and building a pole barn to store cars and other items and to get horses. He did not have a problem with the proposal but is concerned with what happens to that building when it is soid. Can it be used for a car repair business where cars and parts would be kept outside, which is unsightly in a residential area? Also, since he talked with Mr. Smedsrud, he received a ietter from the City indicating it was a permit to build a pole barn ahead of a principal structure, though Mr. Smedsrud had not said anything about building a new house. Mr. Lindquist stated in talking with the neighbors, their concerns are basically the same, that is on the future use of the building. Mr. Carlberg explained the ordinance requires that he apply for a permit to build the accessory building prior to the construction of the principal building. Also, he felt the ordinances protect the neighbors from undesirable uses of the structure in the future. Car repair businesses are not allowed in that area. , , ) Dan Parent. 17900 Aztec Street - supports Mr. Smedsrud's proposal for a garage and a proposal for a number of horses. Rebecca Swada. 17922 Aztec - stated she and her husband have talked with Mr. Smedsrud and support his proposal. They think leaving the land in a more natural state wil I have value to the area. She also presented a letter of support from her husband. Gary Leeoard. 17958 Aztec and Bryan Johnson. 18006 Aztec - both expressed support for Mr. Smedsrud's intention to build the structure. Mr. Smedsrud - stated he has discussed this with all the residents and with Mr. Carlson of Woodland Development, and all have supported him. His whole intention is to be able to stay in Andover for a good many years to come, but he needs to be able to do these things to feel comfortable staying. He felt Mr. Lindberg's concerns are valid, but he assured them his intentions are specifically what he outlined in the Special Use Permit application. There are ordinances that wil I protect them against undesirable uses on that property in the future. He originally intended to build a pole building from a cost perspective but realizes he cannot on 1.75 acres. He understands his alternative is to combine the two lots, asking if he would have to come before the Commission again. Mr. Carlberg stated yes for the replatting, but not to construct a pole building versus a wood-built building. , ) , , u o \ " ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 Page 8 (Public Hearing: SUP, Construction of Accessory Structure prior to the Construction of Principal Structure, 17913 AZTEC, Continued) Mr. Smedsrud - stated Mr. Carlson has already given approval for a pole building. By having his structure directly across the street, he has a vested interest in keeping up appearances. The structure would be completely screened by trees. He also has no problem adding a contingency that a principal structure should be built if he determines he has to sel I his present residence. The Commission continued to deliberate on the request and possible concerns with having horses. Commissioner Jonak was very concerned about the future use of the structure. He questioned the wisdom of allowing accessory structures on parcels when there is no intent to build a principal structure. As a worse case scenario, he said it is conceivable that the parcel with the accessory building could be sold and used for any number of undesirable uses which would not be acceptable to the neighbors. Commissioner McMullen was concerned about requiring Mr. Smedsrud to replat the two lots. He wondered if there was a way to allow him to /, do what he wants without combing the lots. That may be a way to , ) protect the neighborhood from needless hardship in the future. Chairperson Peek again noted the permit does not address horses, as that is a separate issue. Mr. Smedsrud - stated he intends to go through the process with the Equestrian Council. He again stated he would be agreeable to a contingency that when those lots are sold, a principal structure must be built upon them. Mr. Carlberg stated he would have to check the legality of such a requirement. Chairperson Peek asked for a motion to close the pUblic hearing. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by McMul len, Seconded by Apel, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Greg Smedsrud to allow for the construction of an accessory structure prior to the construction of a principal building at 17913 Aztec Street NW (Lot 7, Block 2, Cedar Hil Is River Estates Second Addition). \ \ J The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, including: the use wil I not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community; the use will not cause serious traffic congestions or hazards; the use wil I not depreciate the surrounding property, and the use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also finds that the use meets the provisions specified in Ordinance No.8. Section 4.05, Accessory Structures. " \ <J / '\ '--.) Planning and Zoning Commission \ Minutes - August 13. 1991 '.J Page 9 (Public Hearing: SUP. Construction of Accessory Structure prior to the Construction of Principal Structure, 17913 AZTEC, Continued) (Motion continued) A public hearing was held on August 13. Add a one-year sunset clause as specified in Ordinance 8, Section 5.08, and subject to an annual review. DISCUSSION: Mr. Carlberg explained the one-year sunset clause means Mr. Smedsrud has one year in which to construct the building. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Ape I , Dehn, Jovanovich, McMullen. Pease, Peek; NO-Jonak. Motion carried. Commissioner Jonak didn't think the City should allow him to put up a building and then do nothing. He can sell it to anybody in a week who could use it for any number of undesirable activities. Commissioner Jonak didn't think that is what the City should be allowing or there will be a lot of these types of requests. The item will go to the City Council on September 3, 1991. 9:23 p.m. The Commission recessed at this time; reconvened at 9:31 p.m. , : / VARIANCE: DRIVEWAY ENCROACHING SIDEYARD SETBACK AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 3223 138TH LANE NW. DEBORAH MARKUSON Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request to allow for the continued placement of a concrete driveway encroaching the sideyard setback and drainage and utility easement at 3223 138th Lane NW. The driveway is already in place. He reviewed the applicable ordinances, stating it is the Staff's feeling the variance should be granted because of the shape and topography of the lot. If the variance is not granted, that portion of the driveway would be removed, but then the owners would be backing onto grass to make the turn to access the garage. The Markuson's have a purchase order on the property. The Building Official did not have a problem with the encroachment. There is a major slope to the driveway. Mr. Carlberg explained that at one time the sideyard setback for driveways on cui de sacs was one foot. It was changed to five feet at the time some other revisions were made to the ordinance. He wondered if the Commission wished to examine the Zoning Ordinance further to allow for some flexibility on cuI de sac lots. '\ '\ ) Dean Markuson - stated the driveway as proposed by the builder could not access the garage. The builder, Perfection Homes, Inc., modified the concrete driveway without knowing that the one-foot easement law had been changed to five. His wife came to the City for the variance request because they wanted everything above board before they close on the house. , \ ~ ) \ ) '--- , ) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1991 Page 10 (Variance: Driveway Encroachment, 3223 138th Lane, Continued) The Commission expressed concern with the builder simply making a change, wondering if there is some way to reprimand or penalize the builder. Mr. Carlberg felt that is between the builder and potential buyer, not a City issue. Chairperson Peek suggested the variance include a provision that the property owner would be responsible for the removal of the driveway and restoration if there are any problems in the easement. Mr. Markuson - agreed. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by McMullen, recommend to the City Council approval of the variance request by Deborah Markuson to al low for the contInued placement of a concrete drIveway encroaching Into the required sIdeyard setback as wel I as encroaching into a draInage and utIlity easement on the property located at 3223 138th Lane NW, legally described as Lot 18, Block 8, Woodland Creek AddItIon. , J The Planning CommissIon fInds that the proposal meets the criteria established in OrdInance 8, SectIon 5.04 IncludIng: the strict interpretation of the ordinance causes the hardship; the hardship stems from the unique shape, topography or physical features of the land; the variance wIll not be detrimental to the public welfare; and the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the property. The property owner wil I be responsible for the removal and restoration of the driveway encroachIng on the easement if it becomes necessary. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Jovanovich, to direct Staff to address the cuI de sac problem and gIve us theIr fIndings. DISCUSSION: Staff was also asked to research the number of vIolatIons resulting from the ordinance change. MotIon carrIed unanImously. Because the Markuson's have a closing date set for next week, the Commission recommended Staff attempt to place thIs on the August 20, 1991, City Council Agenda If possIble. If not, It wIll be heard by the Council on September 3, 1991. OTHER BUSINESS Jerry WindschItl - asked for a copy of the audIo tape of this evening's meeting, stating he Is willing to have the copy made at his expense. The Commission directed him to Staff. \ CommissIoner McMullen noted an advertisement on TV for splat ball ,/ games in Andover. Mr. Carlberg stated he talked to the company regarding the City's requirements. He was then told the company has no intention of using Andover for its activities. \ \..,./ , \ \..~,j Planning and ZonIng CommIssion ') Minutes - August 13, 1991 / Page 11 (Other Business, Continued) Mr. Carlberg stated he received a letter from the Metropolitan Council regarding the proposed amendment to the ComprehensIve Plan for the sanitary sewer proposal by Mr. Nedegaard. The 90-day reviewal process ends October 21, 1991. The MetropolItan CouncIl does have some concerns, and he will be working with them on the various issues. Mr. Carlberg also noted the Items on anImals referred to the CommIssIon by the CouncIl which wIll be on the next CommIssion Agenda. The Commission asked that Mr. Carlberg research the Items so they have some guIdelines to work wIth. The Commission noted the following meetings: August 27, 1991, next regular CommIssIon meetIng; August 29, ComprehensIve Plan Update Task Force meeting; and September 12, joInt meetIng of CIty CouncIl and ComprehensIve Plan Update Task Force. There beIng no further busIness, ChaIrperson Peek declared the meetIng adjourned at 10:03 p.m. , ) Respectfully submItted, \f\ OJ1J~J::C)~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary , ,)