Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 24, 1990 o o ~ o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 24, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Rebecca Pease on April 24, 1990, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Ron Ferris, Randal Peek, and Don Spotts Commissioners Absent: Bev Jovanovich, Wayne Vistad Others Present: Jay Blake, City Planner; Todd Haas, Assistant City Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to approve the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 10, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 13650 HANSON BOULEVARD--RETAIL SALES IN "I" DISTRICT Blake explained to the Commission that this is a request on the application of Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and Custom Woodworking for a SUP to allow retail sales in an industrial district and outdoor display, storage and sales. The business is located in space previously occupied by Lou's Tire Town and Andover Tire Town. The business builds and sells custom outdoor furniture and also contracts for residential woodworking. Jeff and Lisa Gardas are the owners of the business and are leasing two garages, a retail area and the residential dwelling. The remainder of the building is unleased at this time. Blake reviewed a copy of the floor plan with the Commission. He stated that the City has an agreement with the owners of the property to have the tires, scrap metal, and debris removed from the premises by April 30, 1990. The fencing is also to be removed by this date. Blake stated that some progress has already been made on the cleaning and if the owner does not complete the cleaning, the City will have it done and bill the owner for the work. o ( \ '-/ , . / Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -2- Blake stated that staff did not feel the presence of the operation would have a detrimental effect on the health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding community; that there would not be a signficant number of large vehicles or traffic congestion or lack of parking space; that the retail business will not have a detrimental effect on property values; and that this use is allowed by the zoning ordinances and would in fact improve the overall use of this space. Blake stated that Staff recommends approval of this request for a special use permit. The Commission questioned the use of the dwelling on the property. The Gardas stated that one of their employees is living in the house at this time. Blake stated that the house can continue to be used as a residence and maintained as such, but that the dwelling cannot be expanded or added on. The Commission expressed concern that the Gardas might be caught in the middle if the owner does not complete the cleaning and the SUP is contingent on this. Blake stated the cleaning would be done either by the owner or by the City and billed to the owner, and that this was a separate issue. , ) PUBLIC HEARING At this point the public hearing portion of the meeting was opened. There were no comments at the public hearing. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Peek suggested that a copy of the drawing be attached to the motion in order to identify the specific space involved in the SUP. Spotts and Ferris asked about signage for the business. Blake stated that a sign permit is pending. The Gardas stated that they intend to display one of their tables attached to the sign. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request of Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and Custom Woodworking to allow retail sales in an industrial district and also allow the display of merchandise on the site during business hours on the following described property: Lot 4, Block 1, Pankonin Addition, Anoka County Minnesota. The City may wish to impose ) . \ U ,- \ '0 Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 '\ Page -3- ./ conditions to the operation which would include: A. Retail Sales shall be limited to items associated with and/or constructed on the site; B. Outdoor display shall be conducted at least twenty (20) feet from the property line; C. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual review; D. The Special Use Permit shall be declared null and void if significant progress is not made within one year of approval of the Permit; E. The property must be cleaned of all tires and the nuisance fence must be removed prior to the issue of a Special Use Permit. , ) The Commission finds that the proposal will not have a significant detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the neighborhood; nor will the proposal negatively impact traffic or parking conditions, property values or scenic views. The proposal will not negatively impact the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Andover. A Public Hearing was held and no comment was received. The pencil sketch shall be labeled Exhibit A and be attached to the Motion and that the special use permit would only apply to the spaces listed as Manufacturing/Storage, retail area, office and bathroom. The Andover Building Inspector shall make a general inspection of the premises before the permit is issued. This recommendation shall go before the City Council at their regular meeting on May 15, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SKETCH PLAN The Commission reviewed the special use permit application for a planned unit development on the property located at Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of of Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. ) , , u , , o \ ,..J Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -4- Blake stated that there are really two parts to this request since the approval of the sketch plan hinges on the approval of the special use permit. This proposed development consists of approximately 40 acres in the northeast corner of the City. The area includes substantial wetland areas, which cover approximately 25% of the total area. The Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps. of Engineers have some control and jurisdiction over at least a portion of these wetlands. Blake stated that Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 governs the special use permit; Section 4.18 establishes criteria for the use of a planned unit development; and sketch plan requirements are outlined in Ordinance 10, Section 6. Blake also stated there had been some miscommunication between the City and the developer as to what was required in order to meet the criteria for a planned unit development, and that while the first sketch they reviewed was laid out as a planned unit development, the revised sketch (which is the one the developer is submitting) is 5-10% higher density than allowed and incorporates the wetlands into individual lots, rather , than as an open space area protected by covenants. It is ) Staff's opinion that the current plan does not necessitate a PUD design. Staff stated also that there are significant variances requested which include nine lot width variances ranging in size from 110 ft. to 290 ft., as well as ten lot size variances which range from 1.4 acres to 2.3 acres. Staff recommendation was to table the proposal for additional discussion, which would enable the developer to meet with personnel from the DNR and Army Corps of Engineers. KIRK CARSON, REPRESENTING HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. and ROGER HOKANSON, 15570 Potawatomi St. N.W. spoke at this time. Mr. Carson stated he would like the minutes of this meeting to reflect that they are upset. He stated they originally carne to the City with an 18 lot planned unit development that protected the wetlands, and that now they have reduced the project to 16 lots and Staff is stating that they do not meet the proper criteria. He also stated that the Army Corps of Engineers want a plat to know you are serious before they will work with you. ) Mr. Carson stated that they have spent a month and a half doing site revisions and sketch plan, which was meant to be an informal presentation and discussion with the developer u o Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes---April 24, 1990 Page -5- ) and the Planning Commission, and instead with the conditional use permit and the notifications thereof, it has turned into a public hearing. Mr. Carson stated that their purchase price was based on there being 18 lots available and now they are down to 16, and they feel they have lost the value of two lots. He stated that the two strips of land leading into the property are both in tax forfeiture and the City could condemn it to use for the road. Blake stated they only show the one piece in forfeiture at this time, and the City would most likely condemn both pieces as soon as they became available. Mr. Carson stated their opposition to tabling this request. He said that at least if it was denied, it would go before the City Council, rather than be stalled. PUBLIC HEARING RORY LARSON, 17432 Flintwood St., stated he felt his neighborhood was at risk. He asked why he wasn't notified of this public ) hearing and Blake advised him that only people located within / 350 feet of the property are notified. He stated his street runs into Butternut. He stated he thinks lots in that area should be five acres. He felt this development is too much density for this land. He asked Staff to indicate on the map where the easements were for roads. DAVE HAUPERT, 17379 Flitwood St., stated that his property joins the developer's property. He stated he can undcerstand why the developer did not want this to be a public hearing because it's a bad plan. He stated that some of the information the developer gave was misleading. He stated that this is very marginal land to develop. There are a few steep places and quite a bit of very low land with water standing sometimes year round. He urged the Commission to table the request. , ) JOHN O'NEIL, 901 Summer Place, Minneapolis, owns ten acres to the north of the property, up County Road 58. He stated the way it sits with the natural flowage, there isn't going to be much land forty feet from a cattail, and the DNR won't let you develop anything within forty feet of a cattail. He also questioned where the drainage was going to go. Haas stated there are very strict requirements the developer must adhere to and it will be the City's job to make sure the developer meets all of the criteria. O'Neil also stated that he knows a number of people in the area that live on a lot higher ground than this land who have problems with water in their basements. () \ V Regular Planning and Zoning Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -6- Meeting 1 ; DOUG ASPLEY, 17340 Flintwood St., stated there are several people who could not make it to the meeting tonight, including the person who owns the landlocked ten acres. But it is not a concern to him because he just has horses there.~ He stated his main concern is for the wetlands, and he does not think it will work to put that many houses there. He requested that the issue be tabled. MICHAEL O'NEIL, 156-177th Ave., states that he owns ten acres just north of the proposed development. He has lived there seven years through the dry spells and wet spells. He stated that he has seen this wetland as lakes. He spoke of all the wildlife that is on the property. He stated he has seen water waist-deep on the land they are proposing to put the road through. He stated he wanted to voice his opposition. He also stated that the road on the existing homestead is wet and sloppy much of the time, that it is wet and sloppy right now. The owner parks on 18 right now and walks up to his house. JOEL GODDIN, 17597 Flintwood St., stated that when he moved out to Andover it was his belief that the City cared about \ nature and how people can co-exist with nature. He doesn't feel ) these people have any concern about nature. He stated that Ducks Unlimited is trying to build up the duck population in this area. He does not think there is enough high ground for more than five homes. Carson stated the developers would be agreeable to putting in the road from the other edge of the development if people felt better about it. Haas reminded the Commission and developers that the Park Board must review this proposal also, and they may feel it appropriate to put a park in this area. MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to close the Public Hearing. Carried unanimously. Staff reviewed the aerial maps with the Commission. Blake stated that the special use permit requires approval, denial, or tabling and the sketch plan takes comments. Blake reviewed the five criteria regarding the ordinance as it pertains to planned unit developments. \ , J He does not feel the first criteria is met because instead of enhancing the unique nature of the land it is lost by incorporating wetlands into the individual lots. ( , \._) , " o ,) Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -7- The second criteria regarding the variances has not been met either, in the opinion of Staff. The third criteria does not apply to rural developments. The fourth criteria discusses the threat to property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of adjacent or surrounding lands. Pease expressed concern regarding the 39,000 ft of contiguous dry land for septic and water systems. Staff stated that the preliminary plat would need to meet the criteria of Ordinance 10. The fifth criteria addresses the unique nature as consideration for how the land is developed. There again, it is Staff's opinion that the uniqueness is not being protected under the proposed development. \ MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to recommend that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council denial of the special use permit to establish a planned unit development on that property described as the Southeast! of the Southeast! of Section 1, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota. In reviewing the criteria used in granting a special use permit, there are five criteria to be evaluated and the response to all five criteria must be affirmative before a special use permit can be granted. j In reviewing the criteria Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 all produce a negative response to this particular sketching drawing on this parcel of land. Specifically, that this parcel of land is not considered to be a planned unit development. It has no set-aside common property. It is felt to be below minimum requirements of 39,000 sq. ft. buildable site on at least one site. That the lot density would require 19 variances for front yard width and set back and for 2.5 acre minimum lot size. The number of variances exceeds the number of lots. That the response to Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 again are in a negative character. Item 3 is not a judgment characteristic in a rural area. A public hearing was held and there were six people for abutting areas that responded. The overall response by all six was that this plan would over-density the area and it did not set aside or have any provisions to preserve the wetland areas, and that it was a danger to the environment in that there was a certian flood plain set up here that would be disturbed by the processing of this parcel. -, ) I further recommend that this be presented to the City Council on May 15, 1990 meeting for their review. . '\ \._) \ o Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 ," Page -8- , / In discussing the motion, Ferris stated that even if the City Council were to approve this that the Met Council would have something to say about it, and they are saying that 2~ acres is too small. Ferris also stated that he felt the City would be making a serious mistake at this particular time in history to grant anything less than 2~ acres with the current review being done by Met Council and FHA. Pease commented that she is very concerned about the number of variances and the fact that no wetlands were set aside on the proposed planned unit development. The motion for denial was carried unanimously. Next, the Commission formalized comments on the sketch plan. Ferris commented that this is a very difficult piece of property to develop. He stated that nineteen variances on sixteen lots is way too many. He does not believe this is a smart area to do this or a feasible area to do this. He does not feel this land lends intself to high density. \ ) Spotts commented regarding items listed on the sheeting regarding University Extension and the southeast corner be redirected and somehow combine so that it doesn't take that big of a jog. Pease commented that the houses proposed on the peninsula area were a concern to her. Peek commented that the developer has the right to develop the area at no greater than 2.5 acres, and a lot of what was discussed tonight is speculation at this point. He does not think the developer should be bullied into five acre development. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that there appears to be an inadequacy within the existing PUD ordinance in that when variances are required that a special use permit has to be reviewed at the time of sketch plan. The inadequacy is that there is not enough detail or information available at the time of sketch plan to make substantial judgment in terms of the merit of the SUP with regards to the five provisions that exist in the ordinance today. It would be our recommendation that the City Council turn back to the Planning and Zoning Commission a request to review and consider rewriting the ordinance with regards to moving the SUP to occur at the time of preliminary plat, not at the time of sketch plan. It would \ also give a better representation between the City and developer I ~ / in that you are doing a single review at one time, not a double review at one time with the developer, specifically the double , , '--~ . \ V Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -9- '\ J review being the sketch plan and SUP. At that time it would make additional information available, such as wetland study, grading plans, etc. to which one could make a substantial judgment on an SUP. Motion carried unanimously. HOME OCCUPATIONS, ORDINANCE 8 AMENDED The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the amendment for Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, Section 4.30, Section 7.02, and Section 7.03. Blake stated that Section 3.02 redefines home occupations, Section 4.30 outlines regulations and standards for home occupations and allows for greater flexibility for home occupations in the rural areas of the City, and Sections 7.02 and 7.03 discusses accessory uses and home occupations using an accessory structure with exterior storage as allowed by SUP guidelines. :- ) After discussion, it was decided that under Section 4.30, Part B, item 1 to add the words "on site" after the wording limited to one person. Also, under item 8 to reword (a) to read "The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger". Pease brought up the question of garage sales as a home occupation if they are held frequently. Ferris stated that most cities that have a concern have an ordinance regarding garage sales specifically. Blake stated he did not feel garage sales were under the realm of home occupations and would need a separate ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING BARBARA SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked how daycare fits into this ordinace. Spotts stated it is covered under a separate ordinance. She asked about storage and accessory. Minutes from last meeting should read 800 sq. ft. combined square footage of the accessory structure and outside storage area. She questioned how the ordinance would affect existing structures. Ferris stated this ordinance places 800 sq. ft. in this ordinance and it will be up to future city councils if they want to change the ordinace, but this is a starting place. '- ) MARIS SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked if you can have more than one home occupation. Blake stated you could have more than one as long as you did not exceed the space limitations_of 800 sq. ft. He stated that he appreciated being allowed to have an accessory building on their property, and they are in the process of building one. , , ,--) - \ \J Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes--April 2~, 1990 \ Page -10- ) MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to close the public hearing. Carried unanimouosly. MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris that the Andover Planning and zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, Section 4.30, Section 7.02 and Section 7.03 as noted with the changes given to Staff. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council review and send back to the Planning and Zoning Commission a requirement to develop an ordinace which would restrict the frequency with which garage sales can occur in residential zones in the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously. PARKING LOT/CURBING REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSION - ) Blake stated that this is a complete redraft of this ordinance. He said that when the City Council referred this ordinance back to review curbing, other areas were discussed by Staff and Planning Commission regarding screening, berming, design, and etc. This is a start of a major revision to the parking section of Ordinance 8, Section 8.08. Blake stated he would like to start by looking at a combination of our ordinance and that of the City of Maple Grove, because he thinks they have a good ordinance. Peek stated he thought it would be a good idea to look at the whole Section 8.08. The Commission agreed to start looking at the whole ordinace as it applies to Section 8.08. Staff will have inforamtion available for the Commission to review at the next meeting. TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Blake stated that this request comes from the Andover Tree Inspector, Ray Sowada, who thinks our current ordinance is inadequate. Blake stated he feels Andover needs some language added for developers so that when they come in, we have guidelines for tree replacement. The Commission decided to table this item until the next regular meeting. Ray Sowada could not attend the meeting tonight. \ I '. J '\ , .J \ , ./ " , ) L) ..,j Regular Planning and zoning Meeting Minutes--April 24, 1990 Page -11- HOME AND BUSINESS ALARM SYSTEMS DISCUSSION The Commission discussed the Home and Business Alarm Ordinance. Pease and Blake stated that the Council expressed concern about requiring homeowners to register with the City. It was suggested that the wording concerning registering alarms and alarm installers be eliminated and refer it back to the City Council. The Commission requested Staff to do this for the first Council Meeting in June. OTHER BUSINESS Blake updated the Commission about several businesses that have good potential for moving to Andover's Commercial District. MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (!~ ~ ~ Cindy M. Nutter Recording Secretary