HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 11, 1981
o
o
o
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
l. Cornrn . #7-81-3
2. Cornrn. #7-81-5
3. Cornrn. #7-81-2
4. Cornrn. #8-80-12
o 0
~ 01 ANDOVER
o
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 11, 1981
7:30 P. M.
Thomas McCabe Variance
Good Value Homes Variance
Frank padula Rezoning public Hearing
Multiple Conversion Ordinance, Cont.
o
o 0
~ 01 ANDOVER
o
o
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 11, 1981
MINUTES
~;41
The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by
Chairperson d'Arcy Bosell at 7:32 P.M., Tuesday, August 11, 1981 at the Andover City Hall, 1685
Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Anoka, Minnesota.
Commissioners Present: Apel, Kishel, Anstett, Johnson, Lobb
Commissioners Absent: Scherer
Also Present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; Thomas McCabe; Jim Adams, Good Value Homes;
Frank Padula; interested residents
Approval of Minutes
July 28, 1981
Page 2, 1st sentence, change "was" to ..were......
MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Anstett to approve the minutes of July 28, 1981 as corrected.
Motion carried unanimously.
Thomas McCabe Variance (Comm. #7-81-3)
Thomas McCabe, 2732 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W. - stated that he needs a variance for a porch on
the front of his house as it is too close to the property line. He noted that the house is
approximately 44 feet from the lot line and it should be 50 feet. The porch is an open air porch
and it improves the appearance of the house.
Commissioner Kishel asked Mr. McCabe if he has a building permit for the porch. Mr. McCabe
noted that he does.
MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Lobb that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
to the City Council approval of the variance requested by Thomas McCabe, 2732 Bunker Lake
Boulevard N.W., to build a 6'x16' porch on the front side of his house. This is a variance to
the front yard setback, pursuant to Ordinance 8, Sections 6.02 and 5.04. Reasons for approval
are: 1) A hardship is created due to the existing building being too close to the road and
set up being such before the zoning ordinance came into effect; 2) This will improve the
appearance of the home, protecting the northern exposure of the door; 3) Although it's not
necessary to the reasonable use of the land, it fits well with the lay of the land. There is
a tree in front of the porch which makes it more natural.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Lobb, that the porch is already contructed and would
cause a hardship to the owner to deny the variance. Carried unanimously.
Vote on Motion: Yes - Apel, Kishel, Anstett, Johnson, Lobb. Carried unanimously. This will go
to the City Council on September 1, 1981.
Good Value Homes Variance (Comm. #7-81-5)
Chairperson Bosell noted that there are two variances being requested by Good Value Homes
one dealing with the lot lines and the other with the front yard setback. The Commission will
first deal with the lot line variance.
~ Adams, 10603 Quincy Boulevard, Blaine, representing Good Value - stated that when this twin
home was being built, the right hand corner stake was picked up rather than the center stake,
putting the home in the wrong location. Therefore a variance is required to change the lot lines.
Planning and Zoning C~ission' ~eting
August 11, 1981 - Minl-1s ~
Page 2
o
o
Good Value Variance, Cont.
(~issioner Anstett asked if the house had been sold. Mr. Adams stated that one half is sold;
!!u~ever, it still actually belongs to Good Value. The buyer is aware of the situation.
Chairperson Bosell noted that the three lots all meet the 7,000 square foot requirement.
MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Lobb that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to
the City Council approval of the variance requested by Good Value Homes, pursuant to Ordinance
10, Sections 8.02(e) and 17.01, for the replatting of Lots 30, 31 and 32, Block 6 of Northglen
for the purpose of accommodating a twin home that was improperly placed on Lots 31 and ~~lock
6. The replatting of a portion of Lot 30 is necessary to accommodate the 10 foot side yard set
back and the replatting of Lots 31 and 32 is necessary so as to provide the twin home with a ~.
common lot line, which is a zero lot line. Reasons for approval are: 1) The home is already n ~
constructed and denial of the variance would create an extreme hardship on the property owner;g-~J-
2) It will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of adjacent land; 3) It is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; 4) It is necessary to the reasonable use of the land.
Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on September 1, 1981.
Good Value Homes Variance (Comm. #8-81-2D
Jim Adams, representing Good Value Homes - stated that the front yard setback on the twin-home
on Lots 31 and 32, Block 6, is 24.9 feet and should be 30 feet. Therefore a variance is re-
quired.
MOTION by Apel, seconded by Johnson, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the
City Council approval of a variance requested by Good Value Homes, pursuant to Ordinance 8,
Sections 6.02 and 5.04, for the property located at 3469 - 138th Court N.W., as the front yard
setback is only 24.9 feet. Reasons for approval are: 1) Denial would cause an extreme hard-
ship on the applicant; 2) It does not adversely affect any of the adjoining property and would
not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the community; 3) It is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Johnson that the variance be approved as the
structure is already in place; therefore it's causing the hardship. Carried unanimously.
Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on September 1, 1981.
Frank Padula Rezoning Public Hearing (Comm. #7-81-2)
Chairperson Bosell opened the public hearing.
Frank Padula, 4550 - 173rd Avenue N.W. - explained that he would like to rezone 15 acres on
173rd & 7th Avenues to General Recreation for the purpose of building a restaurant and petting
farm.
Chairperson Bosell asked if there are any changes from the previous rezoning application other
than the amount of land involved.
Mr. Padula stated no; more parcels have been added which leaves 10 acres as a buffer zone
between the property where the restaurant will go and Grow Oak View Estates.
~issioner Anstett asked Mr. padula to explain what the petting farm will be. Mr. padula
bL&ted that he wants to keep the area rural so he added five acres on which he will put a
little farm. He noted that south of his property an ice arena is being built; north and west
of this property a regional park is being developed. He also noted that the people from the
restaurant will be taken to the farm in a horse drawn cart.
Planning and Zoning C(' }Ssion'--'eting
August 11, 1981 - MindL~s ~
Page 3
o
o
Frank Padula Rezoning, Cont.
..- 't Larson, 17170 Navajo Street N.W. - stated that Ordinance 8, Section 5.02(F) reads "No
ipplication for rezoning which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a
period of one year from the date of said order or denial." He asked why this is on the agenda
so soon after the previous rezoning request was denied.
Chairperson Bosell stated that the City Attorney noted this is legal as it's a different zoning.
At this time, the Commission has to deal with it in its present form.
Mr. Larson - stated that he has an opinion from another attorney saying that it is not legal.
Marge Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street N.W. - "As members of the Northwest Andover Homeowners'
Association, we are opposed to this rezoning request which would place a commercial business
establishment in the midst of our rural residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan, which
has been designed for the City of Andover, suggests that of primary importance is a development
of sense of continuity and focus for each neighborhood. Our neighborhood already has that sense
of focus. It is seen in the wildlife habitats which are maintained, the natural amenity of the
Rum River and the recreational opportunities available. We chose to build our homes and raise
our families in the neighborhood because we value the atmosphere provided by these natural
attractions. We have a right to expect that development be compatible with and ensure the
protection of these amenities. Our area also provides recreational activity for the many
bicyclists, joggers, hikers and canoeists who come from other parts of Andover and surrounding
communities. They, too, have a right to expect that every effort will be made to insure the
protection of those opportunities. The rezoning request being heard tonight is for a regional
type business of a much higher indensity than the planned development of this portion of Andover.
It is not compatible and should be denied. Finally, we again see this application as an
individual effort to gain a private profit at the expense of our neighborhood. Thank you."
Chairperson Bosell asked Mrs. Perry if the wildlife habitats and natural amenities she referred
to are on Mr. padula's property.
Mrs. Perry - stated that part of the property is used for wildlife. It's very obvious if you
drive along County Road 7 that there is real danger to the wildlife from increased traffic.
This type of establishment will increase traffic and cause greater harm to the wildlife that is
there. She noted that eleven deer have been killed south of the proposed site. That is with
the normal amount of traffic.
Chairperson Bosell asked Mrs. Perry again if the wildlife
Perry thought it was on several of the properties there.
neighborhood make an effort to establish habitats for the
is on Mr.
She noted
wildlife.
Padula's property. Mrs.
that the people in the
Gary Larson - noted that he owns Lots 2 and 3 of Grow Oak View Estates. Feels that this
development is encroaching on his property rights and the wildlife in the area.
Frank Padula - stated that next to Mr. Larson's property is a 10 acre parcel that will be a
buffer area. This property is zoned R-2 and homes could be built on it, but Mr. Padula prefers
to keep it rural.
Mike Knight, 4622 - 175th Avenue N.W. - noted that the 10 acres Mr. Padula is referring to has
a house on it that is rented out and the rest of the property is basically a swamp. He also
noted that his name was not included on the application as a property owner.
/ ., . . k
. art Prot~v~ns y,
denied the previous
Comprehensive Plan.
17325 Navajo Street N.W. - reminded the Commission that the City Council
rezoning request and one of the reasons was that it was contrary to the
Planning and Zoning Cr'.jisSiorr--~eting
August 11, 1981 - Mirr~s ~
Page 4
o
u
Padula Rezoning, Cont.
(- "'cussion was on the pond Mr. Padula proposes by the petting farm. Bruce Perry, 17337 Roanoke
\~lt that Mr. Padula should contact the DNR for their permission. Commissioner Kishel didn't
feel that the DNR gets involved with anything that isn't designated wetlands. Robert Protivinsky
noted that he called the DNR to see if he could dig out some land between his house and the
river and was told he could not. Chairperson Bosell thought that was because it was along the
river. Tyrone Mills, 17340 Roanoke stated that Mr. Padula would have to get permission from
Ernie Peterson because he has a swamp that connects with Mr. Padula's.
Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo Street N.W. - stated that before the rezoning is granted, the
Commission should look at the impact it will have on the area. He noted that the ordinances
were established to protect the neighborhood rights. He further noted that his neighborhood
is greatly opposed to this rezoning. He didn't think the Commission could continue to ignore
the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Bosell asked Mr. Wandersee which sections of the Comprehensive Plan this rezoning
is contrary to. Mr. Wandersee noted the following sections: Page 52, General Principles;
Page 53, Items 12, 13, 16 and 17; Page 54, Item #24; Page 55 regarding low density residential
neighborhoods; Page 57 regarding commercial development. Mr. Wandersee asked how this rezoning
is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Bosell noted that the Plan talks about development in the Northwest area in the
1980's. She questioned if we want to remain a bedroom community like Fridley. She also noted
the Coon Rapids has a development line; Andover does not.
Mr. Padula noted that the Comprehensive Plan is just a guideline. He stated that we will never
have anything in the city if we don't amend the plan; we have to have zoning changes.
Mike Knight felt that the public is at a disadvantage. The way this operates, Mr. Padula can
come back every time he is rejected with a different rezoning. He also noted that Page 159
of the Comprehensive Plan says that commercial and industrial development should be located in
the sewered area. Prior to any commercial development, demand will have to be documented.
Chairperson Bosell stated that basically Mr. Knight is talking about a feasibility study. Mr.
Knight didn't think that documented demand and a feasibility study are the same thing. He
noted that Mr. Padula's goal is not to serve only Andover but the whole Metropolitan area.
Recess: 9:00 - Reconvene 9:16.
Commissioner Johnson asked what R48-81 refers to in the City Council minutes in regard to the
previous rezoning request. Chairperson Bosell noted that it is the number of the resolution
adopted by the City Council regarding this request. The secretary was asked to make copies
of the resolution.
Chairperson Bosell stated that Page 42 of the Comprehensive Plan says it should serve as a
reference for planning and decision-making. The Comprehensive Plan is only a reference and not
a law. Page 155 says that the plan will be changed to reflect changes that should be occurring
in the city.
MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Lobb to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Bosell noted that Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 gives the provisions of General
~~reation; section 5.02 deals with rezonings; 6.02 says he has to have 20,000 square feet of
lw{d, the lot width has to be 120 feet; Section 7.01 under permitted uses for General Recreation
allows for cafes and restaurants; Under 7.03, taverns.are listed as a secondary use of the
property.
~ ,
Pl' d . (). O.
ann~ng an Zon~ng C~ss~on 't~ng
August 11, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
o
u
Padula Rezoning, Cont.
,- ,
c__lnissioner Apel noted that Ordinance 8, Section 5.02 does not give specific criteria for
denial or approval. Unless something is specifically prohibited, it's hard for an advisory
body to say no. He felt that a person should be able to do what he wants with his property as
long as it's not illegal.
Commissioner Anstett asked if the petting farm is considered an accessory use.
noted that the Commission is dealing with a rezoning, not with what is going to
She also noted that agricultural uses are allowed in any district.
Chairperson Bosell
be put there.
MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Lobb that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to
the City Council approval of a request by Frank Padula to rezone the following described property
from R-2 to General Recreation: Tract A: That part of the Northwest i of the Northwest i of
Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at
a point on the West line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i a distance of 660 feet North of
the Southwest corner of said Northwest i of the Northwest i as measured along said West line;
thence East and parallel with the South line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i a distance
of 495 feet; thence North and parallel with said West line a distance of 200 feet; thence West
and parallel with said South line a distance of 147.09 feet; thence North and parallel with said
West line a distance of 451.21 feet to the North line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i;
thence West along said North line a distance of 347.91 feet, more or less, to the Northwest
corner of said Northwest i of the Northwest i; thence South along the West line of said Northwest
i of the Northwest i a distance of 651.28 feet, more or less, to the Point of Commencement.
Containing 5 acres, more or less, not including roads. Subject to easements for road purposes
over the West 33 feet thereof and over all that part thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn
parallel with and 33 feet Southerly of the centerline, 173rd Avenue as now laid out and construct-
ed. Tract B: That part of the Northwest i of the Northwest i of Section 7, Township 3~, Range
24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said
Northwest i of the Northwest i a distance of 530 feet North of the Southwest corner of said
Northwest i of the Northwest i as measured along said West line; thence East and parallel with the
South line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i a distance of 495.0 feet to the actual point
of beginning of the tract of land to be hereby described; thence continuing East and parallel
with said South line a distance of 239.91 feet; thence North and parallel with said west line a
distance of 450 feet; thence West and parallel with said South line a distance of 57.0 feet;
thence North and parallel with said West line a distance of 331.15 feet, more or less, to the
North line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i; thence West along said North line a distance
of 330 feet; thence South and parallel with said west line a distance of 451.21 feet, more or
less, to a point distant 860 feet North from the South line of said Northwest i of the Northwest
i as measured along a line drawn parallel with the West line of said Northwest i of the Northwest
i; thence East and parallel with said South line a distance of 147.09 feet; thence South and
parallel with said West line a distance of 330 feet to the actual Point of Beginning. (Containing
5 acres, not including road). Subject to an easement for road purposes over all that part
thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet Southerly of the centerline
of 173rd Avenue as now laid out and constructed. Tract C: That part of the Northwest i of the
Northwest i of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the West line of said Northwest i of the Northwest i a distance of
530 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Northwest i of the Northwest i as measured
along said West line; thence East and parallel with the South line of said Northwest i of the
Northwest i a distance of 734.91 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to
be hereby described; thence North and parallel with said West line a distance of 450 feet; thence
West and parallel with said South line a distance of 57 feet; thence North and parallel with
'--'d West line a distance of 331.15 feet, more or less, to the North line of said Northwest i
~_)the Northwest i; thence Easterly along said North line a distance of 330 feet, more or less,
to a point distant 463.46 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Northwest i of the Northwest
i as measured along said North line; thence deflecting to the right 89 degrees, 34 minutes for
a distance of 781.10 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with
said South line from the actual Point of Beginning; thence West and parallel with said South
Planning and Zoning c(){~ ssiori- \eting
. '-.,/
August 11, 1981 - M~nutes
Page 6
r"
\.-)
u
padula Rezoning, Cont.
,,.- "'"
. \
,-_~e a distance of 281.34 feet, more or less, to the actual Point of Beginning. (Containing
5.0 acres, not including road) Subject to an easement for road purposes over all that part
thereof lying Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet Southerly of the centerline
of 173rd Avenue as now laid out and constructed.
It should be noted that a public hearing was held and considerable neighborhood opposition was
voiced. The following reasons are cited for the recommended approval: 1) He meets all the
basic criteria for the proposed rezoning as far as land area, setbacks and other requirements
set out in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02; 2) The proposed rezoning would help preserve the rural
area inasmuch as the land contains approximately 15 acres; 3) The traffic pattern seems to fit
in with the area inasmuch as County State Aid Highway #7 is one of the major arterial north-south
roads in the City; 4) The site is adjacent to a well traveled thoroughfare and is in keeping
with the Comprehensive Plan because part of it is the total overall development of the city;
5) He has properly applied for the rezoning and submitted a sketch plan; 6) It is in conformance
with Ordinance 8, Sections 5.02, 6.01, 7.01 and 7.03.
Discussion: Commissioner Apel noted that County Road 7 will be receiving a lot of traffic as
the regional park to the north is developed and the ice arena to the south is built. Whether
or not Mr. Padula puts his restaurant there, the traffic will increase.
Vote on Motion: Yes - Bosell, Kishel, Apel, Lobb; No - Johnson, Anstett. (Commissioner Johnson
stated that the proposed use is inconsistent with the current rural use. The proposed rezoning
is not in keeping with the intent and purpose of Ordinance 8, Section 2, protecting and guiding
the development of rural areas. He felt that putting this restaurant in that area may be a
violation of the General Recreation zoning district.) (Commissioner Anstett concurred with
Commissioner Johnson and expressed a concern over the attorney's interpretation regarding
application for rezoning within the same year.) Motion carried on a 4 yes, 2 no vote. This
will go to the City Council on September 1, 1981.
Multiple Conversion Ordinance (Comm. #8-80-12)
Commissioner Apel presented the commission with a draft of a multiple conversion ordinance. He
noted that what the commission is talking about falls into two categories: Conversions without
common elements and conversions with common elements. Once having converted, you would be
dealing with two separate units. We would probably only have to amend Section 4.18 of Ordinance
8. He felt that under definitions we might add what a multiple conversion is. We already
have enough information in Ordinance under Planned Unit Developments so we don't need another
ordinance.
Chairperson Bosell noted that our ordinance does not require multiples to have two wells and
two sewer stubs.
Commissioner Apel noted that people are more likely to come through the city to convert their
buildings rather than use the Uniform Condominium Act.
Chairperson Bosell felt that the first
put in the ordinance as a definition.
renters can become owners.
sentence under the proposed 4.19A should be taken out and
Commissioner Johnson felt that it should read that
The secretary will type the draft ordinance and send it to the City Attorney asking him for
,v-, comments/suggestions prior to the August 25th meeting.
'--/
MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Johnson to adjourn. Carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
10:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
a'/dJ
Vicki Volk, Commission Secretary