Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/030 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 27, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 a.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes May 13, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -03) Continuing discussion regarding modification of Ordinance 106 Boulevard Encroachments. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -05) amending Special Use Permit (01 -05) for Nature's Run to add a new floor plan design with additional finished square footage. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split (02 -12) to create a new rural residential property at 17680 Arrowhead Street NW for Donald and Valerie Holthus, 6. PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -06) to allow outdoor storage and retail sales at 3160 162 Lane NW. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -04) to modify Ordinance 8, Section 4.04 Lot Provisions. 8. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -05) to modify Ordinance 8, Section 8.23 Residential Building Standards. CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304• (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - May 13, 2003 DATE: May 27, 2003 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2003 meeting. CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. - ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 - (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MAY 13, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairpersonbaninger on May 13, 2003 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 22, 2002 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present; 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -03) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 106 BOULEVARD ENCROACHMENTS. Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Boulevard Use ordinance to ensure permanent encroachments and improvements shall remain outside of the boulevard as defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Mr. McKay stated currently, Section 3, b. of the Boulevard Use ordinance allows encroachments beyond the property lines, and clearly within the Boulevard. The distance from the road curb to the property line is typically at least thirteen and a half feet of the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban areas or sixteen and a half feet to twenty -one feet of the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in rural areas. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 27, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on May 27, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. May 13,2002'3; Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLICHEARING: ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (03 -03) CONTINUING DISCUSSION REGARDING MODIFICATION OF ORDINANCE 106 BOULEVARD ENCROACHMENT. Mr. D. Tyler McKay explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission was previously asked to consider updating the Boulevard Use ordinance to ensure permanent encroachments and improvements shall remain outside of the boulevard as defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Upon further review with the public works and engineering departments, staff has concluded that the current ordinance is sufficient. Staff will continue to track complaints and if there are reasons to be more restrictive, this item may be brought back for consideration at a future date. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to open the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 2 There was no public input. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (03 -05) AMENDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT (01 -05) FOR NATURE'S RUN TO ADD A NEW FLOOR PLANDESIGN WITHADDITIONAL FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant has proposed a new floor plan for the Nature's Run Project. The floor plans were initially reviewed and approved as a part of Special Use Permit (01 -05) which established the planned unit development of Nature's Run. The new floor plan will need to be reviewed and approved with this amended special use permit. 00 0 Mr. Bednarz explained the new floor plan adds an additional edroom and additional square footage to both the main and lower levels. The propo ed floor plan will fit within the lot box that was approved for the development and will t encroach into the 30 foot building setback between the rear of the buildings that required as a part of the initial special use permit. exis mg e. Mr. Bednarz stated the proposal offers another set of options for buyers to choose from. This option increases the square footage of the units and continues to offer all of the amenities available for the other unit types. The distance between the back of the buildings will be able to meet the minimum of 30 feet established with the initial PUD. Staff recommends in favor of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the square footage change was. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not sure he had an exact number to give but it would be approximately 200 to 250 square feet. Commissioner Gamache asked if the design of the building would be the same as the three already constructed. Mr. Bednarz stated the same bw t4e -bt difference would be s o 4--ea '' ' `L ` L M @! G k d `ke fnE) LTfr [Q�S L'LT[2Q 2 xoeax v flRa [[IO SIIv eimrrges C.JLY T #r hDDi77#. �irlrf/f�'D S 4v� �oGTx fo A-ION rov 5 rcw i A04C of-- Yw Commissioner Greenwald stated they could go with the original deck and the PW I rj.. Commission would be giving them a special use permit for the option to sell with the changes indicated. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Commissioner Vatne asked if they had a clear view of the fourth structure that will be sold. Mr. Bednarz stated the proposed plans are illustrated with the proposed changes. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 3 IA Commissioner Greenwald asked how m y units were proposed for Nature's Run. Mr. Bednarz stated he believed there were units total. Commissioner Greenwald asked how many units were already up. Mr. Bednarz stated there were three -nits up so far. Br i lOu✓p• S Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed special use permit amendment. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0- nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 17, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02 -12) TO CREATE A NEW R URAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTYAT 17680 ARROWHEAD STREET NW FOR DONALD AND VALERIEHOLTHUS. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval to divide the subject property into two single - family rural residential lots. Mr. Bednarz discussed the drawings in the staff report with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greenwood asked if they were voting for two items, the lot split and the variance. Mr. Bednarz stated they were voting for the lot split only. f vLT Commissioner Jasper asked if the 150 by 150 box cou/beac ved by moving the line on the m ap. Mr. Bednarz stated they have taken a lonis and the difficulty - would be they would still need to provide the 300 feet h for Parcel A at the front building setback, which is forty feet into the situ that goes up _4nsC achieve the three hundred feet and then jogs to the south and west. Commissioner Jasper stated when the line jogs and turns to the south, if the line were moved, they would have the 150 feet across the front off the north end. Mr. Bednarz showed the map and they discussed the reason why the line was where it was. Commissioner Gamache asked how close they were to the 150 feet on the second lot to make the 150 by 150 pad. Mr. Bednarz stated the dimension is 112.7. Commissioner Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 ' L4 All l�rWi64� Page 4 0Fto P � p ' z' Gamache asked if they could move the line ten feet to�lne ninety percent Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated if the change to the ordinance is approved, tha Abe an option. Discussion ensued in regards to moving the property line to make both lots to conform. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to take a two- minute recess for verification of measurements at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. 7 DQ , wo Al roVIF A417 Mr. Bednarz stated did not spend enough time looking at the survey when it came in FaoatCi✓E late in the day and / ' He explained on the map where the property 2�08'O line was and stated the i form tion the packet was b ter th t he just J / received. He stated the '� G the same � A ho is �%W le but the 150 �/I,l to riv by 150 is not so to go back to Commissioner Jaspers point that was the reason for the Q�D� significant jog in the property line was to get to the three hundred feet. W 40r Won,( Discussion continued with moving the property line for conformance. / Mr. Bednarz stated the survey the Commission has is the - nt@st4o4oG4*s whrisivVir *- Pyr-V proposed. Ail p era;F j' V , Commissioner Vatne asked if the 150 by 150 feet was an ideal dimension and what was the intent back when it was established. Mr. Bednarz stated the intent was to allow enough area for a home to be constructed as well as additional area for other usable space on the property. The Commission discussed whether there needed to be an addition to the Ordinance or another Ordinance for allowing lot splits that are not even. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. approving the proposed lot split and variance with #FW O�s�s Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Vatne stated Mr. Bednarz indicated there was past precedence on approving a variance like this, the buildable area, this is the defining item for him. He stated if they have past precedence on varying from this, it holds a fair amount of weight but they should go back and entertain the potential change to the 150 foot square, similar to what they did with the lot sizing. He stated he is in favor of this because there is past precedence with the variance. Commissioner Greenwald stated he based the motion on the wetland is proposing the hardship. Chairperson Daninger stated he believed there are changes coming and that is why he will be voting against this because as they grow, these will present opportunities for the City to reexamine some of the Ordinances to look at them closer. Commissioner Greenwald asked if he was voting against this because there was not an Ordinance to cover this right now. Chairperson Daninger stated he believed there was not a hardship to support this at this time even though there was some past precedence. He stated he was not comfortable with having to take a break, re -look at it, having cote- survey come in at 4:00 and based upon that he did not want to approve this. Commissioner Jasper stated he is not convinced with the information they have that this cannot be made conforming and the late submission of the drawing, he was not sure which drawing they were working with. He stated it needs to be readdressed and he does not think the lot split was a bad idea; it just needed to be looked at and done-properly. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 2 -nays (Jasper, Daninger), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 17, 20( City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (03 -06) TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND RETAIL SALES AT 3160162ND LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the applicant has opened a landscape nursery. Due to the fact that the property is zoned Limited Industrial (I), a special use permit is needed for outdoor storage and retail sales. Mr. Bednarz stated the applicant has provided a rudimentary site plan. He discussed the staff report with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if a business wants to come into the City, there are certain things they have to have no matter what type of a business. Mr. Bednarz stated that when changes are made to the property, the new tenant or owner is required to bring the site into conformance. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -May 27, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if ywould need a permit to do business in the City. Mr. Bednarz stated it depended on the circumstance, typically if it is an existing building, the building inspector and fire chief will inspect the building and determine whether or. not i meets all the codes and work with the applicant on this. F 1 7' 1 A'It! Discussion ensued in regards to the applicant operating a business without a permit and X'4 6 ✓Av� not following regulations. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the business could operate as is without retail. Mr. Bednarz stated that portion would be fine but the building could not be used because —iI' Z%� there is not any running water or bathrooms. Ate // �L�'r vnti Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 0- Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. F�f'5 Mr. Archie Zahler, 3160 Lane NW, stated he could address most of the questions _ by the Commission. He showed pictures to the Commission on how they beautified the area by having this landscape business in the area. Mr. Zahler explained he did not think they have done anything wrong. There was a letter to the City that they were opening their business as a wholesale business, which is allowed and after they were opened for a while, they had comments from residents that they should have a retail area. What they have found is that in the inner areas of Round Lake Boulevard, they are helping to keep the traffic out. He stated that without City water and sewer on the property, the land is worthless. He stated they did make a parking lot and there is a drainage area outside of their entrance gate. He stated the building is a permanent building and to this day, no one has informed him of any building or fire deficiencies or else he would have addressed them. Commissioner Jasper asked Mr. Zahler if he saw the staff report. Mr. Zahler stated he did but not until late. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not care about what happened in the past but he was wondering if the building met fire and building requirements. Mr. Zahler stated he did not know what issues the City had with the building. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was a proper commercial refuse container on the property. Mr. Zahler's stated he did not have one but there was not any garbage on the property. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he noticed a port-a -potty on site and he wondered if this was for customer use. Mr. Zahler stated this was correct because at this time there was not a well on the property and he did not install a well yet but he would in the future. Commissioner Vatne asked when Mr. Zahler purchased the property, did he understand this was limited 7 ". Mr. Zahler stated he did. 1 v D u T-M A( Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 0� Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 7 1W Chairperson Daninger asked if Mrzz� is a wholesale or retail / Mr. Zahler stated he is both and he knows he is obviously in violation of the law. Chairperson Daninger asked what date he is planning on putting blacktop on the parking lot. Mr. Zahler asked if this was mandatory. Chairperson Daninger stated it was a part of issuing a permit. Mr. Bednarz stated it was a requirement for operating the business to have parking lot - Mr. Zahler stated he could get the parking lot paved within thirty days. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. O[ 4DV 77 fv lfre,�brp ,�Q Discussion ensued in egards to the applicant operating a business without a permit and CV how he has not p the rules and the Commissions concerns for other landscaping ?:>On/E Fog( businesses operating in Andover, who follow the rules and may feel if the Special Use f4 OO � Permit is approved, would be unfair. 5 Commissioner Kirchoff stated when they see a conditional use permit, they usually see a d [ site plan and the Commission has not seen a site plan for this so he thought this may be an incomplete site plan. If f r f."o / G Chairperson Daninger stated he was g�irto deny the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Casey stated he agreed. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would like to see a site plan before making a decision. Commissioner Gamache stated he would recommend passing this onto the City Council for approval if all the criteria are met. Commissioner Greenwald stated he is against starting a business without prior approval. Commissioner Gamache stated he is not agreeing with what the applicant has done but it is the right thing for the land. Commissioner Vatne asked as far as the process, does the City have any set standard that is required for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Bednarz stated they did. Commissioner Vatne asked if it was presented to the applicant and when. Mr. Bednarz stated it was given to the applicant when he visited the property. Commissioner Vatne stated he could vote either for or against. Commissioner Jasper stated there were two ways they could make the motion. One was to approve it with the conditions and the second would be to deny this. He thought he would deny this because the applicant in the past has not followed the rules. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council denying the special use permit to allow outdoor storage and retail sales. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, I -nays ( Gamache), 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Zahler stated in the staff report, there is a letter addressing exactly what they are saying he has done, which he has not done that and if they read the zoning for the industrial park, outside storage and wholesale is allowed. He has in fact done things in a manner that they should be done. Mr. Bednarz stated outdoor storage does require a special use permit. Mr. Bednarz'stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 17, 20acity Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -04) TO MODEIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.04 LOT PROVISIONS. Mr. McKay explained the Planning Commission is asked to consider updating the Lot Provision section of ordinance 8. This change would allow a resident who is building a home on their lot to remain in an existing home until the new home is constructed. Mr. McKay discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vatne asked for a clarification on page three under the 4.04 lot provisions; he asked if this would apply to both urban and rural. Mr. McKay stated it would. Commissioner Jasper stated his only concern with the amendment was it did not give a maximum time for both buildings to exist. The Andover Building Official, stated they had a year to get the exterior siding and grading done but so long as they do inspections on it and get permits every 180 days, they can continue on indefinitely but most of the time they are done in 180 days. Commissioner Jasper stated it seemed to him that this should be amended to put an outside limit on it. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Building Department had any recommendations for them. Mr. Dave Almgren stated they have given previous applicants thirty days after the certificate of occupancy on the new house is built to have the old house demolished. Commissioner Gamache asked in the City of Andover, with a reputable construction company putting up a house, what is the outside limit on putting up a house. Mr. Almgren stated normally it would be 120 days. Commissioner Jasper asked what the outside limit on this would be. Mr. Almgren stated it would be 140 to 160 days. Commissioner Greenwald asked what Ordinance states they need to have the old house down within thirty days after completion of the new house. Mr. Almgren stated it is on a recommendation by the City Council in prior years. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 9 Discussion continued in regards to the time limit that should be put on allowing two main structures to remain standing after the new house is completed. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0- nays,, 0-absent vote ov Commissioner Vatne ted in vious discussions they have had, he likes the idea of preventing someonez stretc wilding a house to two to three years and he would like to see it done in an expedited way. Commissioner Jasper stated there should be a sentence added reading "The new principal building must be completed within twelve months of the issuance of the building permit and the old principal building must be removed or demolished within thirty days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy." Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed lot split and variance adding wording to the Ordinance. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. 3 Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 17, 2001 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -05) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8.23 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS. Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained the Planning Commission is asked to consider updating the Residential Building Standards section of Ordinance 8. This change would allow residents to construct four- season porches with a permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of fifty percent of the footprint the h habitable portion of the principle structure. � Ay pl►�C 20 ^ •�• Arr r> Mr. McKay tated the City of Andover has been receiving 2 . O _._-. inquiries-in increasing the maximum coverage of four- season porches from twenty percent to fifty percent of the habitable portion of the principal structure. City Building officials have looked at these requests and have come to the conclusion that increasing the maximum coverage would not be a detriment to the health and welfare of the community and would not have a negative impact on property values. The current ordinance has been found to be too restrictive of the property owner's use of their land. In addition, this change to the ordinance would allow for residents to increase the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 10 aesthetic and financial value of their properties while still requiring the majority of the home to have permanent concrete or treated wood foundation to anchor the structure. Mr. McKay discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gamache asked how they compared to other cities. Mr. McKay stated he was not sure and that he has not checked into it. Mr. Almgren, Building Official, stated the Ordinance came into effect in the early 80's when the State came out and said that all the lots in the city must afford manufactured housing. Therefore, all the cities went together and created the Ordinance. He stated he believed a lot of the cities have modified this or abandoned this Ordinance. He stated the City felt the twenty percent for a four -season porch was too restrictive because people have been coming in wantre irt� larger porches. l Commissioner Vatne asked if it grew to be more than fifty percent, where would the concern start to be around foundation size relative to that size of a porch. Mr. Almgren stated the reason they stopped at the fifty percent was to still keep the harmony of what the City Council wanted as having the intent of having a complete foundation around most of the principal structure. He stated that if they went into the building code, he did not think there was anything that would restrict them from i1-t putting a total structure on posts. /N Discussion ensued in regards to allowing fifty percent of the entire footprint for porches and what the requirements for this would be. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Gamache stated the Building Official is saying this is an accepted practice but he would like to see what are surrounding or like communities doing with something like this. Chairperson Daninger stated the Building Official did not believe the other communities had this ordinance anymore. Commissioner Jasper stated he would rather see what the other cities have. Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to table this item for more information. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 11 OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there will not be a meeting on June 10, 2003. V Mr. Bednarz stated the an open house for residential development1It was fairly well attended. Iwe vol , Chairperson Daninger s�ed there will be a meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the lementary gymnasium f� i the Community Center. / ADJOURNMENT. 5 Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 2 Mr. McKay noted staff would still like to allow specimen trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area and outside of eight feet from the back of the curb or edge of the pavement in urban or rural area to remain if possible. They would also continue to reserve the right to require removal of any existing tree within the boulevard area if it is deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. Also, temporary improvements such as mailboxes and sprinkler systems would be allowed, again, as long as they are not deemed a hazard to either residents or City staff. Mr. McKay stated given the above concerns, staff believes to reduce the number of residential complaints regarding Boulevard use and enhance the aesthetic aspects of completed residential subdivisions, that Ordinance No. 106 be amended to require any permanent improvements and encroachments to be outside of the boulevard area, defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if structures in the areas now would be grandfathered in. Mr. McKay stated this was not the intent. The intent was to enforce removal of these items that were a safety hazard within the boulevard. Commissioner Vatne stated on the staff report it states in Section lE it states "trees existing prior to construction in the boulevard area" so everything existing on the boulevard before construction would take place would be ok but everything else after 4D would be a candidate for removal. Mr. McKay stated if there is something that is considered landscape, would be reviewed on a case by case basis. Commission Gamache asked if they were considering a brick mailbox a temporary or permanent structure and would they be able to go to the resident with concerns. Mr. McKay stated it would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis but it would be considered a permanent improvement. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the resident complaints were extraordinary to get the Commission to review the Ordinance. Mr. McKay stated there was one complaint every couple of weeks. Commissioner Greenwald asked for information on City Ordinance 8. Mr. McKay reviewed the Ordinance with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the complaints were because of site or because of aesthetics. Mr. McKay stated he believed it was because of site than aesthetics. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would like to know how many complaints were because of site. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 3 . Chairperson Daninger stated the Ordinance was the safety issue of site but he did not know if staff could narrow down the complaints. Mr. McKay stated the site triangle only refers to corner lots and it does not include a person coming out of a driveway and not being able to see. Commissioner Greenwald stated his concern was they were updating the wrong Ordinance. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought staff was referring to a safety issue and a property damage issue. Commissioner Gamache stated if there is damage, the property owner may try to hold the City responsible for it. Commissioner Jasper stated the Ordinance as it currently exists states improvements cannot impair, interfere or otherwise affect snowplowing, the City is not responsible for damage, and the owner will hold the City from any damage. This is already in the Ordinance. He explained that the change would be to state that the owner cannot do an improvement within that thirteen and a half feet but the Ordinance also states the owner has to cut and maintain shrubs so it assumes you can have trees and shrubs. He asked if the problem is that people cannot see, then they have a tree or bush that has not been properly maintained. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. a There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. City Planner Bednarz stated one of the primary reasons for amending the Ordinance was the situation they currently have under Section 1B where any improvements being temporary or permanent may be allowed. It has been a rather gray area. Discussion ensued in regards to the current Ordinance wording and the proposed additions to it. Commissioner Greenwald stated that if they cannot have anything within thirteen and a half feet from the boulevard, this does not improve the look of Andover. Commissioner Kirchoff concurred. Chairperson Daninger recapped what the current Ordinance said. Commissioner Gamache asked if the items would be legal non - conforming or are they going to make them conform. Mr. Bednarz stated if they are improvements that impair or threaten to damage City vehicles, they will be removed. Commissioner Jasper stated if the item is a potential for harming they could be removed under the existing Ordinance. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 4 • Discussion continued on why the Ordinance should be revised. Mr. McKay stated one of the reasons they want to change the Ordinance is because of the number of people who want to improve the boulevard area and the complaining about items that are placed within the boulevard by some residents. The purpose of this would be for residents in the future, before improvements are made, be able to look at distances and other specifics rather than have no guidance at all. Commissioner Greenwald stated he thought most of the complaints were when the houses were built, the item was placed along the boulevard and now the item has grown and is now a sight distance problem. He stated he thought they should be looking at another Ordinance or get more information on what the complaints are before moving on. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed with Commissioner Greenwald. Chairperson Daninger stated if there is a site hazard already, they have an Ordinance to deal with it already. He stated he does not know if the complaints there would need to be handled more because the gray area is gone and it becomes a site hazard. Commissioner Greenwald stated he does not like the idea that they should say residents cannot put anything in that area. He stated they will be changing the aesthetics in the City by changing the Ordinance. • Commissioner Gamache stated he did not like the idea of not being able to improve the first thirteen and a half feet of land because it would not look good. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he has always been aware of that if there would need to be some utility work done, he would lose the landscaping there because of the easement. Chairperson Daninger asked if the intent was to let the residents know the items in the boulevard were non - conforming or is it the intent to handle the complaints as a complaint basis. Mr. McKay stated they would still handle the complaints as they came in rather than notify everyone with landscaping. He stated the definition difference between "temporary" and "permanent" improvements is that temporary improvements can be something within the boulevard such as landscaping or a small bush or shrub which would not cause a site problem or safety hazard. He stated items like this would be allowed and evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Vatne stated it seems to him that the majority of the concerns, eight feet back puts a homeowner clear for snowplowing. Corners, site triangles could be a problem so they might want to evaluate this. Mr. McKay stated the site triangle is not proposed to be changed. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would like to see a list of complaints to see what they are. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 5 • Mr. Bednarz stated he thought there needed to be more work done on this and more information from the other departments. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to table this item until the May 27` Planning Commission meeting and have staff review this. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would like a list of at least ten complaints and a cross - reference of Ordinance No. 8. He stated if possible, he would like to know what some of the neighboring cities have done with distances and information from some other departments. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -04) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS. City Planner Bednarz explained that the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review an ordinance amendment that would allow lot splits on for lots that are close, but do not meet all of the requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provision (without a variance) under certain circumstance. • Mr. Bednarz stated this request was initiated from the lot split request at 1415 Andover Boulevard that included proposed variances to lot depth for both lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split. However, the City Council denied the lot split citing a lack of hardship for the variances to lot depth. As a part of the discussion, the Council discussed establishing a method to approve similar lot splits provided the lot met two of the three size requirements and was within 90% of the third (lot width, depth and area). Mr. Bednarz explained the City Attorney has indicated that the proposed ordinance amendment will not damage the minimum district provisions section of Ordinance provided it is worded specifically enough to limit how it is applied. Mr. Bednarz stated if the City is going to go ahead with this process, do they want to set this up to be a firm ninety percent of the third requirement or do they want to allow some flexibility there because there will still be situations close to that. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the ninety - percent came specifically from the City Council. Mr. Bednarz stated it did. Commissioner Kirchoff asked why this would only be limited to urban areas. Mr. Bednarz stated this was a comment that was brought up over the past couple of weeks about one way this could be structured. He stated he is not in agreement with that and he • thinks it should apply to both rural and urban lots. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Jasper asked how the new Ordinance corresponded to Section 4.04 that is discussed in the comments that say that if they meet sixty percent of the requirement. Mr. Bednarz stated he put that in there as an example of a similar provision where there is a percentage of a requirement that still allows use of a property. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was any concern about serial lot splits where the owner would split a small part of the land and then keeping splitting the land to make many small parcels. Mr. Bednarz stated typically a resident can only do one lot split every three years and if someone does apply for a lot split, it still requires a public hearing and the Planning Commission and City Council will have reviews also. Commissioner Gamache stated they are trying to build this on hardship cases. Mr. Daninger stated that this ordinance amendment would remove hardship from the equation. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. John Moore, 16030 Macah Street N.W., stated his lot split was denied by the Planning Commission and then he went to the City Council and it took four meetings to decide to deny his request. Mr. Moore stated he has lived in Andover for five years and he has noticed a neighbor of his was granted a lot split that did not conform at all. He also had another neighbor whose lot split was held up and this neighbor had everything in conformance but he had to prove that he had buildable area on his two and a half acres. This was a five acre parcel also. Mr. Moore stated his thought on this would be the only way they should object a land split is by acreage. He feels that in order to not goof up the projections in the future that one of the requirements of the three should not be allowed to be touched at all. It should always be the acreage because the taxes are being determined on the acreage and the planning for future developments and usage is all figured by acreage but the rest of it is covered under the building code. He stated he cannot build a house on the property without proving he has buildable area. Mr. Moore stated they need to do something to give the City Council a little leeway so that so much time is not spent on the decision making. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Greenwald stated there were three things he thought of; there is not such a thing as a typical lot in Andover anymore. He stated the acreage is hard to divide and to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 7 do this only by acreage is tough. He stated they still need to make sure the land is buildable, and that they are following distances. He noted that if the City Council is comfortable with ninety percent and the split is ninety percent that would be good but if it is a foot and a half off then it will not work. He stated there are too many other issues that would come into play. Commissioner Jasper asked when they have width and depth requirements and they have a trapezoidal lot, which measurement is used to determine if it conforms. Mr. Bednarz stated for lot depth, it is front lot line to rear lot line and for lot area it is the area within the property lines and for lot width, it is not measured at the front property line, it is measured at the front setback. Commissioner Jasper asked for lot depth, if they do not have parallel lines on the lot, at what point is it measured. Mr. Bednarz stated they take an average of the two side lot lines and one measurement through the middle of the lot. Commissioner Greenwald stated they ate a new growing community and as long as he has been on the Commission they have reviewed every item thoroughly and they do not always look at the past as the only point to move forward. Chairperson Daninger stated all other areas need to be exhausted. Commissioner Jasper was concerned that the provision could be abused and suggested that if a property could meet all of the requirements it should be required to do so. He suggest changing the wording in section 6.02(a) to read "Lot splits shall be allowed with lot sizes that de can not conform to the minimum district..." Chairperson Daninger agreed. Chairperson Daninger asked what the Commission thought about the ninety percent. Commissioner Jasper stated he would not want to make it more than ninety percent. Commissioner Gamache stated he was comfortable with the ninety percent in extreme cases and the one word change would work. Discussion ensued in regards to allowing ninety - percent for lot splits. Commissioner Vatne stated he came from a different direction on this. He stated as he went through the pros and cons, he thought the City Council had said specifically infill issues which prevent efficient use of land. That makes this a desirable change and he agrees but he thinks the cons outweigh it. He stated they are looking to change the language on the lot sizes to accommodate a few exceptions. These were exceptions back when the standards were in place and people knew that they were exceptions so they are looking to grandfather in to make more efficient use of the land. He stated they will be adding some complexity to the way the City standards are in existence today. He explained that the people who are already there in the neighborhoods who met the requirements, developed their lots, and are living there now see that somebody coming in 0 is able to do something on a piece of property that was not in compliance before. He Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 8 • stated he has a great concern for the residents in the neighborhood and did not think the benefits outweighed the costs to make the changes. Commissioner Gamache stated in a lot of the neighborhoods, the residents have already split their lots except for a few. He stated the changing of the community makes availability for more residents with the rural look in two and a half acre lots. He stated he thought it was a good thing and they need to make some concessions to close some of this up. Commissioner Vatne stated a ten percent adjustment is not going to allow a lot in that were not going to get in, it is a small percentage and he does not think it merits a change in the language and lot proposal. Chairperson Daninger stated he would have to agree with Commissioner Vatne. Commissioner Kirchoff stated on item three, his only concern was the lot split should be applied throughout the entire City. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed but it a lot split was only allowed every three years, he would not be concerned with it. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would still like this to be Citywide instead of urban versus rural. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed and thought it was more important than the rural area. Commissioner Kirchoff stated a pro to changing the Ordinance would be saving staff a lot of time and Council time. Commissioner Greenwald stated he is still looking at a hardship for a lot split and this would be reducing the standard on it a little bit but if they left this the way it was, they could consider the hardship and allow a variance. Commissioner Gamache stated it would take away a couple of variance hearings a year. Commissioner Greenwald asked if this is worth doing it. Commissioner Gamache stated they would be saving money on staff time. Commissioner Jasper stated he understood this to be that the City Council takes these very literally. Commissioner Gamache stated the City Council is trying to make it easier for some of the residents to split their property and if they granted a hardship on it, it comes down to legal issues and a neighbor could legally fight it. Commissioner Greenwald stated changing this to ninety percent does not change the hardship issue. Commissioner Greenwald stated his concern is a two and a half acre lot is more buildable than a four acre lot. Commissioner Kirchoff stated this still had to meet two of the three requirements. Mr. Moore stated the reason he does not have the front lot width is because his property is on a curve but he could not convince the Council this was a hardship. To him this was a hardship because the road had to be put in that way for a reason. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 9 s Commissioner Greenwald stated he still thought there were going to have to be variances. Commissioner Gamache stated as the City grows, they are seeing a few variances a year and this may make their job a little easier. Commissioner Vatne stated he would anticipate those at eighty -five percent would still need a variance. Commissioner Gamache stated this would be residents who would still need a variance under the current Ordinance. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed Ordinance Amendment because it will allow flexibility for infill lots and striking the "do" in 6.02A and changing it to can. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 3 -nays ( Vatne, Greenwald, Daninger), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 3, 2003 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he passed out a copy of an article in the Anoka Union regarding the Community Development Block Grant process through Anoka County. He • stated Andover was fortunate enough to have a project funded for about $47,000 and this will be focused on rental rehabilitation and potentially utility improvements. Mr. Bednarz also mentioned that there would be an open house residential development meeting on May 22 from 5:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He stated it would be an informal open house for property owners in the current stage of development to try to answer any questions they have if they are considering developing their property. This is also an opportunity to look at the city's sewer staging plan. Mr. Bednarz stated the Community Center Task Force has been meeting on Thursdays. June 10, 2003 is the current date for the Council to make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with that project. He stated at this point they are looking at the floor plan and the site and trying to arrive at something that is going to give a fairly solid cost estimate and this will be brought back to the Council sometime before June 10, 2003. Commissioner Jasper asked if they would have a firm agreement with the YMCA by then. Mr. Bednarz believed they would. Commissioner Vatne asked if the project was still moving forward with the Hockey Arena as part of the total facility. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and the June 10 date was agreed upon with the Hockey Association because they may make alternate plans after that date if it does not seem like this project will go ahead. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2003 Page 10 • Mr. Bednarz stated they also met with Ryan Companies and United Properties to talk about the remainder of commercial land on the south side of Bunker at Andover Station. He stated they are looking at a retail concept there with a large retail merchandiser and four smaller retail pads so they will probably be reviewing the plat with the commission sometime this spring or early summer. Commissioner Gamache asked if they were still looking at some more restaurants around the pond. Mr. Bednarz stated yes, and they will need to look at reconfiguring the pond and adding an interior access road all the way through and trying to save corner sites wherever possible. Commissioner Vatne asked if the Rural Reserve was moving forward. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council selected the area and directed staff to evaluate how to utilize the rest of the Bluebird trunk capacity north of County Road 20 between Hanson and the rail line. He stated the council's decision is being reviewed by the Met Council and by the end of May, they are expecting its response. Commissioner Kirchoff asked when the water treatment plant would be done. Mr. Bednarz stated he expected to be completed sometime this year. ADJOURNMENT. • Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 0 3 ? CN T Y O F D OWE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner K/ )l SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 106 — Boulevard Use. DATE: May 27, 2003 DISCUSSION The Planning and Zoning Commission was previously asked to consider updating the Boulevard Use ordinance to ensure permanent encroachments and improvements shall remain outside of the boulevard as defined as the distance from the property line to the curb. Upon further review with the public works and engineering departments, staff has concluded that the current ordinance is sufficient. Staff will continue to track complaints and if there are reasons to be more restrictive, this item may be brought back for consideration at a future date. • RVeDckay • C I T Y O F NDO • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -6923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -05) amending Special Use Permit (01 -05) for Nature's Run to add a new floor plan design with additional finished square footage. DATE: May 27, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Applicant has proposed a new floor plan for the Nature's Run Project. The floor plans were initially reviewed and approved as a part of Special Use Permit (01 -05) which established the planned unit development for Nature's Run. The new floor plan will need to be reviewed and approved with this amended special use permit. DISCUSSION The attachments indicate both the proposed and existing floor plans and building elevations. The new floor plan adds an additional bedroom and additional square footage to both the main and lower levels. The proposed floor plan will fit within the lot box that was approved for the development and will not encroach into the 30 foot building setback between the rear of buildings that was required as a part of the initial special use permit. Decks and all of the other amenities offered for the existing unit types will also be offered for the new unit type. Staff' Recommendation The proposal offers another set of options for buyers to choose from. This option increases the square footage of the units and continues to offer all of the amenities available for the other unit types. The distance between the back of the buildings will be able to meet the minimum of 30 feet established with the initial PUD. Staff recommends in favor of the proposed amendment. Attachments Resolution Location Map Proposed Floor Plan, Building Elevation, Building Footprint Previously Approved Floor Plans, Building Elevations, and Building Footprint ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission permit alliendment. • *Ubm;itt d, is asked to recommend approval of the proposed special use q Cc: Nature Properties, 843 West Broadway Forest Lake, MN 55025 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA is RES. NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING SPECIAL USE PERMIT #00 -17 AT THE REQUEST OF NATURE PROPERTIES TO ADD A FOURTH TOWNHOUSE DESIGN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING FIFTY -FOUR (54) TOWNHOUSE UNITS KNOWN AS "NATURE'S RUN" LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HANSON BLVD (CSAH 78) AND ANDOVER BOULEVARD AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT A. WHEREAS, Nature Properties has requested an amendment to the Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to add a fourth townhouse design pursuant to Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the amended Special Use Permit as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the amended Special Use Permit on said property with the following conditions: 1. Exhibit B, the document that regulates the design of the townhouses, shall be modified to include a fourth townhouse design. This design shall conform to the plans stamped received by the City of Andover May 21, 2003. 2. All other conditions of Special Use Permit #00 -17 and #01 -05 shall remain in effect. 3. The contract associated with Rezoning 400 -09 shall be updated to reflect the townhouse style approved with this action. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _th day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER . ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael, R. Gamache, Mayor --- Special Use Permit Amendment Nature's Run ~,@III'IIII"& n::Z:C X ~-t:: I~~m_ ~ -L H-~ J l11fErf55 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ I~\ \\ If 111\\ \\\11 II 1-, I/,.q: I I I I ,\\1111111 III I I / 9 a::EfrtBj ~ := H I ':::::...:...., I f- ~ m \ ,L J .11\ [ t: '\ f-- ~ i \i\Ill: ~~ 1= -VI ~ I l::< r--t I- ~ '- ~ I~ I.... - 1111111\\'8 I~ -;,-- -111\ ,II II L HI ))-l:!:: I "\ ; -- = rmF' I -llJ).k0't ~ ~~ IE JIIIIIII"~ 3M: f-L ~ ~ "\ ~ _ t-- I 1\ ~ r- ~\~ 1= t- I- I v I-- 1=1= 1= ~ I t-- t-- l- T I II I t-- .'It-- 11III I r "\..IIUII III Ik - - .\1111 - >-It ,,- ~ il XfiSr::8EEr:: 'lq T7I f- p:- ~-~ I- I ~ Ib,tg~tH:EI=~ ~ 111// , t-- =1= - ~';f-f-,<,,~ ILrr::l'-JilJ-;::1= ::;l=f- >;\'''- '" - [tj f- f-t-- H I I, 0.<-^ I" III -II- .""". ~ ? R " ,JJI '1= 1:=~ y. JM :: " ~ 1'1 I I i- l/X ~ _ ~ K JJ ~roru )l "- . I = ~ I ( ~'!l LiiJJja ll- v, ~ ..... -- 11- > ,,<, I Y OJh-.. """-~ '111 17->. ;:::: , I ' I S! 'RlJI,J, f'J- '-U T ""- ,~, 'III I 11 alllli J-Lli~ ~,).' -j II" "'- a \--~, :::- 1 I lr.~~ J. >'<..LZ C/J \ '\ -" I :/ /77/ :'- ~ ~~ ~=~ ~l.LK ~~'JII!J. l0 1'7'- ~ ~ --; /^-' / 'r-r,,~ W]L i 1-'>. I}"l' J I ~ I //4'-1. j _ ~Nl.1 11"i1/1j,J 1 t-. - '.( Y' ~_ # 'J/lrr I ....~ ~ 1K-1t1 I 1 4~ '1IbliA.;!;' -i_ K'j f.! \ r -~ I - t1 1 FtV- '1I.rr - ~ ~~-~ ~f ~~ /\1 II -" I I ~r? ~r7i-J.J -l~' 10 f- I=f= 11 f---V?~ 1/7 'J I H~..;:;.....r- l- II I~ /, lIfT ,,"</('" /' I/~ ,\ 1- H' rIll "'/i'...ll[ \1~ /-1(111 II IlnT""- I' P Ii l.lLl-'- L - ~ r I J 'If' 1 e w~. Project Location Map Andover'Planning 11 l nl l - vc cvva m i u l -' fl u r r li KUU & SONS I NC FAX NO. 7637866007 P, 02 PeoPosov l jArr ` — 20' setback ` az 0 -, 7 87.34 ti 00 Mt f r u� � v C2 I 1 0 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2003 CITY OF ANDOVER MAY 02 2003 14:19 6519821326 PAGE.06 ..0 4 MOD moo � O po C 18.00 i9.00 z �i u N �, m w 0 11.00 1.100 13,00 84.00 11.D0 14 87.34 ti 00 Mt f r u� � v C2 I 1 0 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2003 CITY OF ANDOVER MAY 02 2003 14:19 6519821326 PAGE.06 RECEIVED ANDOVER aoposa�a I KAW r3 -o 35' -0 o i 1 .2 2•c rp . -4 �3 s8 v➢ r O In G N R^MGE REFC C I U C r r an I = �m3 3..7 4 , 3 N OqK RgIL y w n a G p �\ 3 p a 4 'o s'o _za'9ti - r l ia`4 -0, \\ D w A L —d aid _ _. _ ._ _ _ -- ��'•_ �n F D bac.s�rvFn N4 Ne b a I Z A D .sasay.Slb. S o a �I 4m D A O O P[ N 1 D W 4" d = F m m ? c A z -s ' 15`33 Ln — U- rz. GJ 0 - +�' aA w ! 1 rp Pj I I� 4 Q- 'o �� SU I C ?(9 --I I == J � 1=1N CITY OF ANDOVEF� 44 � Y:_ ! - - - -- 7D - - - - - r = -- �1 T op I 1 I Fy x ^IC I , U 13' -O 35'•O Zsp 9Yz Bq e - < I 4iz tic 1 I YO - . I fo V � SESQ mll q I I(°•• /� ' � ° ` G II N I 9.3 Ilk 9 -7 1 =5 P1 y � w; I 3 rn �� 4' -0 5' 0 8' -6 � 3.•�� 14-' o ° g 9%t Bct I C 3EP.IES dp cm ��--� ° RECEIVE D 4 -0 5 8_� I MAY 2 1 2003 j OF ANDuV � 1� D O S ECI SYQIES 4p I — I LPG �� o A S ml vU fx GF I A ° �I IIIII �I ° T— v H �I 0 v � 0 n � 9YZSI sYz6l i W r - SERIES 4o L.o I<. Se2r 9y t6••ic aw f- I z �, I n 1 I ,- 1 0 LJ 10/10/2001 WED 15:10 FAX 612 252 8077 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO 7 0 0 ORIGINAL TWINROME " 6 "A" MODEL n 6 � 72.67 , GARAGE � 74.00 0D ORIGINAL TWINHOMC " 6 "B" MODEL ° o N s f - -_ — s 72.67 GARAGE ORIGINAL PLAN X1002/002 VC1447AJ (,uvT' Attachment C 23.67 o m ORIGINAL TWINHOME 6 "C" MODEL o° 177.. N, 9 7 CARAGE oI 43.7 57.3 a 13.67 o.F� M1 13 67 i oti i ��G= PROPOSED TWfNMOME 6 'B" MODEL GARAGE REVISED 10/03/01 PROPOSED TW NHOME 'Co MODEL 0 vi PROPOSED TWINHOME 6 "A" MODEL 0 0 N 5.67 � " [GARAGE PROPOSED TWfNMOME 6 'B" MODEL GARAGE REVISED 10/03/01 PROPOSED TW NHOME 'Co MODEL 0 -,- --- - ~1JSTi'A/(p !iilr;.VAnOAJ$ Attachment B " . II II p 1/ . It.'-.u- II II II II rr II II II rr rr----- "..u- II II II ,II " - II " - II II II II r:; II II II I II " II f-/"----n--- c': II II 'II II , 1.1 I " II I II I II " I II I H"' - --n-- f II I -II " .11 II II " " 11 II II II " II " II II II " II " " II " II -- II II II " II II II II II IL_ " " n II II " " ,- " II " " " II " " II II II " " " II " " " II II " II " " II " H----lJ- 11 II - " " If 11 II II . I H----u....- I " " " " " " " " II /I '~----- :0 I It I 0 m I I I I .-:-) I I I I < () I I I I I I I I - I I' I m f " I r.o - , < " m 0 ~ :fi,~fP~Cf~ ", . .. ~ .fK!r. C7wJ.w. CIkt. fi I .... D~;f~ ..... -..&.,(- ~ .. - P4*V m n m e m 0 ME ~ ;<,t:;T7A1(, 'Ftcd-l'CMJ , """"" 1M: f.:K: ~ "'li -- --r ~. ~ ;: I i ~ It''l j i; t' '.,a li:j]~1 , . " '""III!-- . Y ,,, "1;:;- if I I ~ If . '.. :~, il.. I . I a..", ..;' c~ 'I ~ f~ n___'. Ill'" l' ~f- "::":.- -I ;- ~' 6- " ~ [, ._~I ~ t' I i .~p, r!' '1\ . t ..- ~- . k-f- t.- I, Ill: L. ---r--- _nn~ ~~ ~,r.~ ,3!_ ~~ ~ ;,;, . '---.... 01 : ... -----1 "':':":.- .~. '"7"' '" '", t'\J., ~ ; _or . ~I.~ :_~ - i , I ~~ =- ~~~.;-+- f .'n~ 'If- '" Eo ~. . 3 t d'" ," '1\1,;' \\ I.. ! I!... ~ ,- ." , ..', _m_' .- . ~ o~ - - t tI- ,.. <" ~ -~ - - '" " .;Q?'i' '~I I r ' ... i.. ,.," :' ib ~ '" , ~ 'r;:i. III : < ! , ~ u 2S "::'Ir:~" , '~' ~.~ ~~I (1 ~,~r, I ~-71 ... ',"" i ,51 i I ~ 1\ :u.ull >.. , I, I I I _____L ' :D ~ M, M, c-' m ~ 0 m - < m < 0 m :p' !J ..r",~(ff>A Ii ~ ., ;::,- ~. ~.tU.t:. 7(' ~~~.,. , " NJ.!..c--, IJI' " "':I;: - Td..II.M"::f~8- ~'I'$77A1fP 'E~$ lI" II II n-.... II II II II II II II II II ..oil- II /1'------ II II ' II " - II " II .H II " '* " II II , ,H II II II " c:: ff----,,--- II :: I " I I " I I II II I II I II " I " I " -n-- H--- I " " II " -'I " 'I " II " II " II " " II II " II " -- II " " " " II II " II " II " II Il...._ II n e II 1\ II II II " II U 10 " 10 " 10 " 10 " II " II " II 1\ II 1.1 10 " II 1\ '10 " H----{}.._ " 1\ If II II II I 10 II H-----u-__ I " ,1\ 0 " 1\ " ~ II. " :0 " " 0 0 m II n LJ.------ ." ..~-t () m I I I I tD - I I I I < I I I I f--'~'I I I I I c:. m I I I I (U_) I , I , 0 I I I I :fi~W-~ CfM R '" ~ MS - '...... ~-f.lk:e' u;,,;,,~ """- e-J,~ ..,., -..a.,c_ I&- ' - e.-'::t.:..~a- .EP5;7ZA((,o r..;74*2 FroWV m m m 0 ...3r .5 r i CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR VALERIE HOLTHUS & DONALD HOLTHUS JR. TO SPLIT A RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AT 17680 ARROWHEAD STREET N.W. WITH A VARIANCE TO THE 150'X 150' BUILDABLE AREA. The property to be divided into two single - family residential lots legally described as: Parcel A All that part of Lot 6, Block 2, VERDIN ACRES, Anoka County, Minnesota lying westerly and northerly of the following described line; Beginning at point on the north line of said Lot 6, a distance of 339.56 feet west of the Northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence south for a distance of 631.20 feet for a point on the south line of lot 6, which is a distance of 455.00 feet west of the Southeast comer of said Lot 6, except the north 66.00 feet thereof, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence South 88 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 6 a distance of 349.55 feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence North 21 degrees 09 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 401.92 feet; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 138.19 feet; thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 53 seconds East 69.98 feet; thence North 02 degrees 10 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet, to a point on the south line of the north 66.00 feet of said Lot 6 and said lie there terminating. Parcel B That part of Lot 6, Block 2, VERDIN ACRES, Anoka county, Minnesota lying easterly and southerly of the following described line; Beginning at point on the north line of said Lot 6, a distance of 339.56 feet west of the Northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence south for a distance of 631.20 feet for a point on the south line of lot 6, which is a distance of 455.00 feet west of the Southeast comer of said Lot 6, except the north 66.00 feet thereof, lying westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Lot 6; thence South 88 degrees 55 minutes 00 seconds West assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 6 a distance of 349.55 feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence North 21 degrees 09 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 401.92 feet; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes 02 seconds 15 - r East a distance of 138.19 feet: thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 53 seconds East 69.98 feet; thence North 02 degrees 10 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 41.00 feet, to a point on the south line of the north 66.00 • feet of said Lot 6 and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, Valerie Holthus & Donald Holthus Jr. has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide a rural residential property into two rural residential lots; and WHEREAS, Valerie Holthus & Donald Holthus Jr. have requested a variance to Ordinance 9.06(A2) requiring a 150' X 150' buildable area with the following findings; 1. The site has sufficient area to conform with lot size requirements. 2. The site has sufficient area to provide 10,000 square feet for anon site drain field. 3. The site has sufficient area to provide 22,500 square feet in buildable area. 4. Location of the wetlands on the site will not allow a 150'X 150' buildable area. 5. The proposed variance will allow the site to be custom graded to prevent excessive tree loss. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 10; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the lot split and variance request is not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split and variance on said property with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to dedicate a ten -foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both properties. 2. Payment of a park dedication fee based on the fee ordinance in effect at the time of Council approval. 3. Payment of a trail fee based on the fee ordinance in effect at the time of Council approval. 4. That the lot split and variance be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). 1 5. The lowest floor of the future house on Parcel B must be at least three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is higher. 6. The shed and corral must be removed from Parcel B. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER Mike Gamache, Mayor ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk • -42 - C 00 CL E CS Ln a) E uj '2 z 8 . in 0 L. Ln W =3 Lu LU 0 Z a)— LU W V _ W W C u LL Z 2 w w L 0 0 W I-- m r- > Lo . U a: .4t w e( �o En en L CL to to o "Do U) -0 0 0 (D 0 CL 0 0 Cc a E d 0 x E N Cc E m 0 CL CO 0 as C C 02 j L 0 Z 0 0 0 y� t l r N V E-4 w W • I I I 1 I I I I 1; II II 11 II jl 1 E I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 11 I Is ,E IS 1 i� I I 9 gill I "lll a aye a S <��sBf i 1 g 3 �rti �� i1�Y R Asi E� �A JA till I H R�6 %a i a srr �E =Eb iF lE �1 gg N _ F a ma x— 3 g o O a ��c 0 �' `��• Mai a Y aE A i5 § U ll I l.: _ E 'sags _P 3 $ 0 § ° sd i 9 6 y f�+ �i5s Ea ,4S �P py < �Uo Ri L1i A ,LI I j % � l i I i I I I -- - -Y''' - -- ---- - --- -- ST r.R rR i$a -- -'°'-, •-�• i\ �i - -- - --- _ -- - -__ - -- f } / i/ � -- mil_ =fir J�,�.a- �` y \< 1 i I ■■ 0 5 l /�� i / ll '/ i el r ■`` 1 I I I 'T- 1 / ■ ■ E 444 I E■ 111 \ \ICI, 1 T 77 I t S b I I I LO i E� I �T 1 9 1, I 1\ I Oi'R'a �Y' I I I �• LO I < , 1 7 =■/ I ee ■■ I I , � ;7 S� i SC 1 SC i �p I I r I I , i g ill $ ' # s P a s E ll1A a'B is s s ^7— K- 7 • 1665 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -6923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannq# SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -06) to allow outdoor storage and retail sales at 3160 162 "d Lane NW. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant has opened a landscape nursery at the above referenced property. Due to the fact that the property is zoned Limited Industrial (1), a special use permit is needed for outdoor storage and retail sales. DISCUSSION The applicant has provided a rudimentary site plan (attached). Photographs of the site are also included in the attachments. Comparison of Proposal to Applicable Ordinances Use of property The property is being used for exterior storage and retail sales without having been issued the required special use permit. The applicant was informed of this requirement several months ago, before he purchased the property. Staff visited the site after the operation opened and again informed the applicant of the required permit. At that time only two portable wagons with hanging plants existed on the site. That very weekend the applicant hauled in thousands of dollars worth of landscaping material and expanded the illegal operation. Staff has initiated enforcement through the City Attorney. A formal complaint is being filed with Anoka County. Existing Structure The existing structure is an accessory building. It does not meet fire or building code requirements for commercial use and cannot continue to be used for this purpose. Parking Area The parking area that was recently graded by the applicant does not provide a hard surface or curb and gutter as is required. No striping or any type of traffic control features are present on the site. Landscaping Aside from the plant material for sale, there is no landscaping on the site. All areas not covered by building or parking area are required to be landscaped. Refuse All waste material is required to be contained within a properly designed container. • None has been observed on the site Signage The site contains signs and banners for which a permit has not been issued. The type of signage on the site is temporary and does not meet the City's requirements. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the permit request be denied. The applicant opened the landscape operation with full knowledge that a permit was required and continues to willfully violate the City's requirements. As illustrated in the staff report, the operation cannot be allowed to continue in this manner. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review and discuss the information presented and formulate a recommendation for the City Council. Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Drawing Site Photographs Applicant's Letter Res ctful y submitt , Cc: Archie Zahler, 1900 South Second Street Hopkins, MN 55343 0 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF TWIN CITY PLACING AND EXCAVATING FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND RETAIL SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3160 162' LANE NW (PIN 16- 32- 24 -23- 0005) WHEREAS, Twin City Placing and Excavating has requested a Fecial use permit for outdoor storage and retail sales on property located at 3160 162 Lane NW, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request does not meet the following criteria of Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.30: The property is presently being used for exterior storage and retail sales without having been issued the required special use permit. The existing structure is an accessory building. It does not meet fire or building code requirements for commercial use and cannot continue to be used for this purpose. The parking area does not provide a hard surface or curb and gutter as is required. No striping or any type of traffic control features are present on the site. Aside from the plant material for sale, there is no landscaping on the site. All areas not covered by building or parking area are required to be landscaped. All waste material is required to be contained within a properly designed container. None has been observed on the site The site contains signs and banners for which a permit has not been issued. The type of signage on the site is temporary and does not meet the City's requirements. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the Special Use Permit request. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denies the Special Use Permit on said property. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • Special Use Permit Outdoor Storage and Retail Sales 3160 162nd Lane 0 NN W Project Location Map a Andover Planning Twin City Placing & Excavating Field Quote Office: 952 - 935 -8877 1900 South Second Street Fax: 952- 933 -6716 Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 • Customer Name: Z/,2 h,c- % 6 1,.r . Date: 9 Address: Phone: 9i) - -2;?c�- 3 X-5,S) 1 Fax: Site Address: 0 /L/> Other: Description of proposed work; Terms & Conditions: scale, 1 square = /n Feet Pricing is subject to change without notice after 45 days. Estimate is based on rough quantity estimates only actual quantities and prices may vary. All work requires a three -day notice for utility locations, per Minnesota state law. Contractor is not responsible for damages to existing paving, curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Balance due within 30 days of completion. Estimated Equipment; Twin City Placing & Excavating Date TOTAL COST. Owner Date \J a, .T .. k ,. #;'' ��_, :�� x,. a i � a t •�� et.,p: r If 0. �,��' ` J_ `. 0.V, �: �- � �9s - -,.— � �' w . a, .T .. k ,. #;'' ��_, r a i � a t •�� et.,p: r If 0. a R Alm ` J_ j�;�. i. 0 . 0.V, �: � ;: L '� F__ r If 0. a R Alm ` J_ j�;�. i. 0 . •�Y � �,. � �9s ...' r'• :�• c': � :ter r 4 iY J �tl .; v / ��` . 1�r.. "xy ,0.1 y� !'. t . r ; � »�, »� � 2 <2 .. � : . , © ,; ,� \�� ; : »� y. 3 \ .� ? :3 °t� � �� >�«d «�z� \ /� \� \ �� « \�.? / 2� » <� «2 : 7 z� /». � s a = . < ��.x <� \.� >. �. ».. a .. .. � j «a. \, y � ¥ . � /` \� : � � � \/ ® ^ \� � \ � ��Q��� � . - ®a\: . . . . � �� � \� �- � - : « � a :� , . § 2 ���� \ \� \ \� �� 2 / \i� :yam �� < ..§ � \ m \� � . . .: a� - � q« 2:. \ 2` . «<« »< .� « 2 � :� y.�� 2 a .� a I R� » : > « / :�- ,. .�� .. .. 2�' \ w......� .� lb000ff . � \ % ^\ } \« ■ © ! < » 7+ ¥ I y� ` .� °� '� �� � �� 9 }� • \� \� «� / /�• \ /�� \\ \� - � The Tree Stop, Inc. • 3160162 Lane NW Andover, Mn. 55304 763- 712 -1409 The City Of Andover 5 -12 -03 To whom it may concern; Enclosed, please find our application for a special use permit for the property located at 3160 162 °d , Lane NW in the beautiful city of Andover, Minnesota. We are absolutely thrilled to be here and hope that the feeling will be reciprocated once you understand what we are doing and where intend to go. In order help you to get a clear picture of our goals, we would like to introduce you to the Tree Stop, Inc. The Tree Stop, Inc. is nursery / landscape supply company that currently has an inventory of approximately $45,000.00 worth of large shade trees, including but not limited to maples, ash, elm, river birch and flowering crabs, evergreen trees such as • Colorado Blue Spruce, Scotch Pines, Norway Pines etc. Potted trees, shrubs and flowering bushes of numerous varieties, annuals, perennials, hanging flower baskets and potted flowers, various kinds of decorative rock and boulders, premium mulches and soils and other items specific to gardening and beautifying property. A complete inventory list is available on request. Our original intention was to be a wholesaler but we quickly found an immense need in the area for a retail outlet to the public. As we were preparing the site and not even open for business, dozens of residents of Andover stopped in to say that they were thrilled we were there. We heard over and over that they couldn't wait until we were open. Because of these inherent qualities of our inventory that improve and beautify property, our own location has changed dramatically for the better in the short time we have had available to get our business open. I am sure that most of you are aware of the condition of this property prior to us acquiring it only a few short weeks ago. It was a dirty, trash filled, eyesore that had scrub brush and weeds that not only made the property look undesirable but also made visibility difficult and very possibly dangerous at that corner. We have spent in excess of $20,000.00 in excavating to clean it up as well as approximately $7,000.00 in a new fence that has not only improved sight lines but the aesthetic qualities of the property as well. The value of the property has already increased tremendously. Pictures are available upon request but we would love it you . would stop in anytime and see for yourselves. • As it is imperative in this industry to be open by Mothers Day weekend to insure that your customer base is not only aware of your location but also that our stock is available for the relatively short spring planting season, we have been working around the clock to create suitable parking facilities on site to insure the safety of our customers and the public. We have ample space available within our fence for our customers so that parking on the street will not be necessary and existing traffic conditions should not change. The nature of our industry, Landscape Nurseries, is not in any way dangerous or hazardous to anyone's health, in fact it is quite the opposite. Living plants and trees are good for people in many ways. They provide shade from the heat, food to eat, and peace for the soul by just looking at their beauty. We have experienced people on staff to help load purchases or deliver for our customers if necessary to insure that no one is injured by lifting or transporting larger pieces. The yard is laid out in such a way that it is not only very beautiful to look at, but so that there are no dangers to customers or the public. The ground is flat and easy to walk on and there are no stairs or suspended object to walk on or under and no obstructions of visibility. As we stated earlier, we are very happy to be here in Andover. Should you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please feel free to come by or call me at any time at 612 - 282 -9708. The Tree Stop, Inc. U J 0 CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8 Section 4.04 Lot Provisions AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 4.04 LOT PROVISIONS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 4.04, Lot Provisions within the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: (Strike out indicates words to be deleted, underlining represents words to be added.) 4.04 Lot Provisions (B) Except in Planned Unit Developments there shall be no more than one (1) principal building on one (1) lot in all residential districts - Unless a resident chooses to live in an existing home while a new home is being constructed. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the newly constructed home, the older home needs to be removed or demolished. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk —3- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —APRIL 22, 2003 e Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was call order by Acting Chairperson Tim Kirchoff on April 22, 2003, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover tiWHall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners pre Chairperson Daninger (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Dean Vatne, nathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commis ' er Rex Greenwald. Also present: Community Deve mentDirector, Will Neumeister Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. April 8, 2003 Motion by Casey, seconded by Vatne, to approve the minutes as presented. carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger and Greenwald) vote. 10� VARL4NCE (03 -04) TO ORDINANCE 8 SECTION 4.04(B) TO ALLOW EXISTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO REMAINDUMNG CONSTRUCTION OFA NEW HOME ONPROPERTYLOCATED AT 15451 PRAIRIE ROAD. Mr. Neumeister explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow them to live in the existing house while a new house is constructed on the same property. Mr. Neumeister stated a similar request was approved in 1984. The applicant was allowed 120 days to remove the existing house once a building permit had been issued. Mr. Neumeister discussed the State Statute and information with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if the fire department using this structure for fire training would necessitate allowing more than thirty days after certificate of occupancy for the 0 • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 22, 2003 Page 2 structure to be removed. Mr. Neumeister stated he would add this when it would go to City Council for approval. Commissioner Gamache asked what staff has found for a hardship in order to allow this to happen. Mr. Neumeister stated it is an unusual circumstance and the home is on a large lot in an area that an additional home under construction would not affect anything. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he looks at this as a very temporary variance. Mr. Neumeister stated the need for the variance would go away in a few months. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there has been a possibility of ACCAP buying the home and moving it. Mr. Neumeister asked the applicant if the house was worth saving. Mr. Matt Mason, 15451 Prairie Road, stated his thoughts were they would try to donate it to the City for fire training or the historical society. Mr. Neumeister asked what the . square footage of the house was. Mr. Mason stated the foundation size was 750 or 800 square feet. He stated he has talked to some moving companies and they had concerns with the structural integrity of the house and it has been added onto several times so trying to move the house off the property without taking down trees would be almost impossible and they are trying to preserve the natural site of the property. Mr. Neumeister stated he knew the Fire Department was interested in this house for training purposes. Commissioner Vatne asked when do they consider a building to be the principal building on site when something is being built. Mr. Neumeister stated anytime the structure can be considered a residence, it is a principal building so these could be considered two principal buildings. Commissioner Vatne asked when the building would be considered a primary structure. Mr. Neumeister stated once it has received its certificate of occupancy. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was a firm commitment in interest from the Fire Department for the house. Mr. Neumeister stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated they might want to consider at another time to look at changing the Ordinance. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to recommend approv o e granted to allow the existing house to remain on the property during construction of the new house with added language regarding the Fire Department. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Neumeister stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 6, 2002 City Council meeting. -5- C I T Y O F ND OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Plann4� SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 8 Section 8.23 (A) Residential Building Standards DATE: May 27, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Residential Building Standards section of ordinance 8. This change would allow residents to construct four -season porches with a permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of fifty (50 %) percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principle structure (home). DISCUSSION 0 Currently, Section 8.23 (A), of Ordinance 8 states: "All structures shall have permanent concrete or treated wood foundations which will anchor the structure, which comply with the Uniform Building Code as adopted in the State of Minnesota and which are solid for the complete circumference of the house. Except, four- season porches may be constructed without the permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of twenty (20 %) percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principal structure. (8JJJJ, 5- 16 -95) " The City of Andover has been receiving an increasing amount of inquiries into increasing the maximum coverage of four -season porches from twenty (20 %) percent to fifty (50 %) percent of the habitable portion of the principal structure. City Building officials have looked at these requests and have come to the conclusion that increasing the maximum coverage would not be a detriment to the health and welfare of the community and would not have a negative impact on property values. The current ordinance has been found to be too restrictive of the property owners use of their land. In addition, this change to the ordinance would allow for residents to increase the aesthetic and financial value of their properties while still requiring the majority of the home to have permanent concrete or treated wood foundation to anchor the structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given the above concerns, staff believes a change to Ordinance 8, Section 8.23 (A) Residential Building- Standards, would be beneficial to the residents of the City of Andover. Attachments Resolution ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to consider amending Ordinance 8, Section 8.23 (A). Respect submitted, Ce D ckay • L 0 1 CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8, Section 8.23 (A), AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 8.23 (A) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 8.23 (A), Residential Building Standards within the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: (Strike out indicates words to be deleted, underlining represents words to be added.) 8.23 Residential Building Standards. All permitted residential structures in R -1, R- 2, R -3, and R -4 zoning districts shall meet the following design criteria: (A) All structures shall have permanent concrete or treated wood foundations which will anchor the structure, which comply with the Uniform Building Code as adopted in the State of Minnesota and which are solid for the complete circumference of the • house. Except, four - season porches may be constructed without the permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of W, (20°4) Fifty (50 %) percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principal structure. (8JJJJ, 5- 16 -95) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor E