Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/03CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda June 24, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — May 27, 2003 3. Variance (03 -05) to vary from Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 Buildability to allow a home to be constructed on property located at 3632 171 Avenue NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Special Use' Permit (03 -07) to allow retail service and sales on a property zoned Limited Industrial (I) located at 13420 Hanson Boulevard NW. • 5. Variance (03 -06) to vary from Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 Buildability to allow a home to be constructed at 75 157 Avenue NW. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (03 -08) to Consider Amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 to allow right -of -way to be used in calculating lot area for determining the allowable square footage of accessory structures. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -06) 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 27, 2003 DATE: June 24, 2003 Reauest The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the May 27, 2003 meeting. 0 CITY of ANDOVER PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — 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. is 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. May 13, 2003 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 ENCROACIIMENT. 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 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 t 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 SPEC1 L USE PERMIT (01 -05) FOR NATURE'S RUN TO ADD A NEW FLOOR PLAN DESIGN 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. Mr. Bednarz explained 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 the buildings that was required as a part of the initial special use permit 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 only difference would be the additional finished square footage along the side and rear of the units. Commissioner Greenwald stated they could go with the original deck and the 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. 0 )r Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Greenwald asked how many units were proposed for Nature's Run. Mr. Bednarz stated he believed there were 54 units total. Commissioner Greenwald asked how many units were already up. Mr. Bednarz stated there were three buildings up so far. 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 RURAL RESIDENTL4L PROPER TYAT 17680 ARROWHEAD STREET NW FOR DONALD AND VALERIE HOL THUS. 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. Commissioner Jasper asked if the 150 by 150 box could be achieved by moving the line on the map. Mr. Bednarz stated they have taken a long look at this and the difficulty would be they would still need to provide the 300 feet of lot width for Parcel A at the front building setback, which is forty feet into the site. As a result the line that goes up to 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 i Gamache asked if they could move the new property line ten feet to reduce the lot width Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 4 1 to 290 feet and meet the ninety percent Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated if the change to • the ordinance is approved, that may be 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. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not spend enough time looking at the survey when it came in late in the day and has just discovered that the drawing introduced at the meeting does not provide 300 feet of lot width for parcel A. He explained on the map where the property line was and stated the information in the packet was better than the survey he just received. He stated the variance remains the same in that the 22,500 square feet is achievable but the 150 by 150 is not so to go back to Commissioner Jaspers point that was the reason for the significant jog in the property line was to get to the three hundred feet of lot width. Discussion continued with moving the property line for conformance. Mr. Bednarz stated the survey the Commission has is what has been discussed with the applicant and is proposed. Co 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 adjustments to the survey as discussed by staff. r 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 a new 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, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECL9L 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 any business would need a permit to do business in the is 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 it meets all the codes and work with the applicant on this. If it is a new building the commercial site plan process ensures compliance with ordinances. Discussion ensued in regards to the applicant operating a business without a permit and 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 it does not meet uniform building and fire codes and there is not any runnin water or bathrooms. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Archie Zahler, 3160 162 " 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. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 7 • Commissioner Vatne asked when Mr. Zahler purchased the property, did he understand this was limited industrial. Mr. Zahler stated he did. Chairperson Da asked if the nursery is a wholesale or retail operation. 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 a parking lot with hard surface and curb and gutter as was done for Andover Awards and Embroidery next door. 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. Discussion ensued in regards to the applicant operating a business without a permit and how he has not followed the rules and the Commissions concerns for other landscaping businesses operating in Andover, who follow the rules and may feel if the Special Use Permit is approved, would be unfair. • Commissioner Kirchoff stated when they see a conditional use permit, they usually see a site plan and the Commission has not seen a site plan for this so he thought this may be an incomplete site plan. Chairperson Daninger stated he was in favor of denying 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. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 8 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, 1 -nays (Gamache), 0- absent vote. Mr. 7ahl 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 zo ning 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, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -04) TO MODIFY 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 190 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 Ahngren 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. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 9 • 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. 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. Commissioner Vatne stated in previous discussions they have had, he likes the idea of preventing someone from stretching out building 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. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 17, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING. ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (03 -05) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8.23 RESIDENT19L 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 maxim coverage of fifty percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principle structure. Currently only 20% of the footprint is allowed. Mr. McKay stated the City of Andover has been receiving inquiries about 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 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 10 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 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. Ahngren, 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 wanting larger porches. 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 putting a total structure on posts. 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. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 27, 2003 Page 11 • Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to table this item for more information. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there will not be a meeting on June 10, 2003. Mr. Bednarz stated they had an open house for residential development last Thursday. It was fairly well attended. Chairperson Daninger stated there will be a meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Andover Elementary gymnasium to discuss the Community Center. ADJOURNMENT: 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. • A C I T Y 0 F DO • 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 Plann4ry SUBJECT: Variance (03 -05) to vary from Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 Buildability to allow a home to be constructed on property located at 3632 171 Avenue NW. DATE: June 24, 2003 • INTRODUCTION The applicant has requested that discussion of this item be suspended to allow consideration of the ordinance amendment concerning buildability requirmenents on rural lots. DISCUSSION If the ordinance is amended the variance would no longer be necessary and this item would not need to be considered. ACTION REQUESTED Please suspend discussion of this item indefinitely. If this item is revisited notices will be mailed to the surrounding neighborhood and another sign will be posted on the property. I, . : Cc: Dennis Picotte 2978 151 Lane NW 0 Ilk C T Y o f 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' / SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Special Use Permit to allow retail service on a property zoned Limited Industrial (I) located at 13420 Hanson Blvd. DATE: June 24, 2003 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a family martial arts studio at 13420 Hanson Blvd. Premier Karate intends to provide martial arts instruction to students ages 4 and up. No alterations will be made to the exterior appearance or dimensions of the building. Normal hours of operation will be from 4 pm to 10 pm Monday through Friday, and 10 am to 2 pm on Saturdays and/or Sundays for seminars or workshops. The maximum size of classes will be 24 students and the maximum number of sessions per day would be 6. DISCUSSION Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 8 section 5.03 B (attached) regulates Special Use Permits. Comparison of Proposal to Applicable Ordinances This use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. Nor will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Special Use Permit Ordinance. According to Ordinance 8.08 Parking requirements, retail store and service establishments require one (1) off - street parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. These are the same requirements of the previous use, a landscaping business. The total square feet are: 810 square feet in the office section 1140 square feet in the main training floor 620 square feet in the storage area This adds up to 2570 total square feet of floor area and a required 12 parking spaces. Although the number of students can be as high as 24 per session, because the primary business hours of Premier Karate Inc. will be from 4 pm to 10 pm Monday through Friday, and 10 am to 2 pm on Saturdays, additional parking can be shared with the other existing tenants of the complex who's hours of operation generally end at 5 pm Monday through Friday and are limited on the weekends. Further, most of the students are under the age of 16 and this establishment also has a large number of families who are enrolled together for classes. This indicates a large ratio of students will not drive themselves. They expect to have 2 employees to start with an eventual total of 4. There are a total of 32 parking spaces on this property. Additional Information The applicant has submitted a brief letter summarizing the details of the proposed business. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the requested special use permit. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the Special Use Permit. Respectfully submitted, Tyler M kay Cc: Patrick O'Neill 14330 Yucca St. NW, Andover, MN 55304 Attachments Resolution Location Map Area Diagram Letter from Applicant Photo 0 —z— • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF PREMIER KARATE A FAMILY MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13420 HANSON BLVD. NW. WHEREAS, Premier Karate has requested a Special Use Permit for a family martial arts studio for property located at 13420 Hanson Blvd. NW, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request does meet the criteria of Ordinance 8 section 5.03 B, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 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 approves the Special Use Permit for a family martial arts studio on said property. 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 0 -3- June 3, 2003 . City of Andover Attn: Planning Department 1685 Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 RE: Special Use Permit Application To whom it may concern, Premier Karate Inc. hereby applies for a special use permit to operate a family martial arts studio (Retail Service) at 13420 Hanson Blvd., which is currently zoned industrial. Premier Karate intends to provide martial arts instruction to students ages 4 and up in a family friendly atmosphere. Students participating in Premier Karate Inc. programs will improve their self - confidence, physical fitness and learn effective self - defense skills. Premier Karate Inc. includes a strong character skills program focusing on courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self control, indomitable spirit and respect in its programs. A detailed floor plan of the complex located at (Lot 31, Block 1, Echo Wood Addition, PIN# 343224440052) is enclosed. Premier Karate Inc. intends to lease only the portion of the complex specified as 13420 Hanson Blvd., which includes area 108, 109, 110, 112, and 203 as detailed on the attached floor plans. Premier Karate Inc. will not make alterations to the exterior appearance or dimensions of the building. The unit is divided into three areas (office, shop and storage). These three areas will be used as follows: Office: The existing office space is approximately 810 ft and is labeled (Area 108, 109 and 110) on the attached floor plan. Premier Karate Inc. will use the existing office space for office area, parental viewing area, reception area and martial arts equipment sales to its members. Premier Karate Inc. will apply for any appropriate building permits to add a small office within the existing office area, add a changing booth, and one or more viewing windows to allow parents to view the main training floor (Area 112) from the office area (Area 108). Also note in the detailed floor plan that Premier Karate Inc. will have access to the women's restroom (Area 110) and men's restroom (Area 111) Shop (Warehouse): The existing shop space is approximately 1140 ft and is labeled (Area 112) on the attached floor plan. Premier Karate Inc. will use the shop space as its main training floor. Premier Karate Inc. will apply for any appropriate building permits to add additional lighting and ceiling fans in the shop area. 0 Page t of 2 —4— • Storage (Mezzanine)' The existing mezzanine space is approximately 620 ft and is labeled (Area 203) on the attached floor plan. Premier Karate Inc. will use the storage space for storage, workshop, stretching area and/or semi- private lesson area. Premier Karate Inc. normal hours of operation will be 4 pm to 10 pm Monday through Friday, and 10 am to 2 pm on Saturdays. Occasionally, Premier Karate Inc. will be open from 9 am to 5 pm on Saturday and/or Sundays for seminars or workshops. The existing tenants of the complex are listed below including their hours of operation: • Hanson Builders — 6 am to 4:30 pm (M -F) • Minnesota Water Treatment — 9 am to 5 pm (M -F) • Julie Bolt State Farm Insurance — 9 am to 5 pm (M -F) • Jerry's Plumbing — 8 am to 5 pm (M -F) • Frank's Audio and Video Service — 10 am to 7 pm (M -F) and 10 am to 1 pm (Sat.) Premier Karate will offer for sale martial arts training equipment such as uniforms, sparring gear, and other martial arts training equipment, accessories and related items to its members. • If you have questions about this special use permit application please contact me at the number below. Sincerely, Patrick O'Neill President Premier Karate Inc. 14330 Yucca St. NW Andover, MN 55304 763 -576 -1890 or 612-987-9890 Attachments: Floor plan (2) Special Use Permit Application 11 Page 2 of 2 —S— �k t % ( &| �k 6 7 � � & \ E $ �\ 0 « _ § #_ E .(2 UA \ ' \ § § -� k . \ /�§ ��$ 4 0 � « 060 =� �( kq { \ \ _ /{. i : 2 ` � ) j E ƒ¥ X @ % Z } i f2 k -- . - f � . El O ca /G _ \ / ' 2 0 ED ta i � � - ! . - . CL ' & )) i ( k 0 14YV X 12H 4�' X .12I' < ovF DO -------------- ------------- 12 ro up UP 12 SHUF APE?" SHOP ARE;k )P AREA y r � -4" 3&-V" • '� 2 STIJD WALL MEN 10 TYPICAL CORRID-n% A Q29E of� t -ICE AR OFFICE AREA 1 • 6' % 12` i� �'-RETE SLAB PE 1 14i :X7 7'#v 4 3 5 —7— 6' x 16' CONCRETE S- A SLOPE 114" PEl! FOOT M-A%. a JV Y 23' -10 1/2 1. I 29' -10 1/2" i { AR 5 ' SNPLAR ' SN!LAP* X 12H 4VY X 12�# 14W X 12i- fAi3 OVEW OVERHEAD i 1 � 'T FL)TdL G STOPS WTFM s i { M804UM R 'o EXTRttt ! i ! POLYST `R sfi4`5 A ! W/ 5!R" V YP. BOAPtD 4R ` -- - - - - -� i ---- --- - - - - -- i — — — — — — — — — 6 WALL EX= ENDS i0 ROOF DECK ABOVE. CUT GYP, BOASOTO FTT DECK FLUTES AW FIRE CAULK JfSW OF GYP BOARD AND S T EEL ROOF DFCK. TYMAL AT . ALL SUCH LOCAMNS GUARDRAIL - SEE 2 2 GUARDRAIL - SEc 2 j 2 — � • � GLAi o Ln � n 202 20 ND FL R AREA STC3"GE STORAGE 620.3 SF 72 6203 SE _ #2 6 6 '2' Fi. , 't POLY cA, /29'-10 1/2" 29' -10 1/2" W C I T Y O F wD 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: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannj# SUBJECT: Variance (03 -06) to vary from Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 Buildability to allow a home to be constructed at 75 157' Avenue NW. DATE: June 24, 2003 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a variance to the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep dimensions of the buildable area required for rural lots to allow a home to be constructed on an existing vacant lot. DISCUSSION The attached survey indicates the proposed location of a new house. The survey also shows the area that would need to be filled to meet the 150 x 150 foot buildable area requirement. The applicant is proposing to custom grade only a portion of the lot to allow a walkout style home to be located on the existing slope of the property. This would prevent excessive fill and grading which would cause the loss of many of the existing mature trees on the property. The variance would be to reduce the size of the buildable area to allow custom grading of the lot. Photographs are also included in the attachments. Intent of the 150 Foot Wide by 150 Foot Deep Buildable Area Requirement As discussed at our last meeting, the intent of this requirement is to allow sufficient space for a home to be constructed as well as to allow an area of useable yard space for passive use or for the construction of detached garages, swimming pools and the like. Background This lot was created with a lot split that was approved on January 2 nd Of 2001. At the time the lot split was approved there was no information to describe the topography of the property. A condition of the approval required a survey to be prepared and evaluated by the Building Official to verify buildability. The survey has been prepared and the issue of excessive grading necessary to meet the ordinance requirements has been raised as a result. Potential Ordinance Amendment As you know, the Commission has asked staff to prepare information for a potential ordinance amendment that would allow custom grading of rural lots to prevent excessive grading and tree loss that results in radical changes to the natural character of rural properties needed to achieve a 150 foot by 150 foot buildable area. The Andover Review Committee has determined that this item should go to a City Council Work Session before being brought back to the Planning Commission. The next Council Work Session is scheduled for June 24, 2003. Hardship Presented by Applicant • In this situation the future owners of the home would prefer to maintain the natural character of the lot rather than have a large area cleared and flattened. The size of the required buildable area would change the character of the property such that it would effectively defeat the purpose of living in a rural area. The opportunity will exist in the future to clear an area for a pool or garage if the owner or a future owner would wish to construct one. The findings for granting the variance that have been provided by the applicant include: 1. Strict application of the ordinance would require excessive grading due to the topography of the property. 2. This would result in a loss of many mature trees and cause the lot to be undesirable. 3. Similar variances have been approved in the past with the topography of the property being used to justify approval of a variance. 4. The City has identified the merits of allowing custom grading on rural lots to prevent this situation. 5. Delaying construction of the proposed house to follow an ordinance amendment process would cause undue hardship to the applicant. Staff Recommendation In 2000, the City approved a variance to this requirement to allow the buildable area for a lot to be reduced by 34% or 7,842 square feet due to `practical difficulties' in achieving the required 22,500 square feet. • More typically this type of variance is approved for lots that are able to meet the 22,500 square feet, but do not meet the perfect 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep buildable area box. If the Commission and Council move forward with amending Ordinance 10 to allow custom grading of rural lots, this variance would not be necessary. As previously discussed, the City will begin to see this situation more frequently as more of the City develops and more difficult parcels are encountered. The Commission could choose to delay this item until an ordinance amendment is considered. The applicant has indicated that this would cause hardship to the property owner who is ready to begin construction of the new house immediately. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated hardship sufficiently to justify approval of the variance. Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Photographs Atitted, Cc: Bob Peach 15830 University Avenue NW Tristar Homes LLC 9534 Woodlawn Street North, Champlin, MN 55316 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR TRISTAR HOMES LLC TO WAIVE THE 150 FOOT WIDE BY 150 FOOT DEEP BUILDABLE AREA REQUIRMENT OF ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 AND TO REQUIRE ONLY THAT AREA NEEDED FOR A FOUNDATION OF A NEW HOUSE TO BE BUILDABLE AS DEFINED BY ORDINANCE 10 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 75 157 AVENUE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying east of the west 674.60 feet thereof, lying south of the north 359.53 feet thereof, lying west of the east 332.88 feet thereof, and lying northerly of the centerline of 157 Avenue N.W., as described in Document No. 651632. WHEREAS, Tristar Homes LLC has petitioned to vary from the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep buildable area requirement of Ordinance 10, Section 9.06, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstance for the subject property are as follows: 1. Strict application of the ordinance would require excessive grading due to the topography of the property. 2. This would result in a loss of many mature trees and cause the lot to be undesirable. 3. Similar variances have been approved in the past with the topography of the property being used to justify approval of a variance. 4. The City has identified the merits of allowing custom grading on rural lots to prevent this situation. 5. Delaying construction of the proposed house to follow an ordinance amendment process would cause undue hardship to the applicant. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of surrounding properties, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves the proposed variance request to: 1. Waive the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep buildability requirement of Ordinance 10, Section 9.06. 2. Require only that portion of the property needed to establish a foundation for a house to be buildable as defined by Ordinance 10 and to be confirmed by the Building Official. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER S ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Variance to Ordinance 10 Section 9.06 75 157th Avenue NW NNN W Project Location Map AndoversPlanning S89 "E 900.97 - - - - - - - - 974.60 - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- ----------- 300 - - - - -- - - - - - -- x 903.42 x 903.73 - - 3 � r \_ j 8 \� 1 \ / �56 3 'e 90�4.37 � 3904.64 x 906.60 / O' ® � 904.4.3 a3 'i I x 905.5 .� 1 ` 904.28 04.63 - -- 05.08 -- - - -_ 3�p x 903. 05.29 / - X98 / / � 90286, 903.3 l -4Bul"a Ara L_ lx 902.93 5 I \ I j x 907\58; �gOQ.16 py1 1 I 150'.0) \\ 903.6 1 xp05.17 � pp„_ _ J x901.58 901.95 x 901.32 899.92 PAR�EL A 3 - L3899.92 / I / 900.94 I i 9pY / /x900.82 _ - - -J ,x 901.99 x ?01.15 /' � x903.92 x902�� ,i /mac 0802186 system ay.s - 900.74 - X903.02 -903- Al MV03.56 / 904 - - Y1� 3 904.08 x - 8_8 9p3.75 ��� 1 ` 904.68 I _ I x90173 \ ` ^ 3.63 x 903.53 \ \ 18 Y � -1602.97 ` x 902.49 .10 - ^ 900.3 - � x 900.88 � ' 3 -J - X899.32 J ' �\ x 900.36 - �� ` 101.50 � 901.44 MIN 11 - i T x 89 .48 \ 70' 4110aff X899.51 \ \ x 898.35 x889.78 _ _= � 900.05 ` 9.85 .49 0HW - -999 93 OHW �� 00.24 �t'gpp 2D- 2 157TH AVENUE ---- x------- - -*--- ybon 899.44 .� IWAM 901.33 L-302.82 - _ "902.58 R=818.51 9oa49 _ 899.E d- 21'11'51 9W -�� 9`0a - IM CV N O N M 5 i 4 `s pry. 4 4%•°' 9 _ i � '�6 a b y o �• 5 4 a »a r /I � iJZ� :: t t• M� ter r� �' �. + ,.,,•: o �. '�- ;P .. , N F { �A-k , 6 T fY Y T K w 'F W. u C n� W i�a OF iow i .� , j ➢6° � w 71 pf �Y 11 sx � . �Y - i All" `�` �^� -i- •�''l:�a?'� .;'}?. ..ray. �>, €r� ar• ? i m ' . ��i,�. - � ;��'` >��:„ SQ�� ��''` t "-' �.� - y.qi �i_ 1 � 3 fA •�i ;,� > ��'� M'•. Ali. / •+�° h� r _ a v _ Ste- IT- Fri i 4i - j ar F Y ..I t 4 f l I fV kY � X' e I� �l 1 �V •yj{ V' J J c r � 1 ? r _ ` L ,�F1 YY ^! y Y 1 pp .-7. a c� y Ja /� �� Y ✓ � � �i Y � l � �1.. Ii 1 ✓� � y X`K / y T � 4 1 t r l yy �� •� �� tiR i } 1 �4 t r" y � 1 w C I T Y o f NDOVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning Commission CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning Intern SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -08) to Consider Amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 to allow right -of -way to be used in calculating lot area for determining the allowable square footage of accessory structures. DATE: June 24, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council has directed staff to investigate the possibility of allowing right -of -way to be used in calculating lot area for determining the allowable square footage of accessory structures. DISCUSSION Recently an Andover resident applied for a building permit to construct a pole barn that would exceed the size allowable by Ordinance 8, Section 4.05(C1). The resident owns 5.0002 acres, which includes county right -of -way (ROW). Minus the ROW, the resident has approximately 4.7 acres. Since the city does not include ROW in calculating allowable space for accessory structures, the resident would be allowed 1,134 sq. ft. (size of home foundation) in total area for accessory structures. If the city were to include the ROW, the resident would be allowed 43,560 sq. ft. (20% of 5.0002 acre lot coverage) for total size of structures (home + accessory structures). Staff has surveyed twenty area communities with the following questions: 1. Under what circumstances are pole bams allowed? 2. Under what circumstances is unlimited square footage of accessory buildings allowed? 3. Are there different classes of regulations for accessory structure size based on lot size, house size or other criteria? The purpose of the survey is to compare Andover's regulations for the maximum size allowable for accessory structures and to see how other cities compute "lot area." Several communities located in urban fringe areas have stricter limitations on the size of accessory structures. Some cities have limited pole barns for agricultural use only or have eliminated them based on their size and the size of the property. On the topic of how "lot area" is calculated, most cities responded with "everything included within the property boundaries." In some of these cities, right -of -way is not included within a lot's property boundaries. This is more common in urban areas. St Michael only uses "buildable area," excluding right -of -way and wetlands. Oak Grove includes half of the width of right -of- way in calculating lot area. The attached "draft" Resolution defines "lot area" as the total land area within the property boundaries, including the right -of -way. Currently, the definition of "lot area" is not included in the section regarding accessory structures, which may be causing misinterpretation. The definition of "Lot Lines" is found in the Definitions section at the beginning of Ordinance Eight, and reads; "A lot line is a property line bounding a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into the public right -of -way, the line of such public right -of -way shall be the lot line for applying this Ordinance. " The amendment as proposed will conflicts with this definition. Staff Recommendation The Andover Review Committee discussed these issues on June 10, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that right -of -way not be counted towards the lot area. If right -of -way were to be included, it is thought that many Andover residents with parcels close to five acres will apply to construct large pole barns. Another option the city has is to amend the ordinance to reduce the total square feet allowed for accessory structures. The current ordinance allows almost unlimited square footage of accessory structures for properties with more than five acres. This could be changed to "ten acres or more." ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Commission to discuss the pro's and con's of the issue and make an appropriate recommendation on the proposed ordinance amendment. Attachments Resolution Community Survey Respectfully Submitted, Jon Sevald CC: Chris Scheiber, 3026 161` Ave. NW Andover, MN 55304 0 0 (J) An accessory building may be located within the rear yard setback provided said accessory building does not occupy more than twenty -five (25 %) percent of a required rear yard. (K) A private garage in a residential district shall not be utilized for business or industry. Further, that not more than one -half (1/2) of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one (1) or two (2) car capacity may be so rented. Such garage shall not be used for more than one (1) vehicle registered as a commercial vehicle with the State of Minnesota. Said vehicle must be registered to the property leasor, or relative living on the premises. The gross weight of such commercial vehicle shall not exceed 12,000 pounds gross capacity. (8KKK, 1- 16 -90) In an R -1 or R -2 Single Family Residential District on a parcel of at least three (3 a.) acres in size, one (1) truck - tractor may be stored within an accessory building. This shall not include the parking of semi - trailers. (8KKK, 1- 16 -90) (L) Vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds gross weight shall be parked in a garage or along the side or rear of a residential lot. Such vehicles shall not be parked in the front yard. (M) No permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted accessory building, except small garden sheds not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3 a.) acres or less in all residential districts and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary. The foregoing shall not apply to painted and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (81,10-21-80; 8U, 7- 19 -83; 8DDD, 11- 01 -88; 8QQQ, 4- 02 -91) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this _ day of July, 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • 5 Ordinance Survey Staff has surveyed twenty area communities with the following questions: 1. Under what circumstances are pole barns allowed? 2. Under what circumstances is unlimited square footage of accessory building allowed? 3. Are there different classes of regulations for accessory structure size based on lot size, house size or other criteria? The following ten cities responded with these answers: Andover 1. Pole Barns are permitted in rural residential areas on parcels over 5 acres. 2. Lots in excess of 5 acres are allowed up to 20% of total lot coverage. 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: • In Urban Residential district (R-4), accessory structures shall not exceed 1,200 sq ft total and shall not exceed 50% total in area of the principal structure • 1.01 — 5 acres = shall not exceed total footprint area of the principal structure Cottage Grove 1. Allowed in rural residential areas. 2. Unlimited square footage of accessory buildings are allowed in active Agricultural use as defined by the state. 3. Regulations are classified by zoning districts. Dayton 1. Allowed in rural residential and agricultural areas. 2. Accessory structures greater than 2,000 sq ft (total of all accessory structures) requires an Interim Use Permit for agricultural use only. 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: • • 0 — 2.5 acres = 1,250 sq ft max • 2.5 — 4.99 acres = 1,750 sq ft max • 5.0 — 9.99 acres = 2,000 sq ft max (residential use) • 5.0 — 9.99 acres = 3,000 sq ft max (agricultural use) • 10 + acres = As per impervious coverage limits (10% of land area). Farmington 1. Allowed in agricultural districts. 2. Size is unlimited where permitted (in agricultural districts). 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: 0 - 0.5 acres = 1,000 sq ft or total area of dwelling, which ever is less • 0.5 — 1 acre = 1,250 sq ft or total area of dwelling, which ever is less • 1 acre or more = 1,500 sq ft of total area of dwelling, which ever is less Ham Lake 1. Allowed in rural residential, rural agricultural zones and in PUD's. 2. If more than 10 acres, accessory structure size is to be approved by Council on a case -by- case basis. 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: • 0 — 1 acre = 676 sq ft max • 1— 2.5 acres = 720 sq ft max • 2.5 — 5 acres = 800 sq ft max • 5 — 10 acres = 1,200 sq ft max ** • 10 + acres = as approved by City Council * may be up to 1,200 sq ft with neighbor's permission. ** maybe up to 1,800 sq ft with neighbor's permission 'J Oak Grove 1. Pole Barns are allowed in residential and rural areas. 2. Accessory structures may be unlimited in size if used for agricultural purposes. . 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: • 0 — 1.49 acres = 1,200 sq ft max • 1.5 — 2.49 acres = 1,800 sq ft max • 2.5 — 3.99 acres = 2,400 sq ft max • 4.0 — 5.99 acres = 3,600 sq ft max • 6.0 — 9.99 acres = 5,000 sq ft max • 10 + acres = 7,000 sq ft max In calculating lot area, Oak Grove includes half of the right -of -way. Plymouth 1. Pole Bams are not permitted. 2. Accessory structures greater than 1,000 sq ft may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Accessory Structures may have a maximum size of 1,000 sq ft, or 30% of the area of the rear yard, which ever is less. Plymouth's definition of lot area is "the total land area of a horizontal plan within the lot lines." Prior Lake 1. Pole Bams are allowed for agricultural uses only. 2. N/A 3. In residential areas, accessory structures are limited to 832 sq ft, or 25% of the rear yard, which ever is less. Shakopee 1. Allowed in rural residential and agricultural zones. 2. Accessory structure size is unlimited in the rural residential and agricultural zones. 3. In residential zones (other than rural residential), accessory structures shall not exceed • 10% of the lot area or 75% of the square footage of the principal dwelling, which ever is less. Right -of -Way is excluded from calculating lot size if it is outside of the property lines. St. Michael 1. Pole Bams are allowed for agricultural use only. 2. Accessory structure size is unlimited in agricultural zones only. 3. Size (in permitted zones) is determined by lot size: • 0 — 1 acre = 1,200 sq ft max • 1 — 2 acres = 1,600 sq ft max • 2 — 5 acres = 2,000 sq ft max Only "buildable area" is used in calculating the lot area in regards to accessory structures. Right -of -way and wetland is not included. The Planning Commission believes that accessory structures "is a luxury, not a necessity." 0 7 &Db Y O F • OWE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commissioners D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner/fl PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 8 Section 8.23 (A) Residential Building Standards June 24, 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 without 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. DISCUSSION 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 raising 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. Additional information A survey was taken of neighboring cities in regards to their restrictions on decks. The cities of Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Ham Lake, and Ramsey, use setbacks as the only restriction as to the size of a porch. The regulatory mechanism is the same as any other addition. A The Andover City Attorney stated that he was unaware of any laws, which would prohibit a City from establishing size limits on porches. This type of regulation would fall within the powers is given cities under the state enablining legislation regarding zoning. This would be similar to the kinds of regulations limiting building sizes and area coverage limitations within our Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission wished to know the number of requests for porches larger than the current 20% maximum size. Unfortunately, the City Building Department has no record for this, although the total number of porch permits have been 44, 57, 29 and 41 for the years 2002, 2001,2000 and 1999 respectively. Staff Recommendation 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. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to consider amending Ordinance 8, Section 8.23 (A) to increase the size of the four- season porches to 50% of the habitable portion of the principle structure. Respectfully submitted, F . - Ty'ler Mckay Attachments Resolution Minutes 11 r2— 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 tNveffty (20%) 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 -3- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ` Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 9 ommissioner Greenwald asked what Ordinance states they need to have the old house • do within thirty days after completion of the new house. Mr. Ahngren stated it is on a reconhq,endation by the City Council in prior years. Discussion tinned in regards to the time limit that should be put on allowing two main structures to re standing after the new house is completed. Motion by Gamache, conded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -a , 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconde\bye, o close the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- Commissioner Vatne stated in previous discus 'cns they have had, he likes the idea of preventing someone from stretching out building 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 ad reading "The new principal building must be completed within twelve months of the issu tee of the building permit and the old principal building must be removed or demolished \adding f the issuance of a certificate of occupancy." Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the Co val of Resolution No. , approving the proposed lot split and varig to the Ordinance. 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 Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (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 of the habitable portion of the principle structure. Currently only 20% of the footprint is allowed. Mr. McKay stated the City of Andover has been receiving inquiries about 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 • —0— Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 10 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 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 wanting larger porches. 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 putting a total structure on posts. 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. .5-- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 27, 2003 Page 11 Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to table this item for more information. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. BUSINESS. Mr. Bedna mentioned that there will not be a meeting on June 10, 2003. Mr. Bednarz state ey had an open house for residential development last Thursday. It was fairly well attende Chairperson Daninger stated th will be a meeting on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Andover E entary gymnasium to discuss the Community Center. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. at 9:13 p.m. E LJ 6-