Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/05A C I T [[ Y�� O F • ND V� 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda October 25, 2005 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — September 27, 2005. 3. Variance (05 -05) to vary from the side yard setback requirements of City Code 12 -3- 4 for a detached accessory structure at 1511 138 Lane NW. 4. Other Business 0 5. Adjournment 0 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 and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 2005 DATE: October 25, 2005 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the September 27, 2005 meeting. 11 • NDOVEA k - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETMG — SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 • The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on September 27, 2005, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OFMINUTES. August 23, 2005 Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Jonathan Jasper (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Michael Casey and Valerie Holthus. Commissioner Dean Vatne. City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Jasper, Vatne) vote. PUBLICHEARING. LOT SPLIT (05 -10) TO CREATEANADDITIONAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT FROM PR OPER TY LOCA TED AT 17714 BLUEBIRD STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz the property is a comer lot that contains an existing house and accessory structure and is located at the intersection of Bluebird Street NW and Ward Lake Drive. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper arrived at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if at the time of the 1984 Planning Commission meeting did the property owner to the south own all of the property that is now Ward Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 27, 2005 Page 2 Lake Drive. Mr. Bednarz stated since that time the City purchased street easements on both Ward Lake Drive and Bluebird Street. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this planned to access from Ward Lake Drive. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirchoff stated it referenced in 1984 that lot splits did not allow for variances. He wondered if that continued to this day. Mr. Bednarz stated the Code has since been revised and includes a variance provision. Chairperson Daninger recognized a letter in opposition to the request that staff received from Mr. & Mrs. Paul and Kathleen Miller, 1519 Ward Lake Drive, Andover. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote. Mr. & Mrs. Paul & Kathleen Miller, 1519 Ward Lake Drive, stated they are not in favor of the split. Mrs. Miller wondered why the code changed in regards to size of lots and the variance. Chairperson Daninger believed the reason it changed was because times had changed. He noted the Ordinance also changed to allow a 90% provision. Mrs. Miller wondered if the neighborhood should be grandfathered in to not allow lot splits because they are long standing neighborhood. She noted she was also concerned about the septic, drainfield and wells and how if would affect them. Chairperson Daninger noted changes to the property cannot affect adjacent lots. Mr. Miller was also concerned about the effects this would have on the ground water. Mrs. Nancy Engly, 17744 Bluebird Street NW, stated her concern was that at the time they built their property and built their home, they chose to build there because of the quietness and distance from neighbors. She stated she was concerned about the ground water, noise pollution and precedence this would set. Mrs. Stacy Lund, 17811 Bluebird Street, wondered what the plan is for City water and sewer and if it is ever coming to their neighborhood and what the traffic pattern will be if they extend Hanson. Chairperson Daninger stated they are only looking at the lot split and she should contact City staff with questions. Mr. Bednarz stated the City's Comprehensive Plan does not foresee this area as being served with City sewer and water. The existing trunk sewer they have does not reach this far north to serve this area. He noted the Comprehensive Plan will be updated in 2008. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 27, 2005 Page 3 • Mrs. Lund stated another concern is the traffic the lot splits will create. She stated she was not for or against this but was trying to figure out how this will impact her neighborhood. Chairperson Daninger stated traffic is always a concern to them and will be looked at closely if developed. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote. Commissioner Jasper stated he was confused because the minutes from 1984 seemed to indicate the property directly north of Ward Lake Drive for fifteen feet was owned by the property owner to the south. He wondered if title for that property was ever combined with the property that is sought to be split. Mr. Bednarz showed a map of the proposed lot split and explained where the easement was and where the property line was located. He stated the property to be split is not a part of anyone else's property. Commissioner Jasper wondered if there was some more easement between the property line and road that is owned by the property owner to the south. Mr. Bednarz stated there was. He stated they made sure they did not use the easement from other properties to calculate the size of the property to be split. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if parcel B was tested to see if there could be a viable septic and drainfield put in there. Mr. Bednarz stated the property was evaluated for wetlands and there is room to position the home and put in a drainfield in a number of positions on the property. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the applicant was planning on building a home on the split property or were they planning on leaving it vacant and sell it as is. Mr. Bednarz stated he could not answer that. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if the split would have a negative impact on the quality of life and property values of the surrounding area. Chairperson Daninger did not believe it would. Commissioner Holthus did not think they could predict that. Commissioner Holthus wondered if the lot next to this was already split and when was it split. Mr. Bednarz thought it was split in the late 80s. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not like the rule that they can be ninety percent instead of meeting all of the requirements but in light of the fact that is the rule, it appears this lot split meets all of the requirements now in the ordinance. Chairperson Daninger stated that was correct. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 27, 2005 Page 4 Chairperson Daninger he did not feel one more house was a traffic concern at this time • and if that ordinance was not the way it was written, he would say no because there is no hardship for a variance to happen but based on what is written today, he has to accept it. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , lot split for planning case 05 -10. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0- nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 4, 2005 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items and storm clean up issues. Chairperson Daninger thought the City did a great job and had a quick response to the clean up of the storm. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchof� seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Motion • carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 0 AN66W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner AN- SUBJECT: Variance (05 -05) to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4: Minimum District Requirements on property located at 1511 138' Lane NW. DATE: October 25, 2005 INTRODUCTION Patrick and Susan Fugina have applied for a variance to build a two -car garage within their lot's 35 -foot sideyard setback. They are requesting a 15 -foot variance so they may build the garage 20 feet off the property line instead of the required 35. DISCUSSION The applicants' lot is located at the corner of 138 Lane and Drake Street, just north of the intersection of Hanson and Bunker Lake Boulevards. The A -acre lot has a large number of trees and a house with an attached garage, but no detached structures. Chapter 12 -3 -4 of the City Code states that any building must be set 35 feet back from a side property line adjacent to a street when it is not a back to back lot. Given the layout of trees and open lawn on the lot, the applicants feel that the required setback will force a proposed two -car garage into the open lawn and limit the amount of useable open area in their back yard. With the variance, the proposed garage can be moved closer to the lot line and the open area on the lot can be preserved for recreation. The applicants have submitted a letter to address the findings required for the variance. Included with the letter is a survey of the lot with a sketch of the location of the proposed garage. Please note: the applicant's letter makes reference to a letter of support written by a neighbor. The applicant has requested that this letter not be included with this report. The proposed garage would require a new access onto Drake Street. The applicants have received approval from the Engineering Department for a second driveway for their property that would enter onto Drake Street. As with all variances, hardship must be demonstrated to vary from the City Code. The standards used to evaluate hardship are as follows: 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. • Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. • 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property. 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of Chapter 12 -3 -4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot support the variance request because the proposed garage can be positioned to meet the applicable setbacks. However, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the justification provided in the applicants' letter. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings for a variance and recommend approval or denial of the request. Respectfully submitted, �D3S Andy rocs Cc: Patrick & Susan Fugina, 1511 138 Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 Attachments Resolution Location Map Letter from Applicant Lot Survey with proposed garage location • 0 —7— • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 20 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1511 138' LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 8, Block 6, Hills of Bunker Lake P Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4 to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 20 feet, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The applicants' property has a substantial amount of trees. 2. The back yard has one central open area that is used for recreation. 3. Strict adherence to the 35 -foot setback requirement would require that the proposed garage be constructed in the central open area in the back yard. 4. Building the garage at the full side yard setback would restrict the amount of open space • available in the back yard. WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds and recommended approval/denial of the request, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to reduce the side yard setback for the subject property from 35 feet to 20. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of _ 1 2005. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • —s— - Z/- • October 2, 2005 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W. Andover MN 55304 RE: Variance Request for 1511 -13e Lane N.W. To Whom It May Concern: This is written in support of our request for a variance allowing us to build a detached two -car garage with a side -yard setback of 20 feet from the property line. We have been advised the ordinance provides for a setback of 35 feet. Thus we are seeking a variance of 15 feet. We believe building this garage is necessary to preserve the aesthetic look of our neighborhood and protect our property. Our house was built with a two - car garage. We have four drivers in our family. We have two other children • who will be obtaining their driver's licenses during the next four years. We have three motor vehicles and a boat. Currently, we have to park one vehicle and the boat outside in our driveway. We do not like parking the vehicle and boat outside. We think the neighborhood looks better when people store their vehicles inside garages. We also think vehicles are more vulnerable to property damage when parked outside. The recent storm demonstrated that vehicles parked outside can suffer damage from wind and rain. Our neighborhood is pretty safe, but we have heard of cars parked outside being damaged by vandals. Since we live on a corner, we have developed a plan to build a 24 -foot by 24 -foot two -car garage inside the northeast corner of our property, the eastern boundary of which borders Drake Street. This eastern border of our property has a 16 -foot wide grass boulevard. A 42 -inch chain -link fence separates the boulevard from the rest of the backyard. There is a 30 -foot wide area inside the fence that is heavily wooded. Then there is an open area about 45 feet wide followed by a 25 -foot wide heavily wooded area along the western boundary of the backyard. 0 -S- The practical difficulty of building the garage with a 35 -foot setback is that • the garage itself would end up right in the middle of the open area of the backyard, which is the area we use for recreation (croquet, bocce ball, volleyball, sunning, etc.). This is because: the fence sits pretty close to the property line. The driveway to the garage would follow from the street through the 16 -foot boulevard, through the 30 -foot wooded area and into the open area of the backyard. The garage would then be set fully in the open area. It would sit right in the middle of the backyard. It just doesn't make sense to have a garage sitting right in the middle of your backyard. Therefore, the topographical makeup of our backyard makes it impractical and a hardship to build a garage with the 35 -foot setback. With a 15 -foot variance, most of the garage would be built within the wooded area and would blend in among the trees. Part of the garage, about 10 to 15 feet, would be within the open area. The placement of the garage, if the variance is granted, would maintain the character of the neighborhood. The. garage would be built with steel or vinyl siding of a color matching that of the house's aluminum siding (apparently you can't buy aluminum siding anymore). The roof tiles would also match • those of the house. We would preserve all of the trees possible on either side of the garage. From Drake Street, there would be the 16 -foot boulevard and a treeline approximately 20 feet long before the garage would begin. There would be trees on either side of the garage for the first 15 feet of the garage. So the garage would be nestled among the trees. Moreover, Drake Street curves nearly 90 degrees just north of our property and becomes 139` Lane N.W. As a result of the curve, other houses and garages on the street have the appearance of varying setbacks because of the configuration of the street. At the end of 139` Lane, just one block from our property, Hanson Builders is currently building a multiple townhouse development, Bunker Lake Village. The garages in that development are being built 25 feet from the street, apparently due to a variance granted by the city. So the garage would fit within the character of the neighborhood. Steve and Sue Hendrick, of 13934 Drake Street N.W., live directly north of our property. They are the only neighbors whose property abuts our backyard. They support our request for a variance. They have a swimming pool in their backyard separated by a fence from our backyard. They would • prefer the garage be built farther away from their swimming pool. If the _4._ • variance is granted, the garage would be built farther away from their swimming pool. (See letter of Steve and Sue Hendrick, attached.) We have considered alternatives to building this garage. We considered an addition to add a stall to our current two -car attached garage. However, due to the topography of the current garage to the side on Drake Street, we would need a variance of at least the same footage to add a one -stall garage. Moreover, we believe the difficulty of matching rooflines, siding, etc. to the existing house /garage would not be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. The other option is to do nothing and continue to park our additional vehicles outside. We prefer to avoid this option. We started considering building the garage two years ago. At that time we consulted with city staff about the setback requirement. We were given a chart labeled "6.02 Minimum Requirements." The chart said the sideyard setback "from street" was 35 feet. So for two years we planned the garage in the location for which we now seek a variance, thinking it was in conformance with the ordinance. (Apparently city staff realized the chart was in error and later modified it.) We discussed among ourselves that it • seemed like the garage would take up some of the open area of our yard and considered seeking a variance to build the garage 20 feet from the street (which we thought at the time was a 15 -foot variance). But we concluded the garage wouldn't take up enough of the backyard to constitute a hardship and decided not to seek a variance at that time. It was not until recently, after we chose a builder and applied for a permit, that we were told the 35 -foot setback started from the property line, i.e., about 15 feet from the street. That is when we determined that it would be impractical and a hardship to build the garage with a 35 -foot setback from the property line. That is the reason we are now seeking a variance. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Patrick & Susan Fugina • 1511 — 138"' Lane N.W. Andover MN 55304 —7— P R 4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Job No. 5241 Book 8 Page ... Scale ..� . = Dole, .Ttw6...1 FOR: Rdntree Realty O Denotes Iron pipe sal with o plastic plug stamped RLS 814 * Denotes found Iron pipe. D Denotes sei loth. Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus 5 5' 10' l( J. - -- --J 1 /�rp• rw, - 3 0 X 9 29- v Q a ,clE QUA 0104Kc S? � /3f�' &4/-/& Al F•C.EJ. = 844 zo Lol , Block , HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE 3RD ADDITION, Anoka County, Mn. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under m direct supervision, is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, was executed in accordance with the current Recommended Procedures For The Practice Of Land Surveying adonted by the Minnesota Land Surveyors :Association, and that f am 'a duly licensed Land Surveyor un .6 the laws Of the State of Minnesota. This certificate shows the location of a "propo building,, as staked by us, on said land, elevations, and the Location of all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. 't r, liability is assumed except to lh( client for whom this ,survey was prepared, hi.:; heir:= and ascig?ns, rind said li.ahilit i:- asssumed only for the actual cost of this survey. 1�1i1fi l)Lll +l'I? �L :ASSiICI ;i'I'Pti- I'C(