Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/06C I T Y O F s ND 4VE 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 March 28, 2006 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — March 14, 2006. 3. Variance (06 -02) to consider variance to parking setback requirements for property located at 3480 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. 4. Variance (06 -03) to consider a variance to setback requirements for property located at 5159 159' Avenue NW. 5. Other Business 49 6. Adjournment • • 0 OV 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 - March 14, 2006 DATE: March 28, 2006 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the March 14, 2006 meeting. �J 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MARCH 14, 2006 CJ • The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on March 14, 2006, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Damnger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) and Michael King. Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OFALUVUTES. February 28, 2006 There were none. Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Walton) vote. Commissioner Greenwald arrived at 7:03 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (06 -02) TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM GENERAL B USINESS (GB) TO MULTIPLE DWELLING (M-1) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission would be voting on the rezoning and revised preliminary plat separately, but the public hearing would pertain to both issues. Mr. Vrchota explained the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning and revised preliminary plat to allow the revised Parkside at Andover Station plat to move forward. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff reports with the Commission. • Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:05 p.m Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Holthus asked if there was anywhere else on the development where there were two story buildings. She asked if staff had a diagram of what the building would look like. Mr. Vrchota responded applicant was present who could answer questions, but he did not have a diagram of the buildings. Greg Schlink, representative of the applicant, responded the units that were clustered in 8 four -unit buildings were the two story units. In terms of elevation, they presented those at the initial Planning Commission meeting. He presented a photograph of the one and two story buildings that were very similar to what would be built. Chairperson Daninger stated he was always concerned about buffering and screening. He • asked if this had anything to do with the existing residential area. Mr. Schlink responded the only residential involved was along the west side, which had already been addressed. Commissioner Greenwald asked if there would be a property owner's association and if so what were the monthly fees of the association. Mr. Schlink replied he did not have that information at this time. Commissioner Greenwald inquired about the widths of the road and curbing. Mr. Schlink responded the streets had a 60 -foot right of way and would be built to City standards. Commissioner Walton asked why phase one was only two story units and phase two had all of the one story units. Mr. Schlink responded a portion of the site was being sold to Pulte Homes who would build the two story units and they intended on building the two story homes right away. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Rezoning (06 -02) from General Business (GB) to Multiple Dwelling (M -1) for property located in the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 14, 2006 • Page 3 Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARYPLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OFPARKSIDEATANDOVER STATIONIN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the resolution. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WEST OF COUNTRY OAKS WESTAND NORTHEAST OF THEINTERSECTION OFHANSONBOVLEVARD AND 161 'A VENUE NW. • Mr. Cross explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for a single - family urban residential development. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff inquired about Lot 11, Block 4, Mr. Cross stated one lot was 8 square feet short of the minim so in order for this to proceed, the developer would be required to bring that lot into compliance. Commissioner Greenwald inquired about 161` Avenue NW. He asked who was paying for the improvements. Mr. Cross responded the improvements would be shared by those who benefited from it, including the proposed development. He noted the existing properties would not be forced to shoulder any additional cost of the improvements. He indicated the City would apply State Aid funds to help pay for the improvements. Commissioner Greenwald asked how the firture ghost plats would be addressed. Mr. Cross replied the areas that were not being developed right now and thus would not be contributing to the intersection improvements. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the City of Andover would incur any expense in improving this road. Mr. Cross responded the City would not, it would be paid for by State Aid. L� Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Walton inquired what the access point would be for Block 2, Lot 1. Mr. • Cross responded one thought would be to combine Lot I and 2 with the intent of splitting the lot later on when the street was constructed to allow access. Chairperson Daninger inquired about the intersection movements. Mr. Cross stated there were a couple of options, one being a right in -right out movement and the other option would be a through lane with a by -pass lane. He noted the County had presented these options, but the ultimate decision would probably be left up to the developer. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Winslow Holasek asked if 161 " Avenue NW was a County Road and was it planned to stay a County Road. Mr. Cross responded it was a County State Highway and it would remain as such. Winslow Holasek asked if the State Aid could be spent on an MSA County Road. Chairperson Daninger responded they did not know if this was an MSA County Road. Winslow Holasek asked if the City could spend State Aid funds on a County Road. Chairperson Daninger responded he did not have that answer, but he would have staff get back to him. • Winslow Holasek asked if in the future would the County allow a street to go out onto Hanson Boulevard where the ghost plat was located and if so would the same improvements be required. He asked who would pay for that improvement. Chairperson Daninger noted they were not addressing this lot at this time, but it would need to be kept in mind for any future development. Winslow Holasek asked if there was sufficient sewer capacity for these additional lots. Chairperson Daninger stated he believed this had been resolved, but indicated staff would look into this. Motion by Casey, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Greenwald asked if there was an existing building on Lot 5. Chairperson Daninger stated if there was a structure on that lot that did not conform, it would be need to be removed. Mr. Cross noted that property would conform, but the building on Lot 26 would not conform and it would be removed. Commissioner Greenwald expressed concern about emergency vehicles being able to get • back onto 161 " Lane if there was some blockage in the road. Chairperson Daninger Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 Page 5 asked if it was possible to make some type of a circle type street to eliminate the cul -de- sac. Mr. Cross stated this was the only plan brought forward, but the developer was on hand to answer questions. Commissioner Walton asked on Block 5, Lot 18 what happened with the existing well and septic system on that residence. Mr. Cross stated no septic system would be allowed to remain in use if it did not comply with the standards, but it the septic system was still functioning, they would not be required to hook up to the sewer system However, they would still be required to pay for a sewer stub. He indicated a well would need to be capped off as it was no longer in use. He stated all of this would be reviewed in- depth. Larry Emmerich, 1341 161 Avenue NW, applicant, and Mike Brandt, Engineer, were present for questions. Chairperson Daninger asked if they had looked at a looping type road to eliminate the cul-de -sac. Mike Brandt responded they had looked at this possibility, but there were wetland issues that prevented the looping they were asking for. He noted the reason they had these roads set out the way they were proposing did meet all of the City's • transportation plans. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the sewer capacity was. Mike Brandt replied there were 77 lots remaining after the transition of the entire area. Mr. Emmerich stated the total number was 185 for both Country Oaks and this project. He indicated County Oaks had 106, 3 were spoken for by a neighboring properly to the east, which left 77 units for the remainin parcel. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission preferred no cul -de -sac and something needed to be done with Lot 1 and 3. . Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would support the County suggestion of the full intersection at 161" and not have a right -in and right -out intersection. VARIANCE (06-01) TO CONSIDER VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16552 VERDIN STREET NW. Mr. Vrchota explained the applicants are requesting a 20 -foot variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of an attached garage. • Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Greenwald asked if there were trees on the garage side. James Pierson, • 16552 Verdin Street NW, the applicant, responded there were a lot of trees between him and his neighbor. He indicated he had to remove some box elder to put in the garage, but he had intended to take down those trees whether he built the garage or not. Chairperson Daninger noted this was not a public hearing, but they would allow public comments. Lorna Erickson, 2435 166 Avenue, asked what would happen with the existing driveway. She stated she had spoken with someone at the County who indicated they did not know about the moving of the driveway, but she understood the driveway had already been approved. She expressed concern about the site lines of the driveway. Chairperson Daninger noted this was a recommending body only and this would be at the Council meeting by March 21. He stated staff would have an answer at the Council meeting. Commissioner Holthus asked if there was another driveway to the north onto the side street. Mr. Pierson shook his head no. Chairperson Daninger asked what would happen to the existing driveway. Mr. Vrchota responded the existing driveway would need to be removed and would need to meet the slope of the adjoining property. Also, some brush would need to be removed for clear site lines for the driveway. • Commissioner Kirchoff stated the permit would not be applied for until it was approved by Council and that was why the County would not have a record of a permit. He stated he supported the moving of the driveway. Commissioner Holthus believed this was a good idea also because where the driveway was now she believed it was more hidden than where they were proposing to put the new driveway. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed variance to the front yard setback. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER LICENSING REQUIREMENT SAND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR VEHICLE SALE& Mr. Cross explained this item continues the discussion from the February 14 and February 28 meetings. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 • Page 7 Chairperson Daninger noted staff had received an email from Eric Kohnke, 921 158` Avenue NW, in favor of this Ordinance. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to open the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Joe Braband, 16351 Gladiola Street, stated there was a discussion about the vehicle weight which was something he had suggested. He stated GBW needed to be added to the 12,500 pound GV W. He indicated the weight of the vehicle was irrelevant. He noted with the 10,000 pound weight that would broaden this and allow a very large vehicle. He stated they wanted to look at the GV W, not at the actual weight of the vehicle. He indicated a 10,000 pound vehicle was a very large vehicle. He noted with respect to the vehicle repair issue, he stated it was required by law that new vehicle dealers have a . repair facility on their site. He stated the restriction of automotive repair on site was not the original intent. He indicated the Council was aware that he had automotive repair on his site and it was not their intent to restrict the repair, but instead they were concerned about signage, etc. Lorna Erickson, 2435 166 Avenue, stated she supported Mr. Braband. • Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchof� to close the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Chairperson Daninger stated it was their intent to measure the vehicle by GVW and not actual weight Commissioner Walton stated he would like to see the chart staff had prepared again, but he did not want to hold this item up with this request Commissioner Kirchoff noted item "I" was stricken. He asked if this should remain or was it part of item "H". Mr. Cross responded that item would remain as item' P'. Commissioner Greenwald asked if Mr. Braband could remain in business with condition "I" as written. Mr. Braband shook his head no. Commissioner Walton stated Mr. Braband had indicated he needed a full repair shop in order to stay in business. Commissioner Greenwald noted they were wasting their time if item "I" remained as it was written, which would not allow Mr. Braband to remain in business. Chairperson Daninger stated he wanted this to go forward with this and the spirit and intent was not as written and Council could change this. Commissioner Greenwald stated Mr. Braband should come up with a statement that • could be agreed upon by Council. He noted as it was written, be could not approve this. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner King noted the facility on the property already performed a repair • business, he should be allowed to continue. Chairperson Daninger noted they were not just considering this particular property and they were looking at this as a whole. He noted this particular business might be able to get a Conditional Use Permit if needed. Commissioner Walton asked what has happened in the past when ordinance changes came close to going to Council. He asked if it has been tabled for further information. Chairperson Daninger stated it was rare if after a public hearing an issue is tabled. He stated while they were not at 100 percent, they had come to a compromise and if the spirit or intent of this was not what they were thinking, it could be changed prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Greenwald stated they could pass this on, except for 3- 8 -8(1) that this should be researched by staff. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Ordinance Amendment to consider licensing requirements and performance standards for vehicle sales with 3- 8 -7(C) to allow 12,500 GVW weight and on 3 -8 -8(1) staff to research if the part stricken out should be stricken as well as this being too restrictive. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 4, 2006 City • Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO CITY CODE 12 -13-& Mr. Vrchota explained this item continues the discussion from the February 28� meeting. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald stated he had a concern about CA (page 13) height of the sign not being taller than the highest outside wall or parapet. Mr. Vrchota noted the sign could be put in front of the parapet, but not above the roofline if there was no parapet. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Walton, to open the public hearing at 8:40 pm. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2006 • Page 9 Commissioner Walton stated he believed memorials and dedications should be covered in this also. He believed this might have been missed by staff. Mr. Vrchota noted memorial signs were only mentioned as a sign affixed to a bench. Commissioner King inquired on Page 7, Section 8, election signs, he asked if there should be some consideration given for school board district elections, which might be different than the general election. Commissioner Greenwald suggested the signs could be displayed 90 days prior to an election until ten days after the election. Mr. Vrchota stated they would look at adding supplemental language for special election events, rather than revising the wording. Commissioner King noted on Page 17, section 12- 16 -7 -A, the section number had a typographical error and should be changed. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Sign Ordinance Amendment to consider revisions to City Code 12 -13 -8 with staff adding a reference to memorial signs. Staff revise Section 12 -164A to add wording for either fixing the election wording or adding wording for special elections. Section 12 -16- 5 numbers A and F are to be combined. On Page 17, reference to Section 12- 16 -7 -A -6 to be changed to 12- 16 -8 -A. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 4, 2006 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. None. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchofj� to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 • C I T Y O F NDC�VE 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: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann4 SUBJECT: Variance (06 -02) to consider variance to parking setback requirements for property located at 3480 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. DATE: March 28, 2006 INTRODUCTION Mr. Gerald Mazzara has applied on behalf of Joy Boehland to vary from parking lot setback requirements on a vacant property near the intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Rose Street NW. The vacant lot was recently split from the larger lot across Rose Street to the west, which contains an office building. • DISCUSSION Chapter 12- 13 -9 -E of the City Code requires a minimum parking setback of twenty feet adjacent to public - right -of -way. As shown on the attached site plan, variances are requested to reduce this setback to 10 feet along the west property line and 18 feet along the south property line. There would also be a slight encroachment for the bumpout shown at the north end of the parking area. 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. The applicant has provided the attached letter to address the required findings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance based on the fact that Anoka County bisected the property when the Bunker Lake Boulevard frontage road and Rose Street NW were . constructed. As a result, the development potential of the property was reduced and the site now borders a public street on three sides of the property. The variances will allow reasonable use of W this commercial property and allow the site to provide adequate parking for the proposed building. • ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings and recommend approval or denial of the variance request. Re . e , y z Cc: Gerald Mazzara, Design Forum, Inc. 4801 West 81" Street, Suite 101 Mpls, MN 55437 Joy Boehland 7217 Germanium St NW Ramsey, MN 55303 Attachments Resolution Location Map Letter from Applicant Site Plan • • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE TWENTY FOOT PARKING SETBACK REQUIRED BY CITY CODE 12- 13 -9 -E FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3450 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The West 300 feet of that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, lying East of the West 733.02 feet thereof and lying North of the North line of 136' Lane NW and its Easterly extension as now laid out and platted in the plats of Chapman's Second and Third Additions, Anoka County, Minnesota and lying southerly southeasterly and easterly of Parcels 24, 24A and 24B, Anoka County Right -Of -Way Plat NO. 47. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4 to reduce the parking setbacks required by City Code 12- 13 -9 -E, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The parcel was bisected by Anoka County when the Bunker Lake Boulevard frontage . road and Rose Street NW were constructed. 2. As a result, the parcel is bordered by public streets on three sides. 3. The variances will allow reasonable use of the commercial property by allowing a commercial building and associated parking to be constructed. WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds recommended approval/denial of the request, and; 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 required parking setback to 10 feet along the west property line, 18 feet along the south property line and as shown on the site plan revised February 14, 2006 for the northerly extension of the proposed parking area. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor O J m W Y Q J 0 Z (ER LAKE BLVD - . .. - -" . . ,- - , '. ,- , ,DESIGN.FORUM - - City pf Andover Mi': Courtney Bednarz' City Planner . . 1635 Crosstown Blvd., N.W., Andover, Minnesota 55-3Q4 ,- -' E.nclosed is our,~ariance ~uest fQtm for the Joy Boeh1~Site located 'atBUnk~:t L~e ' '. . ',. ,',' ',' -'- "-.' ..' . . .... .. ..... ",- - .... . . ,', - ," . '>. ... , Blvd., ,and Rose Street Ms, Joy Boehland wishes to construct a comnierciallretaU',' building on the'remaiDing'parcel of land identified as LOt 24 B. This: lotis the ietPaijldet " ,of a l3rger parcel which 'waS split in two by the:; City to accommQdate a public roarl (Rose ,- '. - Street). to ,provide ~c.acCess/egres~ p-om the existipg church property two parcels,to - the: west of Lot 24B. ,,- .' ".' \ -' ." . ~ ,:'.. ,j" '. . . '; \ " .,. , ,This division has caused .site 248 t6 be. dijEcu1t to develop to its full'potential due to t1:i.e: . consiqefable. amount of land taken. ' " . -,' f _~,. . .' '_' _ . .' . . ..... ~ . :' -'. . . . ',,' ..: -", . . . . ' " .. . . ..,' . . .,' , .' "'- ,_'",':' . Forthis,reason we ilreasking the City toco~ider avariance to the parking setbacks ~'..' allow for a functiona1site'pl~ with adequate Pll!king, , :The site Will Oeverywell':.,.' land~ap~ along the- setback areas,as artfull!;lIldscaping is an inherent part or, the ov~~ concept for the newbllilding and site. - ' .,-. .... ~.',. ,. .-1 __ The ~e'Y build!n~ ~ he a two.;torey. structure coinp~~oimew r()(jfine.stone"mid,~:' horizontal sid41gahd will be censiderably more attractive than,the existing SUITPunding buildings, Ourinteiltionsareto enhancethis rielghborhtjodwithadesigil thatwll1 " enc?uragethe SWTounding o:uil~ owners, to upgrade their ~buildiD.gs.,' ". - , .,. '.. , M~.. Joy Boehland hopes theGity will support Qut effo.gs:; , , - , Respectfullr subnri,tt.ed. ~, pesignFonnn, IDc, . ' ,~~/., '.. -' J. ",- , GeraldJ..M3zzara' . , ' It ,"- , - . , , - . , , 4801 WEST 61ST STREET. SUITE 101 ' , MINNEAPOl,.IS, MINNESOTA 55437 612.831.;;;9;26 FAX 612.$312904 , , -, c,.a ii N. T i' ----. --~ r " ". 589'39 '20"r '~~~-:-~~~~I , ,) .......,,, '''' I... ! ' , . I ' ".'. .,-::'S>:,, ':,~'.', .... .: .: -'~---.. ;', ,._____, ..~~l'J .' "',; (,'..:'~) "t::t:~ -,'.:. ~ .. J'''. . II .:~'~~' ...,. > " t, YA' .",,.f~.~_. ,..1 . .:", l-.. ~ " i ;." ", \ ~ .\' r kI I . \' '.~ , " ' .. . \ r ~ ~ \ 'i:-..{ .: 1 ", :.. I"') \~;o '1.1',. .: ," _ '. 2,'.00' ,>' .. ' ~ ," ".' \ .1 i : I , " " , , ' I j ! / , . , ' , I ,'J \ ,,:,,-~;;;..j ;;.':..:~l .......'" ,I -"~ ~. ,.- ': ..' .. ,~,~~::=::~~: '", ....... . d '.'i~: '.' '. '.. ".' T H''<:. '<~,-~~~~::~i,~$"";~;~~;i&:ji~k~r: ~ " ..::.C "?!;':~t~:li'E!,~j(:~:~;~~~:::::;~,f;~t.~;~t~!f~tJli1~j:~;1f.h1:J~1.~ffI~rtii~;WR _. -~ -.-- -..". .... .!. .. , , ,~'. i' '. .", .. -, ~~. , , !!,;... - 'B 0 UL E V,A R D: ~,e ",i'. B UNKER L.AKE N .W'..." .,;:'tJ 'r; (c' 0 U N T r STAT,E A I D HIGH"A ~ N' 0, r 1 6) -~' ',,; -~ .'--" .. ,.:.' ,"} i/.") ';" .. .,." . .. , jot: A P :. ......~ 1.1-,.: .. ;~ .. i: "~ .. .. .. .~ .. - I~ ..,-,it;_ " , ,~":" 1'\ ' ' .,' y~ '...' ~, ".,~.. ' \\ ", ::/'>' . , f! ! Ir1,. " , : ,1"1:."""""..,,..,' ,"". 'I ~ ~C""'~-F.'. i I r ,e 'I' ~:/ , ' . / '? . " L-",;,' , '.,....". U ,",. ";"""""":>);,:fl1lC~', ""- ..,...,; _'i:~~~_,r;il~' \, f/:\'~::" ..' 9'~' ''- . , .- . . ." ":," - e": , __'0" _._ '-',~EVEii~~ I ~...e;. I ... I '" '" 0: : i .... .tr/' : '" .:;' v, '. .. " " '''''.'', .,'~" ',,- ':-' . ,." ~. ~ , ,_"oM" ~ ' .. ""'--~"- .- ',.~."... ,":- ; "(~... "'" , " ',..- ~;~\.~ ~~";::_,,,:.,~~ " e..;.... ,., " : u ANL6 6V9^ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLAN DOVER. MN. US P TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner 14DC— SUBJECT: Variance (06 -03) to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4: Minimum District Requirements on property located at 5159 159 Avenue NW. DATE: March 28, 2006 INTRODUCTION This property was among those declared Hazardous Structures by the City Council. The applicant, Mr. Pete Crosby, has purchased the property and is rehabilitating the house. DISCUSSION There is currently no garage on the lot, so the applicant is proposing to build one. The property was platted in the 1960's and is far smaller than the 2.5 -acre minimum that its zoning district requires. Meeting the front -yard setback will not be possible. A typical 2.5 -acre lot requires a 40 -foot setback, but this lot is only about 135 feet deep. The applicant is proposing that the garage be placed 10 feet away from the front property line, requiring a 30 -foot variance. Since the property is along the Rum River, it falls under the City Code's Scenic River District Regulations and Requirements (City Code 13 -5). Among other things, these regulations require that buildings be at least 150 feet from the river's high water mark. The existing house does not meet this requirement — it is only 85 feet away from the high water mark. Since the house was constructed before the implementation of the Scenic River District Regulations, it is considered legal non - conforming. The proposed new garage cannot meet the 150 feet either, but can be located 113 feet from the high water mark, requiring a 37 -foot variance. Here is a table detailing the variance requests: City Code 13 -4 -4 requires that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have an opportunity to review any variance requests along shoreland area. Mr. Tom Hovey at DNR- Waters in St. Paul has been sent a copy of this variance application and his comments are attached. If the City grants approval to the variance request, the information will be sent to the DNR for final approval. R -1 Requirement Proposed Variance Request Garage Sideyard Setback 5 feet 5 feet N/A Garage Front Yard Setback 40 feet 10 feet 30 feet Scenic River District Setback 150 feet 113 feet 37 feet City Code 13 -4 -4 requires that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have an opportunity to review any variance requests along shoreland area. Mr. Tom Hovey at DNR- Waters in St. Paul has been sent a copy of this variance application and his comments are attached. If the City grants approval to the variance request, the information will be sent to the DNR for final approval. 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 supports the granting of both the variance to front yard setback and the City Code's Scenic River District Regulation's 150 -foot high water mark setback. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings for a variance and recommend approval or denial of the request. Respectfully submitted, Andy Cross Attachments Resolution Location Map Letter from Applicant Comments from Tom Hovey at Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lot Survey with proposed garage location Cc: Peter & Amy Crosby, 5132 Oxbow Place, Champlin, MN 55316 • LJ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 40 FEET TO 10 FEET AND THE SCENIC RIVER DISTRICT REGULATION'S HIGH WATER MARK SETBACK FROM 150 FEET TO 113 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5159 159' AVENUE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Government Lot 6, Section 13, Township 32, Range 25, Anoka County, Minnesota . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4 to reduce the front yard setback for the subject property from 40 feet to 10 feet, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 13 -5 -5 to reduce the setback from the high water mark for the subject property from 150 feet to 113 feet, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The applicant's property was platted before the City was incorporated and is substantially smaller than the 2.5 -acre minim required size in the R -1 zoning district. 2. The 40 -foot front yard setback is too restrictive given the lot's size and house location. 3. The City Code's Scenic River District Regulation's 150 -foot high water mark setback is too . restrictive given the lot's size and house location. 4. The applicant has investigated other garage locations on the site, but the current location has the least impact and required the smallest variance from the Code. WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds recommended approval/denial of the request, and; 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 front yard setback for the subject property from 40 feet to 10 feet, and the Scenic River District Regulation's high water mark setback from 150 feet to 113 feet. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 ( " '" o o '" 'lii " Ol ~ _ ~ Ct) ~ ~ COO-CO .. ~orl t _g"'~3l o ~ c ~ CD J! N '" ".:2 ~~ ~to~ t ~~.~~ W~!Eag~..~J~ _;';!l~0 ...J :E <C a: n 10 m ftI (.) D..:J~:f H -5CC~.l:! <..."'" Q..l!l :>0 :;; ''''' .5 .. .. 0" _::!;ClIl<C ,. ,. 11 '" /__, J '\:. ~ ""'..! I I _ :"'no""',/'/, ,.____.r~M~~. ~.::~-~. '",--~. "_"_"-1' , 'i: ',-'-, ,"-' 'I' 'j: ", .. ",-~, , ll:' '1"., ,..1..,.,..',.'.. ',' ". J ~'-, ,.".,..-"-.' ,', I ':" "'. " .'...'. " "" ~ " ' O'~' j I :..' ,'..'.'.' , , " i ' Ii t.; II , ';' I: ,/ : , .., . i:::, ,'...., .. '" _ ("" , "....', --~: ....._..1 " I" ' :-' v . ' ,,' '~"" .... -"--"~"""-" 1 " I ' :_____'-_, ' . . . .., , , I, , ,~---_: ~!', / , j : Ii L ,.:....t..'...., , '. , . i L_ ,: """,!llI' II _"7"'!t.,/ ~_;/ ' , j f I ,a,,~ ,.".',.. .... ' _ . ; /". .~,i" If _; >~:......!! ,..I 1_...~-----:-~: I.: '~', \::.,. ;- .__--~ -,= -.____.,__-~-=;;~.I~~~.~;. ,-~~---,jtt~J;JNoi~~Jr' / I'{ :tj, ,'.' i~t~'~;\-\T \ ~~~~~~~\", 1-- .. ' '~I. I I, ,.3 I,".''''' ,,-' .'r....'-...'.. ..,' ""ff-... .... " I' ,.", ~-_: '---;---'<'1 'ji..1I(;r.:L !~, __:J ',., j r \\, \''1 ..> ,...,,_,.JS.11'10...~ ~..., ,,:C:1I'i~ma----- - ',,___, V~ ~::::"~~::;~ ~4~~t I - i ~ ~~'~ ~ .j ,\ , .. i i ~..,__. ..-_.-__, \. ~.U ! ~--- !1 ,\ ii, · .. , , , _: ,-.....-...... --..,.---...-......- -'7' """"'=-='"'7'" / . :, III ,> . ~. . " ... ' - .L '~-'--'-T'T-''''--~ ,,'\, cr:< : ~i!::::~;~~{i~__:I" ~~ fr- ., '--~,;:-:c;;;1-,;;ril-,i In It\ .!; L_~L~. ._L.-l.--L.:rJ - i! - "'T'---"'--~T'-'.~r-,---...J1 • Peter Crosby 5132 Oxbow Place North Champlin MN 55316 Telephone 612 -799 -2213 Fax 763712 -4847 To whom it may concern at the city of Andover, My wife and I have recently purchased a property in Andover and we planned on getting a building permit to renovate some of the property and put up a garage. I contacted my surveyor who is quite familiar with the area and he told me there was some problems with the area. Nevertheless we had to have it done. We were shocked to find out that the house was built so close to the front property line. We would like to apply for a variance to build the garage as it would make our house a complete home, not just a house with a couple of temporary structures for storage and a couple of cars parked in the front yard. This would not enhance the neighborhood. We only wish to build a two car garage. Not a five car like the one next door. We also would build it farther back from the property line than the garages next door were built. The property is unique and very close to the river, we want to make it beautiful and practical. All the houses in the neighborhood have garages and I have never even seen a house without a garage before. For just one moment imagine your own home without a garage. I don't know what I would do. Thank you, Peter and Amy Crosby 0 00"v D � R GOw►MG11"r'S �� Andv Cross From: Tom Hovey [tom.hovey @dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:01 PM • To: Andy Cross Subject: Garage Setback Variance, Rum River, 5159159th Avenue NW,Andover, Anoka Co. Andy, Thank you for sending the materials for the garage setback variance at 5159 159th Ave. NW, from the Rum River. It appears that the new garage will be setback farther from the river than the existing house. Since a garage is a reasonable structure to have in Minnesota, and the lot is too small to accomodate the required river setback of 150 feet, I will recommend that we certify the setback variance of 37 feet. I have not visited the site at this point. If it looks like there could be improvements to the vegetative screening on site, we may recommend that improvements to the vegetation be made as a condition of the variance. The existing house is 80 feet away from the river, and the proposed garage will be 113' from the river. Please send us the City's decision when available. We will then take action on the certification. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Tom Hovey Area Hydrologist MN DNR Waters Phone: 651.772.7923 Fax: 651.772.7977 e -mail: tom.hovey @dnr.state.mn.us Visit our website at: www.dnr.state.mn.us /waters • 1 a G � I � \ " ID' TA I Lo 4c F Y I Or M o d i CQ 41.1 4 Ch i to ch a q In ¢I 21.5 " I `.� 0 x � � NN � ., ,n\ °,. I N h 3 d. CQ C(N .o fi o � t— N C� 0 VIA � I w �f3 � I ci � � % 4 69�9oi na � � g i Z� L psi?