The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/24/06C I T Y O F NDOVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda October 24, 2006 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — October 10, 2006. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (06 -08) to allow a licensed farm winery on property located at 3482 165th Lane NW. 4. Variance (06 -05) to vary from pool fence requirements at 16659 Eldorado Street NW. 5. Variance (06 -06) to vary from the driveway setback requirements of City Code 12 -13 -9 to allow access to property located at 13421 Round Lake Boulevard NW. 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment • L7 0 C I T Y O F ND OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - October 10, 2006 DATE: October 24, 2006 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the October 10, 2006 meeting. LJ r NDOVE 0 - 4\ �t^ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —OCTOBER 10, 2006 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on October 10, 2006, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton and Michael King. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota 49 Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 12, 2006 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Walton, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLICHEARf1VG: LOT SPLIT (06 -05) TO CREATE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM PROPER TY LOCA TED AT 13423 CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Cross noted Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake Boulevard into two urban residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed and two new houses built on the lots. Mr. Cross reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald asked when the hundred foot lot width requirement came into effect. Mr. Bednarz thought it was with the original zoning code. • Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a sideyard setback to this lot. Mr. Cross indicated all lots will need to conform to sideyard setbacks. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 10, 2006 Page 2 Chairperson Daninger thought the driveways would work accessing 134 but he was concerned about the driveway by the intersection. Mr. Cross indicated the driveway would have to meet the required distance from the intersection and it could do that with the existing lot width. Commissioner King asked if they knew what the distance was from the comer to driveway. He wondered what the distance would need to be. Mr. Cross indicated it would need to be 60 feet. Commissioner Walton stated there were two other lots a block south of this proposed parcel split, 2764 and 2754 124' Avenue and wondered if staff knew what the parameters are of those lots to see if it would be a comparison. He asked if they were ever split or were they built originally like that. Mr. Cross indicated he did not have any information regarding those two parcels. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Ms. Kim Jabloski, 2743 130 Lane, stated she had some concerns regarding this split. She wondered who would be building the homes and what the intent of the properties would be, if they would be rentals. She stated there was an adjacent lot split at 13493 and 13473 and there were variances done for those lots to build two homes because the lot sizes were too small. She stated that one of the homes has sat vacant since that lot split and the yard has not been maintained. She stated making the lots smaller in that area has not been well received. She also wondered what the estimated value of the homes will be. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Dennis Steinlicht, 2766 133 Lane, stated he has lived in Andover his entire life. He stated he would have a general contractor build the homes. The value of the homes will be in the $250,000 range, comparable to what is already there. He noted he had pictures and diagrams of what he wanted to put on the lots. Chairperson Daninger asked if the applicant's intent was to rent or sell the homes. Mr. Steinlicht indicated they would be sold. Commissioner Kirchoff asked the applicant if he planned on building the homes as spec homes or plan to build as he finds someone who wants to purchase them. Mr. Stein"cht indicated they would both be built at the same time because it was easier to coordinate. Chairperson Daninger asked if the lot was not split, would Mr. Steinlicht clean up the • property. Mr. Steinlicht indicated he would. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • Minutes — October 10, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner King asked what size houses was the applicant looking at. Mr. Steinlicht showed the layout of the homes to the Commission. Commissioner King asked if there were existing trees on the property now. Mr. Steinlicht indicated there were but they were not significant. Commissioner Kirchoff thought this looked like an improvement from what was there now. He indicated he would support this lot split because they will get a driveway off Crooked Lake and improve some properties. He thought the variances seemed very minor. Commissioner Holthus thought it would be an improvement for the neighborhood and she liked the thought of having the driveways on 130 rather than Crooked Lake Boulevard. She indicated she would support this as well and it would hopefully be a good change for the neighborhood. Chairperson Daninger stated he did not agree with them. He thought the property needed to be cleaned up and one house could clean it up. He based his decision on the fact that they already bent the variance once when it comes to area and distance and then they • changed the variance to allow one ninety percent rule and now they are going to do it again. That was his concern when they discussed this. In allowing one, they would see more coming. He stated he cannot approve this because every time they approve these, it pushes the variance more. He reason for denial was that it did not warrant the variances on those two issues. Commissioner Greenwald concurred. He stated if they want to be strict about this, they would tell the applicant to clean up the property and allow only one house on the lot. Commissioner King stated he would not be in favor of this split. He thought one lot would be beneficial in this situation. Commissioner Casey stated he tended to lean against it. The main thing is the variance which has to demonstrate hardship and he did not see a hardship with this. Commissioner Walton explained he would be for the split. The problem he saw is it they put one house, which would be larger on the lot, would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood price wise and would be more difficult to sell in a shorter time period. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council denial of the lot split based on there is no hardship. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 3 -nays ( Kirchoff, Holthus, Walton), 0- absent vote. is Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 10, 2006 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING. LOT SPLIT (06 -06) TO CREATE TWO INDUSTRIAL LOTS FROM PROPERTY LOCA TED AT 13533 JAY STREET NW. Mr. Vrchota explained the parcel is owned by Kottke's Bus Service. They intend to split the lot and sell the west half, while retaining the east half for their continued business use. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Chairperson Daninger stepped down because of conflict of interest. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. CJ Commissioner Holthus wondered what the future intent of this property will be. • Mr. Jeff Hanson, Kottke's Bus Service, stated their intent was to split the lot and sell the parcel off and he did not know what the future buyer planned on doing with it. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the proposed lot split. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (06 -06) TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAYAND SALES FOR VALLEY POOLS AND SPAS LOCATED AT 3426 BUNKER LASE BO ULVARD NW. Mr. Cross stated John Roettger, manager at Valley Pools & Spas, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to set up an outdoor display on the west side of their building. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner King asked by removal of the parking area on the west side, will that leave sufficient number of parking stalls in that area. Mr. Cross stated it would. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 10, 2006 • Page 5 Commissioner Kirchoff stated on the north side, there is a fence with an L type of a berm, is this some type of landscaping. Mr. Cross indicated it was the existing curb. Commissioner Walton wondered what the height of the fence will be. The applicant indicated it would be six feet high. Commissioner King stated at present time the dumpsters were along the building and he noticed they were going to build a new place on the southwest corner of the parking lot for them. Mr. Cross stated as part of the project, the applicant will be constructing a dedicated place for the dumpsters to clear them out of the parking area. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by King, to open the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. John Roettger, Valley Pool & Spas, 3426 Bunker Lake Boulevard, indicated he was • the meeting to answer questions. Commissioner Walton asked if they got the idea from a similar store with an outdoor display. Mr. Roettger stated they do have other stores with displays outdoors. He stated they have two displays in their store and have had water damage. He stated it is hard to maintain a pool indoors. He stated they are looking to move the pools outside for health and insurance reasons. The other issue they have is with a new store coming in next to them; the store is pretty old and has been poorly maintained. Their hope is to stay there and improve the area The problem is that the building has had vandalism and people drinking behind it and starting stuff on fire. It is not lit or maintained and has some issues. He noted by doing the display, they are looking to add some security and safety issues and to improve that side of the building. He noted they could fix a lot of problems by moving the display outside. Commissioner Holthus knew it was important to keep the pools and hot tubs secure. She wondered how they were planning on accomplishing this. Mr. Roettger showed a drawing of what security measures they are planning on doing to the display area Commissioner King asked if there was a certain height the security fence needed to be to keep people out. Mr. Cross stated there is no minimum height requirement for a security fence. Around pools there is a four foot safety fence requirement. • Commissioner Walton asked if there were any insurance issues anyone needed to be concerned about regarding this display. Mr. Bednarz stated the City did not have any insurance concerns because it is private property. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 10, 2006 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger compliments Mr. Roettger on the information given. He wondered if the display will be year round. Mr. Roettger indicated the pools will be maintained year round but mostly shown in the summer months. Chairperson Daninger asked if this will become a storage area. Mr. Roettger indicated it would be for display only. Chairperson Daninger asked what kind of noise the displays will generate. Mr. Roettger indicated there will be two pump systems on the sidewalk. The only noise generated will be off the pumps and will not generate a lot of noise. Chairperson Daninger asked if the pumps could be enclosed if needed to shield the noise. Mr. Roettger stated they could put up a two sided wall to shield the noise from the residents. Chairperson Daninger stated safety was a concern to him and he wondered if the pools were locked. Mr. Roettger stated they do not have a way to lock the pools but there will be a safety fence with a locked gate. The gate will be self latching and locked from the outside. Chairperson Daninger thought this could be a potential problem with trespassers and the applicant may want to look further into securing the pools and hot tubs. • Motion by Walton, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council approval • of the Conditional Use Permit for Valley Pools & Spas. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0- nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (06 -07) TO ALLOW A VETERINARY CLINIC AT HANSON COMMONS LOCATED AT 1574154 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit for veterinary clinics as required in the Shopping Center Zoning District. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Holthus wondered what the unit south of the proposed clinic was. Mr. Bednarz stated it was a clothing store for children. Commissioner King stated in the diagram, it shows a radiology lab and he wondered if there will be x -ray equipment in there and if so, will they be requiring some kind of shield in the rooms because of the clients on both sides. Mr. Bednarz stated they will meet all of the fire and building codes which do protect other buildings from emitting x- rays. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 10, 2006 • Page 7 Commissioner King asked if there will be some requirement for disposing of deceased animals. Commissioner Greenwald thought there were MN State regulations regarding this. Mr. Bednarz stated the State does license and provide regulations for veterinarians of all specialties. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Winslow Holasek asked if radiology means this is going to be x -ray only or radiation treatment. Mr. Bednarz stated the applicant is out of town and could not make the meeting but he would make sure the applicant would answer this question to the Council. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Chairperson Daninger wondered where the animals will relieve themselves. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 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 o f &DOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLAN DOVER. MN. US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner AM SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Amendment (06 -08) to allow a licensed farm winery on property located at 3482 165th Lane NW. DATE: October 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION Mark Hedin has applied to amend his existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a farm winery on his property. DISCUSSION Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations permits the production of up to 200 gallons of wine per year for personal use without any taxation. Under this provision, Mr. Hedin has grown grapes and made wine on his lot for several years. He has now applied for Federal licensure to • be a "bonded wine premises," which will allow him to produce more than 200 gallons. Detailed records of the wine production will be kept and taxes will have to be paid on the sale of his ' wine. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss a maximum amount of wine that may be produced under this Conditional Use Permit. Because the winemaking activity is considered a gainful occupation (the wine is being sold for profit) and the use is secondary to the residential use of the property, it is considered a Home Occupation. The applicant received a Conditional Use Permit in 2002 to operate an office in a secondary structure on his 2.5 -acre lot. This current proposal will be added as an amendment to the existing C.U.P because the applicant has indicated that nearly all the winemaking activities will take place inside the accessory structure on the lot. Since "Farm Winery" is not listed as a land use in the Code, it could be permitted under Code Section 12- 9- 3 -A -4, which allows "similar" uses to those listed. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked discuss the Conditional Use Permit Amendment request and make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Respectfully submitted, Resolution Location Map • Letter from Applicant Andy Cross Aerial Photo of Property Neighborhood Signatures Cc: Mark Hedin, 3482 165' Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA • RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (02 -03) FOR MARK HEDIN TO OPERATE A FARM WINERY ON HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3482 165 LANE NW, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 3, Block 4, Timber Meadows Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the applicant has an existing Conditional Use Permit for a home office in an accessory building on his property at 3482 165 Lane NW; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an amendment to that Permit to allow a farm winery on his property at 3482 165' Lane NW, allowing the on -site production of more than 200 gallons per year; and WHEREAS, the Planning an d Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of • the Conditional Use Permit as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby approves the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit on said property to add a farm winery, subject to the following conditions: 1) Applicant must receive Federal certification as a bonded wine premises; and 2) No additional exterior storage of winemaking supplies is permitted as part of this approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of , 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor ~ . '-a. ~~ 0::2: -0_ C.s;: <(.2> a:: -(fJ 1D 0 00 oS! en ~:~ = ~ffi 00 :!: 2l CD Cl~ \I 0 ~ ffi< .. -5 ~ w >1= o c: ..... Z gz m ~ ~ ~ z6 C) Ul CD .. m <cu J W ffi ,. El 1ii ~ 1ii ia<i . ..J < [t: a: en 0 0 ~:J:::: .Si ~ 0.. ~ ~ g: a. Q..! ~~ i ;j1 ~IIIEJJD ~~~ c5l<i is -) ;1-' - ! ! "IIJ Ii. J - I' 'j I l~l' I iJ:I! 0- J$lt!Jir.lio. [[] r--- I .. . , 'I' I' I ! ..:;: ~! I r::- ~ I I Ii! : Jill I - : 1 ~ '" Q) ! -!.! r--- ---! - u. ll.... " I 1.... g , I ., ':;'-7~;:- i J r "'... Q) ~l, ! ! . I '-- I II i I III _'::::; .. 0\ I ~l .2l ~'I' ~~_;I i\~_ -=- _\ I - I ~ , i' - I, \"- - I , . . ~, I I Ii \- , 1 Hi,,' I ... . j, - I i 'I", i ,/1 i J I! I I -""71a8\ I~ Ii ~ (~, \ 1 V ,~ ii, ill " I;' ! Ii' , I ~./ (... >--. ~! h ~p~~r-I. ~~~, I :j,jI'1 ~~-i \,tl~l1bt'~I'" ~~- [ ~~ I . \. \ :lii.ii ! . L " 1\ \; I LJ \ \ 1 _ i;liliPi I -; - - - T:-\ i i i i \' - ii, - l e ' I!' .! iI, ' I. 'I 1 - \ I II '" . i. . -t" i! ~ ! 1 -I-. H ,__ ~ I r=;"'il.,n I, ~,_ ~~~ I i I' II'!' 1 ~ I I ~ / - .,. '> ..s . ,~f- ,I i,' ':' I' ';i I: ~ ~ ~<. 'r - I i !,j , I I- '--+---< U I . '" ... , _ _ I ....~ r-- ~! 1- \: ( "I =.' ,ii. , ~. .."I. II. ! I I I' 'I~i' I 'I -' - -! - ~ r-- I - ~~:l-1lI F" . ! ". !:f-- I I ---i \ - I ~ """ ---i r--- ---"l H ~ ..., 1 ! W !--- I- I \, I' , ' , ;: . '--- -I - .. b" ',~ I i I I !! I II" """ f. ~ tl~~' ;1 -i ..-_ 'r-------i _ I " lliJjl I' (! !--! I , '~ - -I,. -~-Lrr - IbJh . Ii -.' r' -- --,.., I ~ .... ,", I,. !'f-. I ,.' jtp--l- -,.dl~! _ I'" . ". .----- I "' ~ J J f ~ 7i.._ ~ + :---i 1----+---1 ~ I I f:-J' , ., H" " '. ., i -, - , r::;1i1~! ~ ..t; i "- , , , I I--!- 'r--1 'I' II. -" I i I"- I;-i ~ I ! '-::" I ' r - III. I j I I ! \ -;/" ~' I ~! 1 \ i i - -1-1 "I ' - ~.~ IU - , C;~;lJV~ I-r-I;, H~ II /, ~ -1.\, ''''". / .... -'. ! 'I! - , ! ..'Ir,' I' " , , .' '.. '.' - -11- '/. ~'\' --(-: ,,' ..I...-i!h----II! I 1-"- ~ 1 10 1\ ,0 >.~ - r ~V U i , ',,! 'I' " I! [~ ,',' , !, I!. I "0 /' \\ <. ,- I, 1 i I. 'J I I ~ - __ . !._____ I, l -i \ 1 ~ ~\ I - i , I 'l........ ~ .. ,I~" , ~. i ", J '"1---1 . ' ."/., " - i .' '---"'.., ". I.i I 1..---" ~ ~ ! ~ ~ t If ~ I ! .---': ! "!." .~. i ~)~,~, ~ I", ," ',11 ; .~~' . ~}~\ _ ,..' .. II .\i i 'I I ji.' ~.,! ., ! "I r;~, I ! .T,r ' 'II \ ~h"f--n-"-r--1 L :i. \11Qi" .' - -, Ii, . f- I 11 I I ; 'I'" 1 ' ~)~!: _\i .'/ If. \.., I 'I_~ 1 ~' , I. .! 'P, "II I II_ -' ii' I . I )~ ~ ;'" - -!"::-i ., ' f-;- fi "--.:;-r!l ,- _~ I ," i---+--., i') I .I: ~~ I" I~ 'i-, r .' I! I~~ . )l.~~\ - \ - I ";-\~ --::..::. - ~,,~ 1 ! - i - i, l. ! : 1 -, i-'- I~!] . (, _ 1 l \ I \ i /, ..J\. '-...iijil~~.. - ! I' I L' IlJJJ L:.-l----J' =- I ---,.:::."...... "" ~.,". \ I ---:5-mit';tlllii~' li-'--'~-~'" ~- - - ; I I, - " - " l~I-,-.!."'''''''''''''''' ~'1-\\ I ill.,t1' ,l,iJ.lii' I i~ 1":-1 c::--::- - .~ \\ ~y - ~ _ , _ ~ ~ i-~ f--f--- I ... v! _ ...., ) 01 --_!!(:'~r"'\)\t ~~ ' ~~iil'!'i,l!il~. A ~ Itm-, ~,\, I ! ! i/ I '\ ~ _ I I I' ~ ., ~,f'::' '~'r. '" ,\': ~\::: /7...; ~ \_ I Ij I I Ii! ! ! ~ ~"""!...., 't...., .... - I 1\ <w-" / i I a ,'. . i I ! r 8 - ',- ,- ~~::.....',..,....'I,.,,".....',............,....,................."../"...., ,,' ~""-.'''' - ,f::t= ! .-----l-, '. "'(, I'I i", Ii', I _ I' f!l~J 'I! I! ~ --::+:-:- ;,;1 \/ " ........>..~ "~ " 1 -.',I.!' 'l'i/r-lE]' .. ,- u ~ ..., i" / ,. .... y./ ....."~ --~ Ii. i -; e. J~~:.t ~0~<: ;~~{?I':~-:' ), r:t f ; !~~~~~~;-'" '~ October 3, 2006 0 Dear Planning and Zoning and City Council members, Enclosed is my application for a Conditional Use Permit for a licensed Farm Winery, along with photos of the area. I currently have on my 2 1/2 acre property two vineyards, totaling around 350 grape vines, 150 feet of raspberries, five apple trees, and 100 feet of rhubarb under cultivation for winemaking. I can currently legally make and give away up to 200 gallons of wine annually as a home winemaker, with no need for any government involvement. I have been doing this on my property for the last 10 years. Since the number of my friends, neighbors and clients who enjoy my various wines has grown over the years, it has gotten to the point where I cannot afford to give away all my wine. The Federal and State government will allow me, with a Farm Winery license, to receive compensation and pay taxes on the wines I produce. One step in the process of receiving this license is authorization from the local government (the city of Andover) to authorize this activity. Having talked with the federal authorities regarding my plans, they have no reason to believe they would deny my application once this is completed. The State inspector has visited the site and will recommend approval of the state license. I have no interest in opening a "retail store" in Andover, or of enlarging or adding any buildings on my property. I do not expect to have any signage, outside storage, nor have any "operating hours ". While a friend may stop over to pick up their annual case or two of wine, I wouldn't expect any traffic or parking concerns. I expect that activity around my house would continue as it has been for the last ten years. During . that time I have received no complaints from the farm neighbors to the south and west of us or my other neighbors on their 2 1/2 acre lots. I've enclosed a copy of their agreement to this licensure. Almost all winemaking activities are done inside the building, with the exception of crushing and de- stemming the grapes, which usually takes an afternoon in the fall. The quantity of wine made will be limited by the capacity of the existing structures. There are no foul smells, no noise, and nothing unsightly sitting in the yard. While I may give you a tour of the vineyard if you come by to pick up your case of wine, I can assure you there will be no weddings held or restaurants built on the premises. Since the C.U.P. is annually renewable, I understand that if some unforeseen problem should arise, the City Council may choose not to renew the C.U.P. I see no reason to treat this home -base business any different than any of the other home -based businesses in Andover, and am willing to work with the city on any requirements they feel are necessary for approval. Sincerely, Mark Hedin White Rabbit Vineyards & Winery • 3482 165"' Lane NW Andover, MN 55304 ENC: Aerial photo of area Neighbor's acceptance petition ", 2-B7 ::- -' n • We have no objections to Mark Hedin operating a licensed Farm Winery out of the existing buildings at 3482 165 th Lane NW, Andover, MN. Name Address E7 1E M�� UV 0 OA 47- 4-�'l / P 0i 1(4 -an-c-- ApC06ver aq Q t"A- y C I 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Variance (06 -05) to vary from pool fence requirements at 16659 El Dorado Street NW. DATE: October 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code section 9- 4 -5 -A, which states: "I. All outdoor swimming pools constructed shall be completely enclosed by a fence or wall of the non - climbing type, so as not to be penetrable by toddlers, afford no external handholds or footholds, and be a minimum of four feet (4) in height; except that aboveground pools with a side wall height of at least four feet (4') need not be fenced but shall have removable steps. • 2. All outdoor fence openings or outdoor points of entry into the swimming pool area shall be equipped with self - closing and self - latching devices. The opening between the bottom of the fence and the ground or other surface shall not be more than three inches." DISCUSSION The provision in the City Code that requires fencing around pools is intended to protect children and others from gaining access to a swimming pool, either intentionally or unintentionally. It also serves to protect the owner of the pool from possible legal repercussions in the case of an accident. The applicant was issued a building permit to install the pool on May 19 2005. The building permit application included a 6 -foot tall, non - climbing fence with self - closing and self - latching gates. The approved building permit was stamped with a notice that the pool fencing requirements must be met, and a handout detailing these requirements was included. On March 22 " of 2006, a City building inspector left a note at the residence indicating that the fence must be installed no later than May 1 A second note was left on August I't of this year, giving them a deadline of September 5 Another copy of the fencing requirement handout was provided at that time. An official notice was sent to the property owner on September 11` of this year, setting a deadline of October 15 2006 to install the fence, or the matter would be sent to the City Attorney for legal action for non- compliance with the City Code. On October 4 the applicant submitted his variance • application. In a handful of cases in the past, this code requirement was waived for pools with special covers to be installed without a fence being built. One of the conditions for this waiver was that the pool cover would be in place at all times when the pool was not in use. • However, experience has shown that the covers are often not put in place when the pool is not in use. The City has received a number of complaints about the pools being left uncovered for days or weeks at a time. As a result, pool covers are not viewed as an adequate substitute for a fence. State Statute State Statute provides review criteria that are used to determine the merit of variance cases. In all cases the applicant must demonstrate undue hardship. The considerations for undue hardship include: 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 or combining a substandard lot due to size, shape or lot line dimensions, with an adjacent vacant lot. 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use . of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. Findings for this Report Listed under the "Specific Hardship" section on the application is the following: "I've already spent $12,000 to ensure that no one will ever drown in my pool. This is my third pool the cover I have is the safest made (sic). See photos." The photos are attached to this report. Staff Recommendation Variances are intended to provide relief from undue hardship. Staff does not see a demonstrable hardship in this case and recommends denial of the variance. Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Plan Submitted with Building Permit Application Site Photographs Resolution of Denial Resolution of Approval ACTION REQUESTED • The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed variance. Resolutions for approval and denial are attached to this report. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, they are asked to provide findings for the hardship in this case. Respectfully submitted, 4 ChAs Vrchota Cc: Daniel F. Mus, 16659 El Dorado Street NW, Andover, MN 55304 n U \J CD II: 0 '" ;; '" .! ~UJ ~Q. ~ Cl'" 41", ~ ~ g a:~ ~::2 " ~ N !!;!~ "0_ g ~ ~ gz <=.r= <1:.'2' - -::> z5 -en ~ ~ ~ <0 00 Cl> ,. S .. ~:2: ~ '*.. :3;:! "'00 eo (30 a. CL oS S:z i:i ~ ~ 2: We( Z W !!l (!) '" ij w l!:! ~ a: Q. ~ ~ ~. if .. <( IllHillJD :;: :;: B I:: .. I!! ~ ~ ~ ~ !I9L9~ ; .. ~ lil ~ 8tO\' aaor A0 C 2. w � = Y to Z V r7 < W J * < �- 0 W Z W Y 3 m < O a co U. MA I ' Z O Oli y • VX %4 W b Q 9 4 N v 9 tlu Q If V E a r @ LO yl 1• m m x a' 4 c� U- ai 1 > G p (.7 o o J 0 % c o 0 Ct!it. R C p�So' 1 1 3 /I L t � o W f► vi 1 U - r10 cx��'r� ._ L N Q� f 6i C 0 Ol C i+ • A /I l O�s.N 4 O e Y 3 eat. •• OR 0 C3-1 d A -d -M s L. d A ~ N .O N L i°1.00 NO-0 OC o - euc. Oi N d I7 . 6Y /J N V L W W 4a 4- 114 N. U L M L. 9 U) CIO d A4-.AL O 95 r Y 7 YI i x OF 114 U 4 0 Je b+ C 0 1 I1 1A r 'er tv to V rN O 0 O q • O i+ GV CfO IJ N I1. A4 O L / N O II; C ..^ r Q C 4-1 ! AQ y i W"- R C C �_ 0 $ + a1a.r- Y+� 0 4. 'o •• s O! O N C Cr•. gypp+ •y L. " FA A C 0• O'C N4. IV 4. N1 �� •+ < 4• p � ►n o f- 0 4 U 1n O W. O+ .+ 0 qr r a L .r 40 / 0, 00 0� �k / 1 ' 1 6, 000' Do ojy : 3 /I L t � o W f► vi a W z b /7Ci- NN V a N U - r10 cx��'r� ._ L N Q� f 6i C 0 Ol C i+ • A /I l O�s.N 4 O e Y 3 eat. •• OR 0 C3-1 d A -d -M s L. d A ~ N .O N L i°1.00 NO-0 OC m 1, f F a A . .� �� °'-, A, O .� .� Y d�q sm e� 3 S � D ais ..�•: �€ t t .. `i �•• � tt ' � �. � i rt f a A . .� �� °'-, - '„� �.> •y � i .� .� `i �•• � � i rt ,� • W` . m � r } h C`. t • El 3ep.17.$905 03:53 11 • n U • 6 Cr` lap. � wA i "i rr+ r j x . k �t 1" 3 �. a E 0 s A r Y v x¢x ` 'da Y � t u y i' A :. � CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DANIEL MUS TO VARY FROM CITY CODE SECTION 9 -4 -5 -A ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16659 EL DORADO STREET NW (07- 32 -24 -44 -0021) AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: That part of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24 described as follows: commencing at the southeast corner of said 1/4 1/4, then west along the south line thereof 825 feet, then north 792 feet to the point of beginning; then east 495 feet, then south 92 feet, then east 3 19.3 5 feet more or less to the east line of said 1/4 1/4, then northerly along said east line 604.84 feet more or less to the northeast comer of said 1/4 1/4, then westerly along the north line of said 1/4 1/4 805.04 feet more or less to an intersection with a line bearing north from the point of beginning, then south 514.10 feet more or less to the point of beginning, subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, Daniel Mus has requested a variance for the subject property from City Code section 9 -4 -5 -A pertaining to fencing requirements for outdoor swimming pools, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds by a majority vote that the i s findings provided by the applicant do not constitute a hardship, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the variance as requested, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the variance would 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 hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denies the variance on said property based on the fact that findings could not be made to justify the granting of the variance and no hardship exists. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 Victoria Volk, City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DANIEL MUS TO VARY FROM CITY CODE SECTION 9 -4 -5 -A ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16659 EL DORADO STREET NW (07- 32 -24 -44 -0021) AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: That part of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24 described as follows: commencing at the southeast comer of said 1/4 1/4, then west along the south line thereof 825 feet, then north 792 feet to the point of beginning; then east 495 feet, then south 92 feet, then east 319.35 feet more or less to the east line of said 1/4 1/4, then northerly along said east line 604.84 feet more or less to the northeast corner of said 1/4 1/4, then westerly along the north line of said 1/4 1/4 805.04 feet more or less to an intersection with a line bearing north from the point of beginning, then south 514.10 feet more or less to the point of beginning, subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, Daniel Mus has requested a variance for the subject property from City Code section 9 -4 -5 -A pertaining to fencing requirements for outdoor swimming pools, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds by a majority vote that the findings provided by the applicant constitute a hardship, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance as requested, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of surrounding properties, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following condition(s) constitute(s) an undue hardship for the subject property: 1. 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 variance on said property based on the findings stated above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 0 • 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 Planne SUBJECT: Variance (06 -06) to vary from the driveway setback requirements of City Code 12- 13- 9D.3.f. to allow access to property located at 13421 Round Lake Boulevard NW. DATE: October 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant is the Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP). They seek a variance to allow a driveway access across another property to provide access to the subject property. The driveway would provide access to a new house. Anoka County Community Action Program (ACCAP) ACCAP is dedicated to helping individuals in Anoka County out of poverty and into the community as productive citizens. Educational opportunities are offered through programs such as Head Start and Home Ownership Workshops. Information and referral services are offered to Anoka County residents through programs such as Child Care Resource & Referral and the Senior Information Line. ACCAP also provides direct services and subsidies to residents such as affordable housing, the Energy Assistance Program, the Child Care Assistance Program, and the Weatherization Program. These programs and services help individuals and families in our community achieve their goal of self - sufficiency. DISCUSSION Background The subject property was divided into two lots when a twinhouse was constructed many years ago. The twinhouse and driveway to Round Lake Boulevard were removed since that time and a single sewer and water stub were provided for the property when Round Lake Boulevard was reconstructed. The property has been vacant and without an access since that time, rendering the subject property unbuildable. The applicant proposes to combine the properties into a single lot to allow a site of sufficient size for construction of one single family house. A photograph and site drawing are attached. Access Although the property has frontage on Round Lake Boulevard, the Anoka County Highway Department will not permit a driveway access to this county road. Therefore, the applicant proposes that access be provided through the property to the south to 134 Avenue NW. The applicant owns the property to the south and has the ability to create an easement for the proposed driveway. This situation is somewhat similar to the variance recently approved at 1947 161 Avenue NW where a wetland prevented direct access and a shared driveway access to 161 Avenue NW was allowed. Driveway Considerations The driveway will be slightly less than 150 feet in length and required to be constructed with a hard surface (concrete or bituminous). The standard five foot driveway setback should be maintained between the proposed driveway and the undeveloped property to the east. The applicant has indicated a willingness to accommodate the 5 foot setback and would establish an easement over the driveway in conformance with this requirement. Staff also recommends that the easement be wide enough to accommodate snow storage to prevent potential conflicts between property owners in the future. Property to the East The property to the east is also vacant. Sewer and water stubs were provided for this property along 134 Avenue NW with the assumption that it will be subdivided in the future into three single family lots with frontage onto 134 Avenue NW. Findings for the Proposed Variance Based on the information on record and provided by the applicant, the following findings are offered for review by the Planning Commission: 1. The lot is vacant and the applicable zoning district allows single family homes. 2. The lot will comply with the width, depth and area requirements of the applicable zoning district and has frontage on a publicly dedicated street. 3. Access to Round Lake Boulevard is controlled by Anoka County and a driveway to this county road will not be permitted. 4. Without access to the property the applicant cannot make reasonable use of the property. ACTION REQUESTED i The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the variance based on review of the findings offered by the applicant. Attachments Resolution Location Map Letter From Applicant Site Drawing Future Home Example R4se ull subm itted, Cy Bednarz Cc: Donna Mattson, ACCAP 1201- 89 Avenue N.E. Suite 345, Blaine, MN 55434 A --7-- s CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R • RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO CITY CODE 12- 13- 9D.3.F. TO ALLOW • DRIVEWAY EASEMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESS ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13421 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD DESCRIBED AS: Lot 1, Block 1, Weises Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12-13 - 9D.3.f. to allow a driveway less than five feet from a side property line and to cross adjacent property to provide public street access to 134 Avenue NW; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following findings for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. The lot is vacant and the applicable zoning district allows single family homes. 2. The lot will comply with the width, depth and area requirements of the applicable zoning district and has frontage on a publicly dedicated street. 3. Access to Round Lake Boulevard is controlled by Anoka County and a driveway to this county road will not be permitted. 4. Without access to the property the applicant cannot make reasonable use of the property. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby approves the variance request allowing a driveway easement to provide access across private property to the subject property, subject to the following: 1. The driveway shall maintain the required 5 foot setback from the undeveloped property to the east. 2. A copy of the recorded easement document shall be placed on file with the city prior to a building permit being issued for the subject property. 3. The easement shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the proposed driveway and snow storage. 4. The parcels at 13421 and 13427 Round Lake Boulevard must be combined and recorded as one parcel with Anoka County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER 18 ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 3— `ND Incorporated 1974 Variance to City Code 12 -13 -9 13421 Round Lake Boulevard V T r r r Ln M Ln M LO M LO M LO co 13511 N T- M t M M M M M Y f0 � J C r 3532 rn ca 2 U m m 11 M d' M (� CC Ln M Ln M LO M LO M LO co 13511 N T- o t LO M LLB M LO co 11 M M d' M (� CC C'7 M M M N M O M cr r M M d' M (� C\ M M M M C CO rn M N M t M M M M 1331213317 N M � M O M vt M M M N M � M � C Or N CO rn L0 LO M 00 M M M M M N 0 M M � SUBJECT PROPERTY -1�1- 2A w N Location Map 13334 0 1333713342 ti M 0 CO Lo M M 1335 13332 cp 13337 13330 W M co d d` 3554 3322 � M N CO rn 3318 M M E M M M M N 0 M M � 13355 1331213317 3312 M N W � CO to 0) -4 M 13355 LO M M M M M co C3► M M4 nO Mn / SUBJECT PROPERTY -1�1- 2A w N Location Map 13334 0 1333713342 ti M 0 CO Lo M M 1335 13332 cp 13337 13330 3336 3330 3326 3322 a co co 3318 �� N 1332( 3314 M M v- 13304 Ir- 1331213317 3312 SUBJECT PROPERTY -1�1- 2A w N Location Map 0 ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, INC. 1201 89th Avenue NE • Suite 345 • Blaine, MN 55434 • Phone 763 - 783 -4747 • FAX 763 - 783 -4700 • TTY 763 - 783 -4724 E -mail: accap @accap.org A Uni[ed Way Agency DATE: October 5, 2006 TO: Whom it may concern FROM: Donna Mattson, Housing Services Director (,/r" SUBJECT: Variance with the City of Andover Anoka County Community Action ( ACCAP) is applying for a Variance with the City of Andover to allow a driveway easement across 3555 134` Avenue to property at 13427 Round Lake Blvd. Both properties are owned by ACCAP. Our intent is to combine the two lots at 13427 and 13421. They became land locked after Round Lake Blvd was reconstructed. We will then build one single - family house. ACCAP has a partnership with Anoka County Corrections (using inmate labor) to build two affordable houses in Anoka County per year. Construction would take place in 2008 on this combined lot. • — 5 - - An Equal Opportunity Employer N /SGT W+ 5 M � O Y a Z 1 V I i V ! 33 � � S3 ! AYL W w I � 'q i � o�-t= / + et�SY t i s c t � t 61 72 G i A l " l k <r� p: b