Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 8, 1995 o &Otd ~ ~ el~lqs o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 8, 1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Randy Peek, Jeffrey Luedtke Jerry Putnam City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 25, 1995: Page 4, change "Review Committee" to "Environmental Review Committee" o MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Motion on a 5-Yes, I-Present (Peek), I-Absent (Putnam), , vote. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02, DEFINITIONS - REVIEW AND DISCUSS DEFINITION OF uFAMILY. 7:01 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the Commission has received a copy of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the City's definition of "family" in the ordinance as well as a letter from Michael T. Kallas representing the Riordans and Burns. Given the trend today, the Attorney felt there is a significant likelihood that Andover's ordinance definition of "family" would be struck down if challenged in favor of addressing concerns regarding density and neighborhood quality by focusing on land use restrictions rather than the relationship of persons occupying the property. Ordinance provisions would then relate to density, parking, floor space, boarding rooms, etc. o \, Mr. Carlberg noted Mr. Kallas' letter contains a proposed definition of family, "One or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeepirig unit, but not including sororities, fraternities, or other similar organizations." Mr. Carlberg also had a definition of "Group Family Household" from a development planning handbook which reads, "A group of individuals not related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common housekeeping management plan based on an intentionally structured relationship providing organization and stability. " The Commission is charged to look at the definition of "family" and make a recommendation on possible changes to the Council. u u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 ,,'\ Page 2 \J (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - Review and Discuss Definition of "FamilY"1 Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the publi~ hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:05 p.m. Sabra Burns, 4100 160th Lane NW - explained they moved in their home on November 15, 1994, after a struggle with the former owners to do so. They brought two families together into one household with common ownership, common finances and the raising of five children in common. In the three years they were planning this, they never considered that their legal right to be a family would be challenged. They never meant to start a crusade; they only want to give themselves and their children the best possible home life in a beautiful place. She went on that while they embrace the challenge of living together, they never wanted to challenge other people's life choices. She hoped this can be resolved so other families will not have to go through the incredible amount of stress they have endured. She argued that the ordinance as written would create problems with divorced people living together to share expenses and child care, or blended families, as well as their case of two families not related by blood wanting to live together. Clearly, the ordinance needs to be changed. , ) \. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:10 p.m. \' Commissioner Apel felt the ordinance definition of "family" should be changed to comply with what has occurred in society over the last 20 years. When the ordinance was adopted, many of these situations were not even thought of. He thought it would be difficult to look at the square footage of the house becase many other ordinances are involved as well. Also, ordinances such as the septic system ordinance which address the health issues, plus there is the County Social Services regulations, all can be brought into play if a situation develops that is contrary to the health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Jovanovich asked where the families in question lived before. Robert Riordan - stated they and the Burns have known each other for over 20 years. They were neighbors in California for awhile, then the Burns moved back to Minnesota. They saw each other on vacation each year. Once his family moved back here, they all lived in a 4-bedroom house in Champlin for awhile until they could find a permanent house. When they found this one in Andover, there was a problem getting into it because the prior owners didn't have their new house completed in time. This house was a group home and is an a-bedroom home on 2.5 acres. Commissioner Peek felt it comes down to what the City is trying to regulate. Commissioner Apel felt that the initial purpose may now be ,'\ unconstitutional. In a residential area the use is residential. It is ,~ fairly easy to keep out the commercial, but the courts have struck down regulations of cities, states, and counties based upon personalities. He felt the present use of this property is no different than any other residential use, and it is easier to control than the group home. o - '\ ~) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 3 u (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - Review and Discuss Definition of "Family", Continued) Ms. Burns - stated there is less traffic than from the group home. Plus those living there now have a greater vested interest in the home and its upkeep than the previous teenagers who mainly wanted to get out. Also, their living structure is not that common, as most people have said they would not want to do it. She didn't foresee this being a growing problem for Andover. Commissioner Peek felt the City's primarily concern should be the suitability of the use. He asked if there are other ordinances regulating the suitability and capability of the structure tb the use. Mr. Carlberg was not aware of any other than the rental housing regulations. There is nothing else in the ordinance that would regulate 20 people in a two-bedroom house. Commissioner Apel noted the regulations for septic system based on the number of bedrooms. He didn't think the City should be regulating whether a married couple wants to have 20 children. Nor did he feel it would be appropriate to regulate the number of bedrooms per the number of people, thus requiring the addition of another bedroom with the arrival of another child. He preferred to see a change in the definition of "family" and then see what happens. He didn't think the City should be concerned as to whether others are living under the same conditions as the Burns and Riordans. Their living arrangements are not harmful to the health, safety and welfare of the City, so it should not be regulated. (J Commissioner Peek felt that any focus on regulating density would be arbitrary. Commissioner Luedtke felt the definition in the ordinance isncM. flawed. This is a unique situation, and he suggested such situations be allowed by variance or Special Use Permit. Chairperson Squires explained the City cannot vary from a use by State law. Commissioner Peek speculated this is not the only situation in the City that does not comply with the ordinance definition. Commissioner Apel agreed, but would not be in favor of requiring a Special Use Permit. NGne of the Commissioners wanted to address changes to the density regulations at this time, all preferring to formulate a more encompassing definition of "family" to embrace the changing family scene. In discussing the various definitions presented to the Commission, it was finally agreed that the best definition, subject to the City Attorney's approval, was the "Group Family Household", though it was agreed to modify it to state: FAMILY: a. An individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption living together, or b. A group of individuals who need not be related living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common housekeeping management plan based on an intentionally structured relationship providing organization and stability. ~J MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to direct Staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance based on our discussion to review with legal counsel and prepare a report for the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the August 22, 1995, Planning Commission meeting agenda. 7:40 p.m. \' () u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 4 \' (J PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - HOME OCCUPATION IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 719 157TH AVENUE NW - PETER KING 7:40 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request for a Special Use Permit by Peter King to operate a home occupation, a metal sawing business, in an accessory structure. A 13-foot variance is also required because the building does not meet the 50-foot minimum rear yard setback from the property line. The building itself meets the minimum setbacks of the district; however, the home occupation use requires additional setbacks. The property is zoned R-1 and is 3.67 acres. It is a 40x40-foot building, but only 800 square feet of that structure will be allowed to be used for the home occupation. " " ,-) Mr. Carlberg stated the 800-square-foot portion of the building for the home occupation could be structured such that it would be 50 feet from the rear property line. The City has been flexible in allowing the use to be located such that it meets the setback from within the building, though the building itself does not. The building was constructed several years ago. 'Commissioner Apel also noted the City should be flexible if the building was placed legally and then something changes. Mr. Carlberg also noted the business is currently operating in the attached garage of the house. It would be moved to the accessory building if this Permit is approved. If the Commission would like to word the Resolution such that the use would be placed in the front portion of the building, a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Carlberg stated if approval is recommended, Staff is recommending 12 conditions. One resident did stop in to the City offices upon receiving the notification. The concern was not with the home occupation but with the exterior storage and vehicles existing on the parcel. He indicated that was not a part of this process, though Staff is working with Mr. King to get that problem corrected. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:52 p.m. Peter Kino, 719 157th Avenue NW - explained his business consists of sawing metals for table legs, etc. He contracts to do the work, buys and picks up the aluminum, cuts it into three-foot lengths, and delivers it to the contractor. He only cuts steel and aluminum. He got started when a friend with a machine shop needed some work done. He has a 6x6-foot band saw. He does no welding for the business, only for himself. It is strictly a service; there are no sales. The only delivery truck would be when he buys materials, though he hasn't had any deliveries yet. Generally he picks up the materials in his pickup truck. There is a large turnaround for the vehicles that would deliver material. He did not expect to work weekends, only 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. (J Mrs. Earl Woodcock, 15745 Crosstown Boulevard NW - had no objection to the home business, but she is concerned with the noise. Will they still be able to enjoy their back yard and entertain guests or have problems sleeping. Mr. King stated there would be no problem. The saw is very quiet. He can hear the radio and TV over the running saw. (j u Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 5 CJ (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/Variance - Home Occupation in an Accessory Structure - 719 157th Avenue NW - Peter King, Continued) Commissioner Jovanovich asked when a service has outgrown the home business. Mr. Carlberg explained it would be when the conditions in the Resolution can no longer be met, such as the size restrictions, the number of employees, traffic generated, etc. Mr. King stated he had no problem with the conditions listed. Commissioner Apel suggested the hours of operation be extended somewhat to be able to meet rush orders or deadlines without being in violation of the Special Use Permit. Mr. King then suggested the hours of operation be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays. The Commission stated they would not support that, countering with 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mr. King agreed. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 8:10 p.m. (J Commissioner Peek and Commissioner Doucette felt it is a similar use to wood working, which has just been added to the ordinance. Also, Commissioner Peek recalled in the past that the interpretation has been that if the activity takes place outside of the required setbacks that a variance is not required. Commissioner Apel agreed that the proposed use is in line with what has been allowed in the past. Also, he'd prefer it be without a variance. The Commission agreed to leave the decision for a variance request with the applicant. Mr. King stated he would rather have a variance granted. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, to forward the requ'est for a Special Use Permit for a metal sawing business at 719 157th Avenue NW to the Andover City Council with the recommendation for approval. The Planning Commission finds it meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30 and Section 5.03, and that the use is permitted by Special Use under Ordinance No.8, 7.03 in residential districts; and that the Special Use Permit contain the 12 conditions outlined in the Staff report, in addition add Condition 13 which is hours of operation should be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing was held and there was no negative comment. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request, a variance of 13 feet to the 50-foot rear yard setback. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the September 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:13 p.m. VARIANCE - FENCE HEIGHT IN REAR YARD - 14015 PARTRIDGE STREET NW - LOREN KUCH " \ ,~ Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of Loren Kuch to~allow for the continued placement of a 9-foot fence exceeding the maximum height requirements at 14015 Partridge Street NW, Lot 3, Block 4, Red Oaks Manor 4th Addition. The ordinance requires that any fence in excess of \' (J u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 6 () (Variance - Fence Height - 14015 partridge Sstreet - Kuch, Continued) 6 feet in height should meet the building setback for the zoning district, which is a 10-foot setback in this case. The City became aware of the fence height violation through a complaint. The property owner is opting to request a variance to Section 4.21 instead of bringing the fence into code compliance. The Commission has a letter from Mr. Kuch stating the fence was constructed in 1983 with the approval of the building inspector. Mr. Carlberg stated he spoke with the Building Official, who did not recall approving the fence, nor is there any documentation in the files. Commissioner Peek asked if the deck around the pool is encroaching into the rear setback, as it appears to be on the sketch. Mr. Carlberg didn't know for sure; but if it is, a variance would be requir~d for the deck as well. Loren Kuch, 14015 Partridqe Street NW - stated the fence is solid wood. The deck is 7 feet and was added at the same time the pool was installed. The building inspector inspected the pool, but not specifically the fence. Before putting up the fence, he talked with the building inspector to be sure it would be within the requirements. The building inspector indicated it was. Then the inspector came out a second time just to see how he was doing, and still everything was () satisfactory. He called the inspector to ask about the 9-inch addition _ to the top of the fence and received a verbal okay over the phone, after which the inspector came out again to look at it. Dave Almgren was the inspector each time. He had no paperwork on the fence, but he did have some for the pool because a permit was required for that. He also explained that the state only requires a 4-foot fence around a pool, but that was not high enough to keep children out .;....oINt" s car,!g.e:r;g."ti.tated the ordinance regulating,the height of fences'~~s adbp~e~ 1~!~79 and has not changed. It "'3.8 'trover a 4-foot high minimum around pools. Commissioner Apel felt one must be careful when talking about safety around a pool. This was installed to keep the children from climbing over, and a difficult situation could be created if forced~to cut it down to six feet and there were subsequent problems. It is a safety issue which apparently has worked for 12 years. It appears that this gentleman really tried to do the right thing and received the needed information, and he didn't care to deny the variance. Commissioner Peek saw a reasonable hardship if the building official stated the fence was okay. He did question the location of the deck, the type of deck and whether a variance is needed for it. Commissioner Jovanovich agreed that the fence has been there for 12 years enclosing the pool. She saw no reason to have it taken down or changed. Commissioner Doucette also agreed. She's read about several lawsuits with children trespassing and something happening even though there were fences around pools. She wouldn' t want to be a part of that. Since the fence was up for 12 " '\ years, since the building inspector and zoning officer were the same ',-) person, because of the way the fence is constructed and because there has only been one complaint with no other neighbors considering this an issue, she favored the variance. (j r \ U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 7 (--1 \, (Variance - Fence Height - 14015 Partridge Sstreet - Kuch, Continued) Mr. Carlberg explained the complaint was on the fact that bees build hives in the fence, plus the massive size. Chairperson Squires didn't think a 6-foot versus a 9-foot fence would make a difference with regard to bees. Mr. Kuch - stated he is normally out of town during the week and at the residence only on weekends. If a child climbs over the fence during the week, there would be no one to stop them or find them if there was an accident. Commissioner Apel again stated that the fence stood for 12 years without complaint until someone moves in and takes a different view of things. The City has granted many variances on things that were done contrary to ordinance requirements. He didn't recall the City ever asking anyone to tear down anything. Also, he didn't agree with a 4- foot fence around a pool. Chairperson Squires felt that just because it was built 12 years ago, in his mind, did not justify a variance. Health and safety would be something to focus on. He wondered if there is going to be another variance coming for the deck. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff would have to do more research. , '\ , ) '----" \, In a straw vote, the Commission was in favor of approving the variance for the fence; but they suggested the applicant may wish to table this variance until it is known whether or not another one is needed for the deck. If it is needed, doing both of the variances at one time would save the applicant time and fees. After some discussion, the applicant asked that this item be tabled to the next meeting to allow the Staff to look at the deck issue. The Commission agreed. The item was tabled to the August 22, 1995, meeting. DISCUSSION CONTINUED - ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEED/SOD REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Hr. Carlberg explained the proposed ordinance includes the changes requested by the Commission to include a definition of topsoil, add a provision for wetlands, and add a retroactive clause in Section 5. One issue still remaining is whether the time period for turf establishment should be one or two years after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. In further discussion, Mr. Carlberg explained the intent is to prevent open bare spots after construction of a house. This does not prevent general landscaping but is trying to get yards established. It relates to urban lot development only. ,. CJ There was a difference of opinion as to the length of time needed to establish the turf. Commissioners Jovanovich and Doucette supported two years because it is expensive to add topsoil and sod or seed. Commissioner Luedtke supported one year. He felt a lot of damage could be done to neighboring yards within two years and that the cost of the yard work will just be included in the builder's package. Mr. Carlberg explained the problem the City has with dirt getting into the storm sewer system when turf is not established. That was addressed when Ordinance 10 was changed to require turf establishment in the boulevards u Q Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 8, 1995 Page 8 - \~ ) (Discussion - Turf Establishment Ordinance, Continued) by the developers; however, there is nothing that addresses it after a house is constructed. Staff would like to stay with one year. Commissioner Doucette suggested a compromise of 18 months. Chairperson Squires felt that would address all concerns; and people would have at least two full growing seasons to establish the turf, though he personally preferred the one year. It provides two seasons for growth and would be easier to administer. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to forward to the City Council with the recommendation of approval as presented in the packet. Motion carried on a 3-Yes (Squires, Apel, Luedtke), 3-No (Doucette, Jovanovich, Peek), I-Absent (Putnam) vote. Commissioners Doucette and Jovanovich preferred the 18-month time period. Commissioner Peek felt the entire ordinance is too restrictive and did not support it in general. This will be forwarded to the City Council for their September 5, 1995, meeting with no recommendation. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission on the actions of the City Council taken at the August 1, 1995, meeting. ( '. -, .J Commissioner Jovanovich noted the lack of fencing along some of the rental property along the drainage pond between Crosstown Drive and Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg stated there is some fencing that is on private property. The City owns the pond itself, but he did not believe it owned any of the high land along that edge of the~pond. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~l Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary ,- "\ " I ~