HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 26, 1995
Q
o
'\
<J
7:00 p.m.
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
September 26, 1995
1.
Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - September 12, 1995
3. Public Hearin~: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section
3.02, Definitlons - An Amendment Redefining
"Family" .
4. Variance - Setback from Major Arterial -
12 - 177th Avenue NW - Kent Allen.
5. variance - Construction of an Addition on a Non-
conforming Lot and Structure - 14905 Crosstown
Boulevard NW - James Martensen.
6.
Discussion - Amend Ordinance No.8, Section
4.05, Accessory Buildings & Structures.
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
o
o~ \0110['15
o
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Jerry Putnam on
September 26, 1995, 7:05 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich
Maynard Apel, Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek,
Jay Squires
City Planning Director, David Carlberg
Others
Also present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 12, 1995: Special Use Permit/Hope Lutheran Church, page 3:
Mr. Carlberg reported the language in the ordinance relating to the
distance between churches and liquor stores applies to an existing
church and a liquor store wanting a permit. In this case, the
liquor store exists and the church is wanting to move in;
therefore, the distance requirements do not apply and will not
affect any future use at the property.
()
MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to approve the Minutes with
the addition included. Motion on a 2-Yes, 1-Present (Doucette), 4-
Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires), vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3. 02, DEFINITIONS - AN
AMENDMENT REDEFINING "FAMILY"
7:08 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council has asked the
Commission to again discuss the definition of "Family", as they felt the
one proposed opens the door to a lot of problems and would significantly
impact other ordinances. In reviewing other City ordinances, Staff
found the definition of family in Ordinance No. 100, Housing Maintenance
Code, would also need to be amended. Staff has also researched the
definitions of family from other cities. There are no distinguishing
features between the various ordinances. They are either similar to
Andover's current definition of family or are very vague.
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing.
Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote.
o
Robert Riordan. 4100 160th Lane - stated they like the neighborhood,
like the City and do not want to leave. They have one common
housekeeping facility, kitchen, and living room. There is no on-street
parking. They have four vehicles, two parked in the garage and two
along the house. They have a very large yard and are back from the
street.
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 2
o
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - An
Amendment Redefining "Family", continued)
Sabra Burns. 4100 160th Lane - has researched other surrounding cities.
In doing so, those Staff readily admitted that there is no way they
could enforce their zoning as written because of the latest Supreme
Court decisions concerning families and zoning. She is taking a stronger
stance on this issue and will fight to remain in their home as they are
doing now. They are a family. In essence, they have adopted and taken
responsibility for one another's children. They are an integral part of
the neighborhood. They care for their neighbor's children, and the
neighbors care for their children. No one has come to them or to these
meetings asking them to leave. Fifteen people lived in the house before
the nine of them moved in. The house is almost 2850 square feet.
Rich Riordan. 4100 160th Lane (child) - felt he has been adopted by the
Burns. They want to continue living there.
Mr. Riordan - explained they have seven bedrooms, but one was turned
into an office. There is a 4-season porch built off the kitchenette
which also operates as a sewing room and has a day bed for visitors.
They have a formal dining room, two master bedrooms, four bathrooms, a
living room and a family room with a fire place.
o Nick Burns. 4100 160th Lane (child) - stated this is his future, and he
felt the ordinance is wrong. If they are forced to move, they won't
have the two sets of parents with difference experiences. He has
different parents that know how to deal with different things.
Tim Burns. 4100 160th Lane - suggested the current definition of family
be changed by adding "adults". Then only a certain number of adults
would constitute a family. Now it discriminates against the children. If
it read four adults, their situation would be acceptable. Because they
have children, the ordinance discriminates against them. They do have a
strong family. They like their living situation and they want to stay.
Jessica Burns. 4100 160th Lane (child) - stated when they were living in
Champlin, the decision was made to live with the Riordans. At first it
was sad; but now that it has finally happened, she doesn't want them to
separate. She doesn't think this is right. Mr. Riordan - clarified
that the children were disappointed when the decision was made to live
together but it had to be put off for a year.
o
Sabra Burns - disagreed with her husband's suggestion of adding the word
"adults" to the ordinance and limiting it to five adults. What if there
were three couples who had a 5,000 square-foot house and five children
on 20 acres of land? She felt the definition has to relate to structure,
density and living conditions. She related an incident in another city
where the house was run down and children were running rampant, and the
City could do nothing because all were related by blood or marriage.
They don't have that problem here. Their children are well behaved and
they live in a nice house. It is a technicality. She didn't think the
ordinance should stand in the way of people being families.
o
o
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 3
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - An
Amendment Redefining "Family", continued)
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote.
7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Doucette did not care to tie families to a density
requirement, as that would discriminate against those families with many
children. She did like the suggestion of five adults and not count the
children. Commissioner Jovanovich did not want to omit the children.
She liked the St. Louis Park definition of family that is any group of
people living together as a single housekeeping unit.
Mr. Carlberg again stated there is no common ground on ordinance
defini tions of family. Recent court cases have changed the way of
thinking about that definition. The City does regulate the minimum
square footage of houses, setbacks and parking facilities. If there is
a health issue, the health regulations prevail and Anoka County steps
in.
Acting Chairperson Putnam stated after studying all of the material, he
didn't know whether the City can really regulate this. The City cannot
be looking to find out how many people are living in homes that are
there already. It can only be dealt with if there are problems. He
agrees with Mr. Carlberg that the ordinances are already in place that
regulate how many cars, sizes of structures, etc. He thought it is
wrong for the community to pose restrictions on how people live and how
many children they have in their homes. But the City does have the
obligation to watch the safety, health and welfare issues. He didn't
think he had the expertise to know how that is dealt with, thinking
those are more county issues. If a square-footage density requirement
were in place, it would affect all children and families who have more
children. He was very uncomfortable with this ordinance and didn't know
if there is an easier way to do what the Council has asked beyond what
they have already done. The language they proposed is very similar to
what other communities have done. He even questioned the
constitutionality of limiting the number of adults.
Sabra Burns - suggested the Planning Commission, Mr. Carlberg, the City
Attorney, possibly the City Council, and other interested parties have
an informal workshop to hammer it out. And she'd love to have that
meeting at their house.
Mr. Carlberg thought the Council's concern was allowing so much
flexibility in the zones that it becomes a problem. Acting Chairperson
Putnam thought requiring a Special Use Permit for these situations may
have some merit so each situation can be reviewed for health and safety
concerns and each stand on its own merit. The problem is establishing
criteria to review them. Mr. Carlberg thought the difficulty with a SUP
is that by looking at the individual situation there is the problem of
being arbitrary. Legally he didn't know how far the City can go in the
licensing criteria. Acting Chairperson Putnam thought it is prying to
o
o
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 4
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - An
Amendment Redefining "Family", continued)
look at the individuals. He thought the only things that can be
reviewed are the structures, vehicles, possibly some density ratio taken
from HOD or FHA, or so many people per size of the bedroom. But he
questioned going through all of that for something that cannot be
policed unless there are complaints. Again, he didn't know if the City
had the right to regulate living choices.
Mr. Carlberg stated he can explore the question of issuing a Special Use
Permit and criteria that can be required with legal counsel. Acting
Chairperson Putnam again stated the only way a Permit would be reviewed
is on a complaint basis. He's very uncomfortable with that.
Commissioner Jovanovich thought there may be a difference in regulations
needed between those who are renting and those who own the property.
The Commission continued discussion on the possibilities of regulating
family based on the square footage of the dwelling unit, the size of the
septic system, possibly limiting two persons per bedroom and as families
grow, other rooms would be added or existing rooms converted into
bedrooms. Whatever is done, there would be some discrimination.
Commissioner Jovanovich noted her experience in cleaning group homes
where the numbers of people and specific people are continually
rotating. From what she has seen, the group homes function very well.
This situation is a family working together with their children, which
is even more of a together-type situation. In further discussion, the
Commission thought some of the health and safety issues are the
responsibility of the county, and they asked Mr. Carlberg to research
that further. Does Anoka County have anything in writing with respect
to the health, welfare and safety of families in homes? What is the
procedure that would result in the county addressing the issue? How
does the issue of the safety of the building kick in so the Building
Department would address it? If state, county and City ordinances
already address the health, safety, and welfare issues, there wouldn't
be a need for more ordinances.
Commissioner Jovanovich stated the family image is changing so much, it
would be nice to know what other bigger cities are doing such as the
Ci ty of Minneapolis. Mr. Carlberg stated the Council was concerned
about defining a common housekeeping management plan and structured
relationships. Possibly consideration can be given to clarifying those
definitions. Acting Chairperson Putnam thought those definitions are
good. He thought the suggestion of a work session was good. First,
he'd like the input from the county and state on the health, safety and
welfare things. Then they can look at specific rules on rooms, size of
structure, number of vehicles, etc., that can be used if there are
problems. Commissioner Doucette stated the Council seems to want yard
sticks to measure. The Commission then directed Mr. Carlberg to ask the
City Council to hold a joint work session on this issue.
Mr. Carlberg stated he will contact the county regarding the language on
health, safety and welfare issues. He will also talk with the City
Attorney for input on criteria if Special Use Permits were required.
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 5
o
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions - An
Amendment Redefining "Family", continued)
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to direct Staff to consult
with the Council to schedule a work session on this matter with the
understanding that Staff will continue to do research on it. Motion
carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote. 8:02
p.m.
VARIANCE - SETBACK FROM MAJOR ARTERIAL - 12 177TH AVENUE NW - KENT ALLEN
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of Kent Allen to allow the
construction of a 19' x 25' addition onto a single family residence that
encroaches 42.5 feet into the required setback from a major arterial at
12 177th Avenue NW. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural and
is 20 acres in size. At this time the house is a non-conforming
structure. The county currently requires 60 feet of right of way with
a 50-foot setback from 177th Avenue. The house was built in the 1900s
prior to any zoning ordinances. Standards have changed since it was
built. There is no issue of accessory structures or principal structure
coverage on 20 acres. Staff is recommending approval.
o
Kent Allen - did not know how old the pole barn is. He purchased the
property a year ago. It 1S galvanized metal, so it is an older
structure; but it is usable. The proposed addition is for habitable
space. Their plan is to underpin the structure and remodel the entire
home. Commissioner Jovanovich thought this would be an improvement to
the property.
MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to forward to the City
Council approval of the Resolution approving the variance request for
Kent Allen (correct the name on the proposed Resolution). Motion
carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote. This
will be placed on the October 17, 1995, City Council agenda.
VARIANCE - CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT AND
STRUCTURE - 14905 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW - JAMES MARTENSEN
o
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of James Martensen to
construct a 14' x 36' addition and a 24' x 26' garage on a lawfully
existing non-conforming single family residence at 14905 Crosstown
Boulevard NW. The property was zoned GR, General Recreation, on May 17,
1995, and is .55 acres in size. He noted the applicable ordinances and
that residential structures are not permitted in the GR zone. The two
parcels to the north of this have been acquired by Anoka County for the
realignment of Crosstown Boulevard. Right of way will be acquired by
the county through this parcel for that construction as well. The City
understands the county was negotiating with Mr. Martensen for the
purchase of that land, but for some reason that has not yet happened.
The Anoka County Highway Department indicated the property was to be
condemned. At this time, he was unable to talk with the easement
acquisition department at the county to find out whether the county is
o
o
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 6
(Variance: Construction of an Addi tion on a Non-Conforming Lot and
Structure - 14905 Crosstown Boulevard - J. Martensen, continued)
going through with the condemnation or is continuing negotiations to
purchase the parcel. The City rezoned the property based upon the
Comprehensive Plan and with the understanding the county was negotiating
to acquire the land. Mr. Martensen was contacted regarding that
rezoning. Discussions have also been on future plans to provide a
parking area to the park in that vicinity, and the county has agreed to
transfer ownership of the northern two lots to the City in exchange for
right-of-way along Crosstown Boulevard. The City is recommending denial
based on the rezoning and the county's condemnation of the property to
realign Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Carlberg did not have the exact time
frame of the county's proposed realignment and reconstruction of the
road.
James Martensen, 14905 Crosstown Boulevard - stated he purchased the
property in 1986. He stated he doesn't have the same information as the
City does regarding the county's plans for his property. When the
property was rezoned, both he and the county protested it. They were
not negotiating at the time it was rezoned. He is not negotiating with
the county now. The county told him they didn't need his property to
reconstruct the road and told him his property was large enough, opting
to move his house back. It was up to him whether the county would
purchase his land or move the house. He wants to stay there. He
doesn't know where the City got the impression the county would condemn
his property. When he talked with the county last November, they did
not have the authority to condemn it. He told them if they were
interested, they should make him an offer. He would like to be allowed
to make use of his property to his best interest. If the City doesn't
want him to use it that way, then buy it from him. The county bought the
other two parcels for $70,000 and $80,000 each, but they offered him
$34,000 for his, which is 20 percent of the assessed value. He didn't
consider that a serious offer. He thought the county was upset that the
City rezoned the property.
Mr. Carlberg explained at the time the county believed the parcels were
legal lots. The City met with county representatives and explained the
lots and structures were nonconforming. At that time the decision was
made that the structures could not be relocated.
Mr. Martensen - understands the county is not doing anything with the
road until 1997. Also, sewer and water is next to his property. With
utilities, it would be a legal sized lot, 115 x 210 feet. The house is
14 x 36 feet, and the proposal is to add another 14 x 36 feet plus a
garage. The existing garage would be removed. Mr. Carlberg stated
there are 2 1/2 acre lots to the south. At this time sewer and water
are not available. Also, the county is changing the existing right of
way to realign the road.
The Commission wanted to know what plans the county have for this
property, whether they plan to acquire or condemn the property, and the
time table for the reconstruction of Crosstown Boulevard.
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 1995
Page 7
(J
{Variance: Construction of an Addi tion on a Non-Conforming Lot and
Structure - 14905 Crosstown Boulevard - J. Martensen, continued}
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to table Item No.5, the
variance request for the construction of an addition to 14905 Crosstown
Boulevard for the reason being we would like to see a letter of intent
come back from the county for this piece of property as well as the time
table for their intention. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel,
Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote. Mr. Carlberg stated as soon as the City
receives the letter, a copy will be sent to Mr. Martensen; and the item
will be placed on the next Commission agenda.
DISCUSSION - AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.05, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES
Mr. Carlberg explained the Planning Commission is being asked to discuss
an amendment to Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05, Accessory Buildings and
Structures. The City Council felt the Commission raised a good point on
the issue of detached garages during a variance request at 2721 134th
Avenue NW. The question is currently detached garages are being
discriminated against when determining the coverage of accessory
structures because attached garages are not considered in that
r~ calculation. Staff is looking at verbiage to amend the ordinance that
! I
~ would exempt detached garages from counting toward the calculation of
accessory structures. A public hearing set for October 10, 1995, is
being recommended.
MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to have Staff schedule a
public hearing for October 10, 1995. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 4-
Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the City Council action taken at its September 19,
1995, City Council meeting. The Council also forwarded two items for
the Planning Commission to con'sider: sidewalks in the R-4 zone and
street designs to reduce speeding problems.
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried on a 3-Yes, 4-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek, Squires) vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
()\~Re;:~~:mTt::~L~
~ella A. Peach
Recording Secretary