Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAprill 26, 1994 o o ~J ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 26, 1994 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on April 26, 1994, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Bonnie Dehn, Becky Pease (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Randy Peek, Bev Jovanovich, Jerry Putnam None City Planner, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 12" 1994: Page I, Becky Pease should be listed as absent. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Dehn, approval as corrected. Motion ~ carried on a 6-yes, I-Absent (Pease) vote. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: REZONING - REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL TO GR, GENERAL RECREATION - PART OF SECTION 22, CITY OF ANDOVER 7:02 p.m. Mr. Carlberg informed the Commission of the meeting of two County Commissioners and City representatives on this proposed rezoning. The county had opposed the rezoning because of the three single-family parcels involved. The county has acquired two of them and is negotiating for the third for right of way when Crosstown Boulevard is improved. The county had thought the parcels were much larger. In reviewing the ordinances, Staff pointed out the parcels combined would not meet the minimum requirements for the current zone. Based on that information, the county agreed to proceed with the rezoning as proposed. Staff also contacted Jim Martinson, owner of the remaining parcel to be acquired by the county, who indicated he has been working with the county on the acquisition of his property. He did not object to the rezoning at this time. Mr. Carlberg understood one of the three houses will be movedj the other ones are going to be demolished because of their conditions. With the change in the curve of Crosstown Boulevard, the road would be very close to the houses if they were to remain. It is also intended that those parcels would go back to the City and could then be included as part of the Field of Dreams complex. o The Commission questioned whether the downzoning of those parcels would affect the values. Mr. Carlberg thought that could happenj however, it was his understanding the county and Mr. Martinson are negotiating the C) (~ " I ./ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 1994 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Rezone City Property, Continued) terms of the sale. He did not think this rezoning would affect those negotiations. Right now the house is nonconforming, and the rezoning will not change that. Chairperson Squires also felt this rezoning will not create a liability for the City, as it does not change the nonconforming use. It was noted this is a continued public hearing. There was no further public input. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Pease) vote. 7:12 p.m. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to send to the City Council a recommendation that they approve a change in Ordinance No. 8 to rezone that area from R-1 to GR as per the Resolution prepared by Staff. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Pease) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - HOME OCCUPATION IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 15135 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW - DIANE M. FORSLAND " '.J 7:14 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Diane M. Forsland to operate a home occupation known as Designer Doors (door manufacturing) in an accessory structure at 15135 Round Lake Boulevard. He reviewed the layout of the buildings and accessory structures on the two parcels involved, the applicable ordinances and criteria for issuing Special Use Permits. The parcel on which the accessory structure is located is 4.55 acres in size. Staff has some concern with the noise that will be generated from the operation of the machinery and suggests regulating the hours of operation to resolve it. Staff is recommending 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday for hours of operation. In reviewing the history of the parcel, Mr. Carlberg reported there were two or three commercial operations on the site at one time, and the owner has moved all other operations off the site. The request is to allow the door manufacturing to operate on the site according to the ordinance regulations. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, Staff has prepared a Resolution with 13 conditions. (Commissioner Pease arrived at this time; 7:20 p.m.) Mr. Carlberg stated the City Attorney has advised that prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit, that the applicant combine the parcel on which the accessory building is located with the adjacent one to the south on which his principal residence is located. Mr. Forsland does not have a problem with that suggestion. That should be added as a 14th , condition to the Resolution. There are also two other accessory ~ structures on that northern parcel which are used as rental units. Commissioner Dehn was concerned about the one driveway to be used for this home occupation, the two rental units, and the private residence. She felt it is a traffic concern. ~ ) C.J , ) , - Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 1994 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Forsland, Continued) Commissioner Peek questioned how the City could allow more than one residential unit on a lot if the two lots are combined. Mr. Carlberg stated the rental structures were basically allowed to provide housing for migrant workers as allowed by State law. There are other situations in the City where such rental units and a principal structure are located on the same parcel; however, it is not allowed by ordinance today. He suggested that issue be brought to legal counsel for an opinion. Commissioner Dehn also questioned the combination, since the renters are not people working for the company as it was when the migrant workers were employed in the farming operation. Do the state and federal laws still apply if the farming operation no longer exists? Chairperson Squires also questioned the use of the remaining portion of the accessory building, as it appears to be a very large building. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing at this time. Motion carried unanimously. 7:30 p.m. ,~ Kent Forsland, 15127 Round Lake Boulevard passed out pictures indicating the types of garage doors they would be making. The doors are very unique and expensive, and it is a low-volume manufacturing business similar to a woodworking shop. They have only three pieces of equipment, and the noise has never bothered anyone in the past. He was not sure what they will do with the rest of the accessory building. They purchased the property assuming they could continue the uses as had been done in the past with the low-scale commercial uses; however, they have had to remove three of the businesses. They are asking permission to at least stay with the design of the garage doors by using 800 feet as allowed. They have one employee and build about two doors a week. They deliver the doors in their pickup. Typically the lumber is brought in from the west coast, delivered about once a month. The business started out as Great Garage Doors, and Designer Doors was divided off about 2 1/2 years ago to two separate entities. Great Garage Doors has moved from the site, but it is owned by the same people as Designer doors, in which they are partners. The business is strictly manufacturing and some installation; they do not do service. There will be no outside storage. , '. Mr. Forsland stated they are in the process of cleaning up the mess that was there when they acquired the parcel in 1989. They live in the principal structure on the southern parcel. If the two parcels are combined, he would not be willing to vacate the rental units, as it is a source of income for them. One building was once a log cabin; the other has been there for more than 20 years. The City Inspector has approved them as rental units and inspects them every other year. They are very nice inside, and they are residing the outside. The principal structure has a mother-in-law suite downstairs which they also rent out. He did not think anyone would be bothered by the operation and was concerned about the proposed hours of operation, since the one employee does tend to run late in the mornings and work later in the afternoons. He asked that the hours remain open unless there are some complaints. Otherwise, he would agree to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. '-J () <) , \ '-oj Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 1994 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Forsland, Continued) Bruce Sharmer - lives directly across from the Forslands on Round Lake Boulevard. All the years there has been various operations going on, there has never been a disturbance except once when he first moved in and apparently there was a good-sized party. He found it interesting that Kadlec's Addition purchased property behind this and apparently made a ruckus as to the businesses in there. Years ago that was used for farming, and naturally things change. Then what does one do with the buildings? This gentleman is attempting to use the building for other purposes. If he is forced to turn out the renters, the buildings would still be sitting there. He saw no reason why Mr. Forsland should not be granted the Special Use Permit. Mike Hall - just south of the Forslands in East Round Lake Estates. The only noise he ever hears is that of Field's dryers, which is further north than this parcel. There has never been any disturbance from the Forsland parcels. Also, there was more concern from the traffic when the road from Kadlec's Addition was being built than anything he heard from the property which had the three business, the rental units and the house. Being one of the closest neighbors, he has never seen a problem and felt the Special Use Permit should be granted. '\ ~ MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Apel supported the Permit because if the buildings are not used, they will just deteriorate over time; and it makes sense to allow them to be used. The closest neighbors support it, and there are other business operations along Round Lake Boulevard. Commissioner Dehn agreed, that the buildings are being kept up. Since the neighbors have no problem, she was confident the driveway issue she raised earlier would not be a problem. She was concerned about the issue of more than one housing unit on a parcel if the two parcels must be combined. The Commission debated whether or not the proposed use falls within the ordinance definition of home occupations. Mr. Carlberg stated the City has approved other woodworking businesses as home occupations within the last few years. As Chairperson Squires interpreted the ordinance, this type of manufacturing does not fall within the range home occupations specified. If the general consensus is that these uses are going to be allowed, he felt the ordinance should be changed to reflect that. He was not comfortable granting this permit under the guise of repair service. Commissioner Apel felt there is legal standing for approving the request based on past action; however, he would support a change in the ordinance to specifically allow these types of uses. '\ Mr. Carlberg felt Chairperson Squires' concerns are valid and stated he ~~ will start the process of looking at the home occupations ordinance. This is a difficult situation, as it was an agricultural practice and the houses were for that purpose. Now it is no longer agriculture, and Mr. Forsland is trying to utilize the property the best he can. He also fel t a legal opinion is needed on the issue of the residential \ J <J , \ , J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 1994 Page 5 (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Forsland, Continued) structures before going to the City Council. The Commission also asked for a legal opinion as to whether Mr. Forsland can continue operating while this issue is being resolved. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, to table this until we get more information from the Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlberg stated this will be brought back to the P & Z on its May 10 meeting. He will also asked for Council direction at their May 3 meeting on these types of home occupations. 7:57 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS 8.01 AND 8. 08 _ RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Mr. Carlberg reported the City has received complaints on the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles in rear yards and on driveways. The primary concern is the size of the vehicles and the effect on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Complaints have also been received about people living in recreational vehicles that are parked in driveways of relatives or friends being visited for three to six months at a time. He called several cities and received some copies of , ordinances. He found Andover's ordinance is not much different than ,j those of other cities. The Commission noted some cities do not allow to stay for more than seven consecutive days. if that allowed a person to stay seven days, come back for another seven days. the recreational vehicle Mr. Carlberg questioned leave for one day, then MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 8:10 p.m. Pat Skoberg - didn't believe people should be living in their RV's for three months; but she did have a problem with the City telling her what she can have in her back yard. This is not junk, and people should be allowed to park them in the back. She does not own an RV. The issue is it seems like every time she turns around, they are being told what they can or cannot do. This seems to be ridiculous. Marv Tobit, Valley Drive - has 2 1/2- to 5-acre lots out there and people cannot see into the back yards. He didn't understand how the City can compare the smaller lots with the larger ones. Mr. Carlberg felt that is a good point. Most of the complaints come from the urban area. Right now there is no distinction for storage between the urban and rural lots. '\ \.._ ...-J Mr. Tobit - has five acres and owns an RV. He keeps it behind the house instead of having it in front. He doesn't have neighbors. He agreed it is not appropriate to allow people to live in the RV for months at a time -- that is what recreational vehicle parks are for. Also, it doesn't make sense to him that it would need to be parked on a slab if there is solid ground and it is hidden. \ , , j j Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 1994 Page 6 l (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, RVs, Continued) Bruce Sharmer, Round Lake Boulevard - has a 23-foot cabin cruiser that he parks beside the garage on a cement slab which enters onto the driveway area. He asked if that meets the current ordinance requirement. Mr. Carlberg stated the ordinance specifies no parking in the rear yard. He would have to look at Mr. Sharmer's situation, but there is nothing about side yards. If it meets the sideyard setback, he did not believe there is a violation. The immediate concern is in the urban area. Mr. Sharmer - felt this ordinance has not been publicized. Neighbors have built garages just for their recreational vehicles, which is expensive. He felt it is out of line for someone to park a vehicle in someone's driveway and live in it for five or six months. That is why there are recreational parks. He's interested in the changes the City will be proposing to this ordinance. ) MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 8:21 p.m. c..O\'Y\YY\\'55 i 6 y,-e.x--- -Geuficilm~rr~~L Peek felt the only real issue is occupancy. He did not support an ordinance with different regulations for the rural versus urban lots. He felt the reason for the requirements in the rear yard is for the neighbors, and the disturbance to the neighbors is the same in both instances. Mr. Carlberg stated just the openness in the rural area as opposed to the closeness of the yards in the urban areas is a factor. He doesn't get the complaints from the rural areas as he does from the urban areas, and most are during the summer months. The storage of RV's in the winter does not seem to be a problem. The Commission then directed that only the occupancy issue needs to be addressed at this time. The question is what is a proper length of time -- seven days? two weeks? a certain number of days in a 12-month period? Mr. Carlberg stated he will address the occupancy issue and propose a time period for discussion and another public hearing at the next meeting. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. unanimously. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ; \1'\../ u. () 0 A C~~6vL_ Mar~~each Recording Secretary