Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 12, 1991 o o o ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 12. 1991 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Ron Ferris on March 12. 1991, 8:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hal I, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover. Minnesota. Commissioners present: Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich, Randal I Peek, Marc McMullen Becky Pease, Bonnie Dehn City Planner, David Carlberg Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 26, 1991: Page 6, Fifth paragraph, Correct "Ordinance 28" to "Ordinance 23". MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval of the Minutes with the correction as noted. Motion carried on a 3-Yes. 2-Abstain (Jonak. c=) McMullen), 2-Absent (Pease, Dehn) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE 8. SECTIONS 4.05 AND 6.02 Chairperson Ferris began the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Mr. Carlberg outlined the proposed clarification to Section 4.05 regarding the construction of pole buildings within the MUSA area. The ordinance as written can be interpreted to allow pole buildings on parcels of more than three acres within the MUSA in districts zoned R-3 and R-4. In reviewing the background, it appears the intent was to keep pole buildings out of the developing MUSA area. They are not desirable in the higher-density areas for aesthetics and because there would be the burden of removing them if the parcel is subdivided in the future. Mr. Carlberg pointed out several parcels in the MUSA that are greater than three acres. Chairperson Ferris questioned whether it is overly restrictive to not allow a pole building on a parcel of three acres of more in the MUSA area. He suggested it be allowed by Special Use Permit with the stipulation that it would be removed when the parcel is subdivided. o The Commission discussed that application in several different scenarios and felt the greatest concern is that even by a Special Use Permit, a pole building could be placed within 10 feet of a lot line, which could be undesirable to a neighbor on a small lot. It was felt there really would not be that much control even with a SUP because the structure could be placed on the site as long as it met the setback requirements, etc. They also noted the various changes to the ordinances that would need to be made to include pole buildings as a special use in the MUSA on parcels three acres in size or greater. , , ~~ u ~ , / Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - MaLch 12. 1991 Page 2 <Public HeaLing: Amend OLdinance 8, Sections 4.05 & 6.02, Continued) The Commission then agLeed the oLdinance with the pLoposed amendment is betteL than al lowing pole buildings in the MUSA by a Special Use PeLmit. They discussed the best waLding in the oLdinance to claLify that pole buildings would not be allowed in R-3 and R-4 distLicts within the MUSA at all, but they would be allowed in the LULal aLea on lots thLee aCLes in size OL mOLe. Also, it was felt the amendment should be wOLded such that it would not have to be changed as the MUSA line expanded. The following waLding was agLeed to: "No peLmanent sheet metal...shall be allowed on paLcels of thLee aCLes <3 a.) OL less in all Lesidential distLicts and within the MetLopolitan ULban SeLvice ALea <MUSA) BoundaLY..." ML. CaLlbeLg pointed out this section of the oLdinance deals with Lesidential aLeas only. The commeLcial aLeas aLe dealt with in a sepaLate section of the oLdinance. The heaLing was opened fOL public testimony. TheLe being none, , \ ChaiLpeLson FeLLis asked fOL a motion to close the pUblic heaLing. , ) MOTION by McMullen. Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion caLLied on a 5-Yes <FeLLis, Janak, Jovanovich, McMullen, Peek), 2-Absent <Pease, Dehn) vote. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to amend OLdinance 8, Section 4.05, PaLagLaph K, inseLting the following in the fouLth line: "...OL less in all Lesidential distLicts and within the MetLopolitan ULban SeLvice ALea <MUSA) boundaLY." The Lest of the existing oLdinance to Lemain as wLitten. A public heaLing was held. TheLe was no comment. Motion caLLied on a 5-Yes <FeLLis, Janak, Jovanovich, McMullen, Peek), 2-Absent <Pease, Dehn) vote. ML. CaLlbeLg then Leviewed the pLoposed amendment to OLdinance 8, Section 6.02 to LequiLe those Lesidents who conveLt an attached 440- squaLe-foot gaLage to livable space to fiLst pLovide on the site an additional 440-squaLe-foot gaLage. This enSULes the City that the minimum LequiLed gaL age space would still exist. The heaLing was opened fOL public testimony. TheLe being none, ChaiLpeLson FeLLis asked fOL a motion to close the public heaLing. ) / MOTION by McMul len, Seconded by Jovanovich, to so move. Motion caLLied on a 5-Yes (FeLLis, Janak, Jovanovich, McMullen, Peek), 2-Absent <Pease, Dehn) vote. ,) ~ "\ / Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12. 1991 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8. Sections 4.05 & 6.02. Continued) MOTION by Peek. Seconded by McMullen. to amend Ordinance 8. Section 6.02. and the amendment would consist of adding the following notation to the rest of the required garage sizes for R-1. R-2. R-3. R-4 zones: "Requires an additional 440-square-foot garage to be constructed before the required minimum 440-square-foot-garage is converted to livable space." A public hearing was held. There was no comment. Motion carried on a 5-Yes (Ferris. Jonak. Jovanovich. McMullen. Peek). 2-Absent (Pease. Dehn) vote. The amendments will be on the April 2 Regular City Council agenda. Hearings closed at 8:51 p.m. DISCUSSION - PAINT BALL/WAR GAME OPERATIONS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the research he did on the matter of paint ball/war game operations. In reviewing the ordinances. he found that such operations are currently allowed by a Special Use Permit in the General Recreation Districts per Ordinance 8. Section 7.01. By definition it Is a commercIal recreatIonal use because it is open to ) the public for a fee. At the present time. no area in the City is designated GR. One consIderatIon may be to specify such activities in the ordinance as a special use. Mr. Carlberg also noted the ordInance allows commercial recreational as an al lowed use in the General BusIness zones; however. the City does not have a large GB zone where this type of activity could be done. In discussing the issue. the Planning Commission did not feel the need to specify "paint ball/war game operations" as a special use in the GR district. It is clearly a commercial recreational activity by definition. and they did not wish to amend the ordinance for every new type of activity that comes along. They also agreed that no change needs to be made to the ordinance. If someone wishes to have this type of activity in the City, it needs to be in a GR zone by special use or in a GB district. and all commercial business requirements would need to be met such as parking, restroom facilities. licensing for refreshments. etc. Regarding the paint ball/war game operations that have been said to be operating off of Ward Lake Drive, Mr. Carlberg stated he would inform both the operators of the activity and the property owner of the City ordinances. , ) '\.. / \ J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting F" Minutes - March 12. 1991 J Page 4 (Discussion - Paint Ball/War Game Operations. Continued) MOTION by McMullen. Seconded by Peek. that we endorse the Staff recommendation and leave the ordinance as is. that paint ball/war game operations can be operated in the General Recreational or General Business areas as permitted uses per the existing ordinances. Motion carried on a 5-Yes (Ferris, Jonak, Jovanovich, McMullen, Peek), 2-Absent (Pease, Dehn) vote. Chairperson Ferris - clarified his vote noting it is not a vote in favor of or against the sport. The Commission took the responsibility of how to control it and not whether or not it should be allowed. The item wi]] be on the April 2 City Council agenda. The Commission recessed at 9:12: reconvened at 9:21 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS "- \ ) Mr. Carlberg noted that on the Hagen Special Use Permit (2646 133rd Lane SUP for in-home beauty salon), the City Attorney has advised that the 20-percent requirement recommended as a condition of the permit by the Planning Commission is not applicable in this case. The 20-percent requirement applies when livable space is being converted. In this case. the conversion is occurring in an accessory structure. the attached garage, so that requirement does not apply. Even with the conversion, the applicant wil I still meet the 440-square-foot garage requirement. Commissioner McMullen stated he was absent when that permit was discussed: however. he did receive one call from a neighboring resident who was opposed to the permit. MOTION by Jovanovich. Seconded by Peek, to amend the motion made on February 26 on the Hagen Special Use Permit by removing that condition. that the size of the beauty salon not exceed 20 percent of the size of the livable square footage of the house. Motion carried on a 5-Yes (Ferris. Jonak, Jovanovich, McMullen, Peek). 2-Absent (Pease. Dehn) vote. Mr. Carlberg reported Anoka County has hired an Environmental Officer who will be enforcing Article III with regard to the disposal of hazardous waste by businesses in the City. He has supplied the county with the names of all businesses within the City. and they will be " checking to find out if there are any hazardous wastes or chemicals ) being handled by them. Mr. Carlberg stated he requested that the City and the Fire Department be sent copies of the which businesses are involved. where they are located. and what is on those premises. \ ) . / \ I \."---""', \ ) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 12. 1991 Page 5 (Other Business. Continued) Chairperson Ferris suggested that since this item was pointed out to the City by a resident at a hearing, it would be appropriate to write to him thanking him for his input and what steps the City is taking. Chairperson Ferris stated he viewed the Rucks site (840 146th Lane, request for variances for distance between well and lean-to housing horses). He felt the drawing presented to the Commission was not accurate in its distances. He also observed that there is virtually no other place on the parcel in which to relocate the lean-to for the horses. He stated when he presents the item to the Council. he will ask whether Ordinance 23 is applicable or whether the intent was to grandfather existing establishments. He said he would also ask whether the number of horses should have any effect on the distance the shelter should be from the wel I. Mr. Carlberg stated John Bills, Chair of the Equestrian Council. found the State law requires only 50 feet between a well and feedlots and other manure management areas. It does not mention the distance to where horses are kept, so Andover's ordinance is more restictive than J the State. The Commission discussed the background of how the 100-foot separation got into the ordinance and on the intent of grandfathering existing operations when Ordinance 23 was updated. Mr. Carlberg stated it was the intent of the Equestrian Council at the time the ordinance was updated to apply the new ordinance requirements to new operations. not the existing ones. The Commission asked that the Staff view the site and verify the distance from the wel I to the lean-to prior to the March 19 Council meeting. There being no further business, Chairperson Ferris adjourned the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: 9:54 p.m. i::::c5?L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary