Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 27, 1990 o C) o o o (J' ~~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING--MARCH 27, 1990 MINUTES The regular bi-monthly meeting of the Andover Planing and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Don Spotts on March 27, 1990 at 7:33 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich and Randal Peek Rebecca Pease and Wayne Vis tad Jay Blake, City Planner Commissioners Absent: Also Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 1990 and March 13, 1990. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek to approve the minutes for March 5, 1990 as submitted and wait to approve the minutes for the March 13th meeting until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DAN AND BEVERLY PENN, HOME BEAUTY SALON, 1430 NW 137TH LANE Mr. Blake gave background information regarding Mr. and Mrs. Penn's request for a special use permit for an in-home beauty salon in their home located at 1430 - 137th Lane NW. Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 defines the criteria for granting such a permit. The recently constructed home is located on a cul-de-sac in the Hills of Bunker Lake. Blake reviewed handouts which included a location map, sketch of exterior of home, and proposed floor plan, whcih includes one chair and a tanning room. Blake stated that the City has approved four salons in the past for special use permits. Of the four, two remain in operation. No complaints have been received by the City on the operation of any of these beauty salons. The proposal meets the criteria set forth by City statutes and staff recommends approval of this permit, subject to the criteria set forth in Section 7.03 of Ordinance 8. The Commission discussed at length the tanning room. Blake stated that the current Ordinance does not address this issue. : ) PLANING AND ZONING CbMMISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -2- , -, U "\ '..-/ At this point the meeting was opened for PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. and Mrs. Penn stated their salon would also have to meet the standards and criteria of the State Cosmetology Board, which is very strict. They will be obtaining a building permit from the City to construct the salon in the lower portion of their home. The Penns stated the State Board does not address tanning beds, because they do not consider them part of cosmetology. Mr. Blake stated the City had received one letter of concern from a neighbor about mixing commerical with residential. MOTION by Peek to close public hearing portion. Seconded by Jovanovich and carried unanimously. Commissioner Ferris stated he would make a motion to recommend approval of the plan, but will not address the tanning issue since he feels it is a separate business with no criteria or precedent to follow. , 'I..... ",) MOTION by Ferris to recommend that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a special use permit to run an in-home beauty salon at 1430 - 137th Lane NW. In regards to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, there is no reason to believe that granting such a special use permit would have a negative effect; In terms of traffic and parking conditions, Ordinance 8, Section 4.30 is met, which would limit the parking to three cars in the parking area. In addition, it would require that a dustless surface be located on site; With regards to property values and scenic views, it is felt that there would be no negative effect on property value or scenic view; With regard to the effect on the City's comprehensive plan, it is also felt that there would be no negative effect on the City's comprehensive plan. In summary, Ordinance 8, Section 4.30, 5.03, 7.03 and 8.08 are all met by the request. In addition, the approval would have the following limitations placed upon it: The operation would be limited to a one chair salon/barber shop; , , ) The beauty shop/barber shop shall be owner-occupied; PLANNING AND ZONING ~U~MISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -3- , " U , \ ,_./J MOTION, continued Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance 8, Section 8.08, not to exceed three vehicles associated with the operation at anyone time; The salon/shop must comply with the State Cosmetology Board and the State Barbers Board requirements and a copy of the license shall be on file with the City; The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday or other hours as approved by the City Council; Upon sale of the premises for which the special use permit is granted, such permit shall terminate; The special use permit shall be subject to an annual review; This recommendation would become null and void if significant progress has not been made at the end of six months. . , , ) ~~ A public hearing was held. There was no negative comment and no positive comment at this public hearing. However, the City has received one letter from a resident who is in opposition to it, and that opposition is basically based upon any home occupation--not necessarily this home occupation. With regards to that comment, the home occupation request is well within reason of the existing ordinances. Motion was seconded by Peeks and carried unanimously. VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE, ORDINANCE 52, SCENIC RIVER ORDINANCE, DON AND JOYCE ILSE, 17322 NW AZTEC ST. This request is for a variance for lot size within the Rum River Scenic Overlay District. These lots were plotted long before the Met Council decided that small lots along the river were inappropriate. Mr. Blake stated that since 1981 the City, in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources, has been enforcing requirements for development along the Rum River that are aimed at reducing visual impact of development along the Rum River. Currently Ordinace 52 requires that all river access lots have four acres in size. Maps of the location of the proposed variance were reviewed by Blake. The variance would involve lots 14 and 5 of the Pletan property and lot 6 of the Ilse property. At this time, " ,...J PLANNING AND ZONING ~VhMISSION March 27, 1930--Minutes Page -4- '\ v , ) Lots 5 and 14 are on separate legal descriptions. Lot 14 is 2.0 acres, and this is where the Pletan home is situated. Lot 5 is approximately .6 acres and is unbuildable. The Ilse home is located on Lot 6 and is approximately 1.1 acres. If the variance were approved, Lot 6 would increase to approximately 1.8 acres and Lots 14 and 5 would be combined and remain at approximately 2.0 acres. Mr. Blake spoke with the DNR about this proposed variance, and said that the DNR voiced some concerns, including the fact that they do not want to have another substandard lot to have access to the Rum River. ~lthough the staff feels the request would actually improve ~he non-conforming status of the three properties- if the .>letan properties were combined and that from practical standpoint the request, if granted, would benefit the area, staff cannot clearly delineate a hardship on the property and for this reason recommends denial of the request. DON ILSE , " ) Mr. IIse stated that Mrs. PIetan is out of town or she would have been at the meeting also. He stated that according to the City Planner's report, conditions 2, 3 and 4 are met and that he and Mrs. Pletan are trying to correct a planning nightmare approved by the Grow~ Township board a number of years ago. The portion of land in question is located out of sight of the Pletan home and has a deep embankment down to the river. This makes it difficult for Mrs. Pletan to know what is happening on that portion of the property. During the day kids are using an elaborate rope swing/diving platform, and at night there are "beer parties". Mr. Ilse states that he has been maintain this portion of land and picking up much debris left over from the parties. He states Mrs. Pletan is concerned about the liability she may have if something should happen to someone on that portion of her property. Mr. Ilse stated he had no intention of putting any large docking or other improvements to the property--in fact the topographic conditions are such that there are no docks for three to four miles from this property. Mr. Ilse also spoke to the Department of Natural Resources, and stated that after his conversations with them, they said they would have to rethink their earlier position on this case. '\ ,) Mr. Ilse stated that he felt there was a definite hardship on Mrs. Pletan and feels that the criteria for the variance have been met. ( ) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -5- , ~ . ~ ~_/ The Commission discussed at length the hardship portion of the criteria. Ferris felt the hardship strong enough to warrant at least positioning it to the City Council and the Department of Natural Resources and made the following motion: MOTION Moved by Ferris to make a motion that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval on a variance to Don and Joyce Ilse for a lot line change at 17322 NW Aztec Street. For further definition, it would involve~ Lots 14 and 6 and with a contingency regarding Lot 5, that in accordance with the Andover Scenic River Ordinance 52 that the following conditions must be reviewed and all conditions must be met in order to approve: 1) The strict enforcement of the land use controls will result in unnecessary hardship. It is the opinion that the unnecessary hardship would be and currently is in existence with regard more to the seller of the properlty, which is Pletan, than it is with the purchaser of the property. However, since the request involves both property owners that the inability to secure control of the ~ property because of the physical dimensions of the property, .J which is approximately 700 feet long and 100 feet in width, it does create a hardship for Pletan. 2) Granting the variance is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning provisions herein established by these standards and criteria. We believe the proposal meets the intent of the Ordinance ln that regard. 3) There are exceptional circumstances unique to the subject property which were not created by the landowners. We believe that this requirement is most definetly met. 4) Granting the variance will not allow any use which is a permitted or conditional use in the land use district which the subject property is located. neither ln And again, the proposal meets such criteria. 5) Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as established by the DNR Management Plan for the river. ~J I believe the approval of the plan would enhance number 5 since it would be under better control. This would give him the authority to do what he is already doing. ( ) PLANNING AND ZONING CuMMISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -6- , \ ~ , , ,_/ A condition to this approval would be that Lot 5 be legally added to the legal description for Lot 14, that Lot 14 at this time would go from 2.0 acres to maybe slightly greater, but approximately 2.0j that Lot 6 would go from 1.1 acres to 1.8 acres, and that an approval of this request would result in the three substandard lots being reduced to two still substandard lots. This recommendation is subject to a sunset clause for significant progress in six months. Motion seconded by Peek. Ferris voted in favor of the motion and Jovanovich, Spotts and Peek voted against the motion. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCE 8, TIME LIMITS ON SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES Mr. Blake stated that the City Council has directed Staff and Planning Commission to analyze this issue. Staff recommends that we go with a 12 month sunset clause on variances and special use permits. Staff will be responsible that nine months after approval by the Council to see that significant progress has been made within that first year. If no significant progress has been made, the Council would be asked to review and take appropriate action on revoking the permit. , i / The Commisison reviewed the proposed verb age in Ordinance 8, Section 5.03, Subsection Dj Ordinance 8, Section 5.04, subsection G, and Ordinance 40r Section III, Subsection E. The Commission would like all of it worded as "12 months" rather than one year. At this point the meeting was opened for PUBLIC HEARING. Mayor Jim Elling asked if this language had been run by Attorney Hawklns. Blake stated it had and that he would give Hawkins another copy of the draft for review. Audience asked how this would affect any special use permits in effect now. Staff stated it does not affect them. There is no retroactive language on existing permits. In addition, special use permits already have a yearly review. This is a "sunset clause" in addition to language already used today. MOTION by Peek to close Public Hearing. Seconded by Jovanovich and unanimously carried. MOTION by Jovanovich and seconded by Peek to send proposed wording for Ordinance 8, Section 5.03, Subsection Dj Ordinance 8, Section 5.04, Subsection G, and Ordinance 40, Section III, , ) Subsection E to the City Council as written with the change , / ; \ , I PLANNING AND ZONING L~MMISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -7- \ ~ , .~ in the wording to "twelve months". Motion seconded by Ferris and carried unanimously. HOME OCCUPATIONS, ORDINANCE 8 Mr. Blake reviewed a proposed draft and Section 4.30 of this ordinance. be made at this meeting, since this purposes only. regarding Section 3.02 No recommendations will draft is for discussion The Commission members felt it had been agreed to delete any reference to "urban" versus "rural" home occupations. Subsections i, j, k, and I will be combined when the rural/urban verbage is removed. The Commission decided to change the minimum lot requirement for home occupations operating from an accessory building from five acres to three acres. This seems to make sense since that is the minimum requirement for erecting a pole building. Also, this will allow the City Council leeway to consider home occupations with the minimum three acres on a case by case basis. , ~ ) The draft provides for combined square footage of the accessory structure and outside storage area not to exceed 800 square feet. These types of home occupations will also require a special use permit and will need to meet that criteria as well. MR. & MRS. MICHAEL KELNER, 15478 NW PRAIRIE ROAD The Kelner's operate a boat motor repair business from their home. They stated it is their livelihood. The three acre plan would fit for them, but not the five acres. If this ordinance goes into effect with three acres and they receive a special use permit, they will meet all of the City's requirements. Staff will redraft the proposal for review at the next meeting of the Planning and zoning Commission. PARKING LOTS AND CURB REQUIREMENTS, ORDINANCE 8 This request results from some apparent discrepancies and ~mbiguity in the existing ordinance. Although the Building Department has also assumed curb and gutter to be concrete it is not stated as such in Section 8.08, Subsection A. Also, the wording of number three in Subsection D does not make sense. \ Mr. Blake will check with other communities and prepare a , / new draft for the Commission to review at the next meeting. , '\ '..-/ '\ ,j , ) , \ PLANNING AND ZOINING~!OMMISSION March 27, 1990--Minutes Page -8- , \ U VACANCY ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Mr. Blake stated there are three applicants at this time. Interviews will be set up for Thursday, April 5th. Blake will set the interviews one-half hour apart and provide the Commission with copies of the applications. There being no further business, upon motion by Ferris and seconded by Peek, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, {!.-;#~ >1/ ~ Cindy -;(( Nutter Recording Secretary