Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 10, 1990 ,r"\ V o o o o C}\) CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING July 10, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Rebecca Pease on July 10, 1990, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Bill Coleman, Ron Ferris, Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich, Randall Peek and Wayne Vistad Others Present: d'Arcy Bosell, City Zoning Administrator and Todd Haas, Assistant City Engineer REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Coleman and seconded by Vistad to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting on June 14, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Coleman and seconded by Vis tad to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 26, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE, DONALD WOOTEN, 13537 N.W. HEATHER STREET, SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE, CONTINUED This agenda item was continued from the last meeting so that Bosell could clarify some issues with Building Inspector Dave Almgren. Bosell reviewed a copy of a memo summarizing her discussion with Almgren. Among the issues discussed was the fact that plans which have been designed with habitable living space behind the garage are required to meet the ten foot setback requirement. Bosell.stated that Almgren is mostly concerned that the proper paperwork for this plan is completed. The Commission discussed at length if the topography of the lot constitutes a hardship for normal use of the land because of the narrowing of the lot line towards the back of the lot. Mr. Wooten was in attendance and stated that he did not feel his request was unreasonable in that he did not want to extend out further on the side of the house, but only follow the symetry of the house as it now exists. . "\ U u Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes--July 10, 1990 \ Page -2- , / MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Coleman that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the variance at 13537 N.W. Heather Street for the expansion of an existing non-conforming covered deck into a four season porch. This variance would allow encroachment to within 6'4" of the lot line. In Reviewing Ordinance No.8, Sections 5.04 and 6.02, it is felt that a hardship does exist as Ordinance No. 8 does allow for hardships being defined as to the shape of the property. In this particular case, the property line is a diagonal or pie shape piece of property to which the north property line is slanted towards the house; thus expansion of the house in the eastern direction causes the house to encroach into the property line. Vote on Motion: and Pease (with (with comment) Yes--Coleman, Ferris (with comment), Jonak comment). No--Jovanovich, Peek, and Vistad . "\ '. / Ferris: I strongly feel that Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, is in fact totally applicable in this case because it specifically mentions the shape of the parcel and that is the entire concern on this piece of property. I feel that precedents, as Wayne points out, have been done in the past, but this is not a precedent setter. It is proper use ordinances as they exist today. Pease: Normally I would not vote yes, I am voting yes this time because of the shape of the land and because of the legalities that were involved during the transfer of the land. Vistad: The reason I'm voting no is I believe it will set a precedent. I believe as to material dated July 10, 1990, in discussing the variance portions with the building inspector as written. It should be noted that there have been numerous requests on behalf of builders to build livable space behind garages and continue the six foot setback as allowed by Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02. In each instance, however, the building plans have had to be modified so that livable space meets the ten foot setback requirement. I want to reiterate that under Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land and not the property owner. Under Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, Subsection D, Economic Considerations shall not constitute undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. "\ ) Motion carried. \ ,_J u , Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes--July 10, 1990 Page -3- / PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 7.03, SPECIAL USES REQUIRING ALL ADULT USE BUSINESSES TO BE CONDUCTED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ONLY The City Council has directed the Planning and zonining Commission to hold a public hearing to amend Section 7.03 of Ordinance No. 8 to restrict these businesses to non-residential districts and to require the issuance of a special use permit prior to the commencement of said use. Bosell reviewed a proposed draft amendment prepared by Staff. It was the consensus of the Commission to remove "Neighborhood Busiess" as a category under "Business Districts". Pease stated that the special use permit would allow the City more control in areas such as hours of operation and an annual review. Peek asked if the City Attorney was comfortable that the requirement of a special use permit would not make the ordinance overly- restricted if it was tested in Court. Staff stated Attorney Hawkins was at the City Council Meeting and did not express \ any concerns, and that he would be getting a copy of the draft , J for his review. Public Hearinq There was no one in attendance at the Public Hearing. MOTION by Vis tad and seconded by Jovanovich to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Coleman and seconded by Ferris that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval to amend Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03, Special Use Permits as drafted excluding the "Neighborhood Business" section,tQ~ require all adult use businesses in Business Districts as follows: Limited Business, Shopping Center, General Business and Industrial subject to a special use permit requirement. Motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 10, SECTION 9.03 STREETS IN REGARD TO CUL-DE-SAC FRONTAGE IN RURAL AREAS DISCUSSION ) Haas reviewed the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 10 regarding minimum lot widths at the building setback for lots that abutt a cul-de-sac in the rural area. The Andover Review Committee has reviewed the types of plats in the rural area in the past, and have recommended to change the ordinance which would eliminate the need for variances. \ V , \ V Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes--July 10, 1990 \, Page -4- .J In reviewing the proposed amendment it was noted that the minimum depth should be 160 feet, not 157 feet. This would allow the property owner to do a lot split at some future date if sewer and water become available and if the home is situated on the lot to meet setback requirements in effect at that time. MOTION by Vistad and seconded by Coleman that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the change to Ordinance No. 10 governing cul-de-sacs as written except for the change from 157 feet to 160 feet. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS--ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8.08, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, CONTINUED Staff reviewed the latest draft of this proposed amendment. The Commission discussed changing Section E, 3(e) to 10 feet, changing the proposed chart to reflect 10 feet for Side Yard Setback, and the possibility of developing a chart to reflect Setback Area guidelines described in Section H, 5. / Staff will check with Jim Schrantz regarding surfacing requirements for storage areas that the City uses at the present time. MOTION by Vistad and seconded by Coleman Hearing on this matter on July 24, 1990. unanimously. to hold a Public Motion carried Pease requested staff to notify the two businesses the City is working with at this time in the Commercial Park about the Public Hearing. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 44 REGARDING FENCING; ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.21 AND ORDINANCE NO. 78, SECTION 2(B), ET AL Bosell stated the City Council has requested the Planning and Zoning Commission review Ordinance No. 44 and Ordinance No. 8 to determine whether there is a discrepancy between the two and make a recommendation to the City Council. She has also included Ordinance No. 78 for the Commission to review which regulates the construction of commercial buildings within the City:". After much discussion, the Commission concluded that there , is a discrepancy between Ordinance No. 44 and Ordinance No.8, ~) with the consensus at this time that the consistent height should be a minimum of six feet height for fencing in junkyards with a maximum of twelve feet height. Also, the stacks of junk should not exceed the height of the fence. u u Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes--July 10, 1990 ) Page -5- The Commission requested that this item be brought back for further discussion on July 24, 1990. ORDINANCE NO. 29, DUTCH ELM AND OAK WILT DISEASE TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSlON, CONTINUED Motion by Coleman and seconded by Ferris to table this item until Ray Sowada is able to attend the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS--MINNESOTA PLANNING AGENCY MEETING Bosell received a call from Peter Kimball, President Elect, Minnesota Planning Association, in regard to an. informal networking meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 1990. The agenda for this meeting is to receive input from citizens, planners, planning commissions and staff as to planning matters that are before these groups and what steps are being taken to meet these needs. It is intended to develop a network or resource for the various groups when questions or issues arise and provide a pool of resources to tap. \ ) Jovanovich said that she would be able to attend this meeting. There being nothing further on the approved agenda, Chairperson Pease declared the meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. R~. e:tfullY submitted, (~~~ Cindy M. Nutter Recording Secretary . )