Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 26, 1989 o o ~ o o ,:~ CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 ,,' .,.- The regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Rebecca Pease on Tuesday, September 26, 1989 at the Andover City Hall Offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd., Andover, MN. commissioners Present: Chairman Pease, Bev Jovanovich, Gretchen Sabel, Ron Ferris, Don spotts, Wayne vis tad Others Present: Jay Blake, d'Arcy Bosell Approval of Minutes MOTION made by Ron Ferris to approve minutes of the 9/12/89 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Second to motion by Bev Jovanovich. All commissioners agreed to motion; September 12, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes approved. Kelner, Special Use Permit, Public Hearing The Andover Planning and zoning commission was asked to review the Special Use Permit application of Michael Kelner to allow the operation of a marine motor repair shop in an accessory building on his property at 15478 NW prairie Road. Three photographs of property were submitted to commission. Photographs on file with original minutes. Mr. Ferris asked if the storage of vehicles reported by deputy (as referred to in Request for Planning Commission Action memo) included boats? Mr. Blake replied a couple of boats and cars were stored. situation is not a "junk yard" effect, but regardless, is with zoning ordinance. Blake stressed the not in compliance Chairman Pease inquired if there have been complaints against Mr. Kelner's operation of business. Mr. Blake answered no complaints from neighbors or others have been recorded. Chairman Pease asked what the difference is between Mr. Kelner's operation and the Ordinance definition of a minor repair service. Mr. Blake stated that according to Ordinance a repair service is repair and/or service of such items as jewelry, watches, clocks, appliances, office machines, etc. In other words, the intent is of small, portable items. defined as small household to allow repair cont'd... 8 o :J Andover Planning and (~ing Conunission September 26, 1989 Me~cing Minutes Page Two o Mr. Kelner stated the vehicles in question when deputy cited him were his cars and boats he had borrowed from friends. Kelner stated boats are turned over every two - three days. He does not charge for the storage of boats. Mr. Ferris asked Mr. Kelner how many business repair jobs are in progress at one time on site. Mr. Kelner stated there are usually between two - five jobs on site. Conunissioner Vistad asked Mr. that it is against Ordinance. and did not know his business Kelner if he was aware when he began this business Mr. Kelner replied he moved to Andover in 1968 was against Ordinance. Conunissioner Ferris asked Kelner the length of time he has been at current location. Mr. Kelner stated he has been at current location for six years. conunissioner Vistad asked what year Home Occupation Ordinance became effective. Mr. Blake answered there are three sections to Home Occupation Ordinance. The original definition was adopted in the original Ordinance in late 1970 and early 1971. The section dealing with accessory structures was adopted in 1971. In 1979 the Ordinance was amended. Mr. Blake has on file information regarding Mr. Kelner's inability to gain employment due to his back disability. Mr. Ferris asked if Mr. Kelner has employees working with him in business. Mr. Kelner replied he does not have hired help. Mr. Ferris asked if "running" a business could be construed as the bookwork, invoicing, etc. that currently takes place within the home. Mr. Blake replied that "running" a business within the home infers the repair work is conducted within the home. He stated that a private garage shall not be utilized for business, service or industry. The intent of Ordinance is to keep any home based business low visability. Mr. Ferris stated Ordinance does not differentiate between Rl and R4. Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing. Irv Thornquist, 836 154th Lane, stated that Mr. Kelner is a good neighbor and verified that business is seasonal. conunissioner Spotts made a MOTION to close the public hearing. Second to motion by Ron Ferris. All conunissioners agreed to motion; public hearing closed. Commissioner Vis tad asked if a variance based on handicap or disability would apply. Mr. Blake replied a hardship can be a reason but not the sole reason to justify a Special Use Permit. Chairman Pease asked how city is dealing with other small engine repair businesses that are in non-compliance with Ordinance. Mr. Blake stated such businesses are being put on notice and dealt with in a consistant manner. cont'd.. . Andover Planning and t'}ing Commission September 26, 1989 MeL_~ng Minutes Page Three o o Chairman Pease inquired how like communities respond to such situations. Mr. Blake answered most communities have similar Ordinance but not all communities enforce their Ordinance. Mr. spotts the rules. authority. stated the Planning and Zoning Commission must follow The City Council can respond/proceed within their Mr. Kelner asked commission to define hobby. Chairman Pease replied a hobby would not have main purpose of deriving a profit. Commissioner Vis tad explained that purpose of Planning and Zoning Commission is to make recommendation to City Council based on Ordinance. Mr. Kelner can go to City Council and state his opinion. Chairmqn Pease stated City Council is empowered to make decision to go against Ordinance. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission will go to City Council October 17, 1989. C) Commissioner Ferris made a MOTION that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council denial of the Special Use application as submitted by Michael Kelner to allow operation of a marine repair business from an accessory structure located on property described as the east 400 feet of the north 300 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposal does not meet requirements as set forth in the Andover zoning Ordinance for a Special Use Permit including potential negative effects on the welfare of the community, property values and the Comprehensive Plan. The request is outside the parameters of a Home occupation and to grant the proposal would require an Ordinance Amendment to Ordinance 8, Sections 3.02, 4.05 and 4.30. Second to motion made by Commissioner Vistad. Mr. Ferris stated he is not entirely comfortable with this motion; motion is made in strict compliance to Ordinance. Mr. Ferris be- lieves the City should differentiate between R1 and R4. He states City Ordinance allows no flexibility. Mr. Ferris believes to a certain limitation people should have the right to choose what they do on their property. Commissioners were polled for vote on motion. All commissioners agreed with motion to deny special use permit. -, o Variance, Kroll, 14933 NW Crosstown Mr. Blake presented commission with a letter from City Attorney William G. Hawkins outlining his legal opinion regarding the Kroll variance request. Copy of letter attached to original minutes. Mr. Hawkins believes the granting of the variance would be permitted under the criteria set by state statute. Commissioner Ferris made the MOTION that the Andover Planning cont'd.. . 8 o ~ Andover Planning And~ing Commission September 26, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Four o and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the variance requested by Gregg Kroll to allow for the expansion of a non-conforming home and for a ten foot front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a deck onto his home at 14933 NW Crosstown. The Planning Commission finds the proposal meets the general criteria established in Ordinance 8, Section 5.04 including the strict interpretation of the Ordinance causes the hardship.c The hardship stems from the unique shape, topography, physical features of the land. The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the property. It is further recommended that Greg Kroll apply for a building permit to the existing structure. The appli- cation was reviewed by the City Attorney for two requirements: 1) to determine if structure is non-conforming 2) to consider if approval will set a precedence or if precedence is different than other illegal non-conforming structure recently brought to City Council. Second to motion made by Gretchen Sabel. Commissioner Vistad requested motion gazebo" as that is how permit reads. to amend motion. Commissioners were commissioners approved. Motion to go be amended to read "deck and Mr. Ferris and Ms. Sabel agreed polled for vote on motion; all to City Council for review 10/03/89. Boshea Variance Request, 14649 NW 7th Avenue, Sideyard Setback Request is to locate an accessory structure eleven feet from the sideyard. Unique characteristics to this property are outlined in Request for Planning Commission Action memo submitted by d'Arcy Bosell. Chairman Pease asked if there is screening. Bosell replied that on Tract A there is a willow tree and other small trees that provide screening. Commissioner Ferris asked if it is possible to move accessory building further south and eliminate need for variance. Ms. Bosell stated that locating structure to the south could possibly impact natural drainage. Mr. Blake stated a hardship would be created if owner would have to cut into hill in order to locate accessory structure further south. A second hardship could be the creation of a difficult shaped drive- way. d'Arcy Bosell stated the easement belongs to the city, not the applicant. Mr. Blake stated the uniqueness of this property stems from the city owned easement and the drainage ditch that creates a unique topography. Commissioner Spotts asked what the purpose of the structure will be. Mr. Blake replied the purpose of structure is for storage of two vehicles and the storage of toys. cont'd... Andover P1annin g An~ning Commission September 26, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Five o o d'Arcy Bosell stated structure is a fully framed structure; not a pole barn. Ms. Bosell suggested that included in motion is statement that structure will not be used for non-residential use. Commissioner Vistad made a MOTION that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the variance requested by Jeffrey Boshea located at 14649 7th Avenue NW, Andover for the following reasons: the variance being to construct an accessory building to eleven feet from the sideyard of property, adjacent to drain easement. The hardship is created due to the topography of the land. It is felt the variance does show warrent due to the true reason sideyard setbacks were established. It will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of the adjacent land. It is in conformance with with Compre- hensive Plan. I believe it is necessary due to the topography of the land to allow reasonable use of the land. I also recommend that the accessory building cannot be used for business purposes as set in Ordinance 8, Section 4.03 Home Occupations and Sections 3.02 Definitions of Home Occupations. Second to motion by Bev Jovanovich. Gretchen Sabel requests that neighbors at 4352 147th Avenue be notified before City Council meeting in order to grant an opportunity to express their opinion. o Mr. Vistad and Ms. Jovanovich agreed to include in motion notification of neighbors at 4352 147th Avenue. Mr. Blake will notify neighbors. Commissioners were polled for vote on motion. Commissioners Sabel, Ferris, Vistad,Jovanovich and Pease favored motion. Commissioner Spotts opposed motion. Ordinance 8 Commercial Vehicles R-1 Districts The Planning and Zoning Commission continued discussion on the storage -- commercial vehicles in residential districts. Mr. Blake presented a draft Ordinance 8 Amendment. Mr. Vistad expressed concern that "tractors" as included in definition of "farm trucks" may be misconstrued. Ms. Bosell stated definition is exactly as in state statute. Commissioner Spotts suggested that 4.05 Accessory Buildings and Structures be changed from allowing the gross weight of commercial vehicle to not exceed 12,000 pounds gross capacity. Mr. Spotts believes the average weight would exceed 12,000 pounds. ~) cont'd.. . o o ~) Andover Planning and~ing Commission September 26, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page six o Commissioner Ferris suggested the word "service" be striken from the first sentence of 4.05. d'Arcy Bosell will seek opinion from Bill Hawkins. Pease suggested verbage be added to 4.05 to clarify if vehicle stored must be registered to property owner, or if rental of accessory building is allowable. Mr. Ferris suggested a limit of 16,000 pounds gross capacity for commercial vehicles as referred to in 4.05. Mr. Vistad suggested limit road weight restrictions. in City. be 5,000 pounds per axle to conform with Mr. Blake replied there are 4 ton roads Commissioner Pease questioned if accessory buildings can meet size restrictions and still be large enough for truck-tractors. Commlssioner Vistad noted that an accessory structure can't exceed height of principle structure. Commissioner Spotts questioned if Recreational Vehicles should be included in Ordinance. Ms. Bosell stated a RV over 20 feet in length must be stored inside. Commissioner Vistad stated that Ordinance must be drafted in a manner that residents can comply. Vistad suggested that proper screening may be a reasonable alternative to storage of Recreational Vehicles. Also, the difference between storage or screening of RV's in urban and rural areas should be examined. Blake and Bosell will compile information regarding RV's. Commissioner Sabel stated that in 4.05, the word "except" be changed to "only" in the first sentence. It was determined that changes in draft will be presented to commission on October 10, 1989. Commissioners will review before Ordinance change is opened to public hearing. Alarm Ordinance Discussion The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to discuss the need for an Ordinance to regulate home alarm systems and business alarm systems An alarm Ordinance taken partially from Ordinance and Law Enforcement Legislative Ordinance was presented to commission for City of Minneapolis Research Digest Model review. cont'd... o o ~ u o Andover Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Seven Under Section 2 Alarm Users Permits Required, it is unclear whether alarm user shall be charged user's surcharge fee after second or third false alarm. It was suggested that Paragraph E under Section 2 omit the word "first" in the second sentence. The beginning of the second paragraph of E read "Upon receipt of a third and subsequent...." Paragraph D under Section 2 be changed to "The alarm user shall be required to post alarm monitoring company (if applicable) phone numbers and in a conspicuous place on the building. The word "clerk" replace the word "Director" in Section 3 Determination of the Occurance of a False Alarm. Mr. Blake stated the city will need to notify current alarm systems users that Ordinance is passed. Sabel suggested registration be required rather than permit. Mr. Blake suggested there be a limit placed on amount of time alarms can sound. Ms. Bosell stated there must be a consequence for non-compliance of Ordinance. Ms. Sabel stated billing for response will constitute consequence. Commissioner Vistad questioned if it is public information regarding who owns alarm system. Mr. Blake stated that is not public information. It was decided to continue discussion at the October 10, 1989 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ordinance No. 23 and 8 Amendments Amendment to Ordinance based on modified Ramsey Ordinance was presented to commission by d'Arcy Bosell. Commissioner Vistad requested Paragraph A under Section 1 be changed to read "...any plot of less than three acres". Mr. Vistad stated he preferred Ramsey Ordinance over Andover Ordinance because it is more easily understood. cont'd... o ~J ,J Andover Planning (~ Zoning Commission September 26, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eight o Mr. Blake suggested removing Paragraph's A and B of Andover Ordinance and replacing with Paragraph's A and B of Ramsey Ordinance. Ms. Bosell warned that while Paragraph A under Section 5 would allow keeping animals on plots greater than five acres, there may be restricting covenants within development that would deny keeping animals on plots less than five acres. Modification of a. will be made as follows: a. The following chart prescribes the number of horses that can be maintained on the lot sizes as shown: Number of Horses Acreage Permitted Comments 2.5 - 3.0 Permitted only with approved site plan 2 3+ 2 One additional horse per half-acre with approved site plan. Commissioner Ferris stated paragraph 2 under B. Site Plan Approval Required should be rewritten to clearly define that fee is payable by applicant. d'Arcy Bosell will include a proposed fee schedule. Ordinance 23 and 8 Amendments will be opened to Public Hearing on October 10, 1989. Other Business An amendment was made to 9/12/89 minutes regarding the landfill discussion. Minutes stated discussion would be carried over to next regularly scheduled when in fact discussion was to be carried over to future meeting when additional information is available. Commission determined that at this point, responsibility of commission is to recommend setback requirement to City Council. The next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is October 10, 1989. A specially scheduled meeting will be held October 12, 1989 to begin revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ferris made a MOTION to adjourn. Second to motion by Don Spotts. All commissioners agreed to motion; meeting adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Theresa Hogan SEP-26-89 TUE 10 =.""8 I ' \_J () P.02 ! I r r I ! 1 f 1 LAW OFFICES OF' ~ 1!lIflle IIltd .Hllwllins SUITE 101 2.. COON RoVI081l0ULf:VAI'lO COON """IDS. MINNUOTA ll'433 PHONE (1I1 2)7lI.4-Z11111l JOHN M, IlUIlKE WILUAM G. WAWI(IN$ September 25, 1989 Mr. Jay Blake Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 Dear Jay: I have reviewed the information that you provided regarding the application for Gregg Kroll for a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming home. The applicant apparently has added a deck to the rear of a home that sits 72 feet from the centerline of Crosstown Boulevard and 12 feet from the new right-of-way line. It would be my opinion that the City Council could grant this variance without setting a precedent for other property owners. .:J This property became non-conforming not: as a result of the action of the property owner but through the acquisition of additional right-of-way by the County of Anoka. It would seem to me that: if the acquisition by political subdivision of right-of-way which makes a home non-conforming would result in that individual not being allowed to expand the home that the regulation may be subject: to challenge that it constitutes a taking of property for which the City may have to pay compensation. This home was entirely conforming at the time it was constructed and, but for the actions of the County, it would have every right to expand in the fashion that is contemplated. Accord- ingly I believe the granting of the variance would be permitted under the standards and criteria set out by state statute and should be considered by the Planning and zoning Commission and the City Council. G. Hawkins . ') WGH :mk 'J "."..':.'