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
"."..':.'