Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 28, 1983 8 '0 o 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1983 AGENDA Call to order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes 1. Comma #6-83-3 2. Comma #6-83-4 3. Comma #6-83-5 4. Comma #6-83-6 Glenn Sonsteby Rezoning Public Hearing Ordinance 8 Amendment Public Hearing James Canfield Lot Split James Canfield Variance o 0 ~~ANDOVER (j v REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 1983 MINUTES The Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman d'Arcy Bosel1 at 7:33 P.M., Tuesday, June 28, 1983 at the Andover City Hall. 1685 Cross- town Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Knutson, Perry, Rogers, Schrei ner, Spotts Apel Glenn Sonsteby; James Canfield Approval of Minutes June 14. 1983 MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Rogers to approve the minutes of June 14. 1983 as written. Motion carried on a 3 yes, 3 present (Knutson. Schreiner. Bosell) vote. Glenn Sonsteby Rezoning Public Hearing (Comm. #6-83-3) Chairman Bosell opened the public hearing. Glenn Sonsteby, 14101 - 7th Avenue - noted that he has 2 acres and would like to rezone the property to General Business because it is his understanding that the garage addition he would like to build would be too big for a Neighborhood Business zone. He presently has an auto repair shop which has been in business at that location for 20 years. He also noted that two years ago he added an office onto the building. Commissioner Perry asked Mr. Sonsteby what his plans are for the remainder of the property. Mr. Sonsteby noted that eventually the house will be moved off the property or torn down. Commissioner Knutson noted that when Mr. Sonsteby added the office onto his building, it was against the ordinance as the garage is a non-conforming use. Chairman Bosell felt that this should possibly be a Special Use Permit rather than a rezoning. That way, the Special Use Permit could be issued under the current zoning. She asked Mr. Sonsteby if he would object if the property remained Neighborhood Business and they allowed the construction of the building under a Special Use Permit. Mr. Sonsteby stated that as long as he can build his garage, it would be fine. Commissioner Knutson noted that if we rezone the property to General Business and Mr. Sonsteby sold it, the new owner could come in with a more intense use and we don't want that. Commissioner Knutson asked how big the building will be. Mr. Sonsteby noted it will be 40 feet by 50 feet. Commissioner Schreiner asked how high the building will be. 'Mr. Sonsteby stated it will c=:le 16 feet high. MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Spotts asked if the new building will be a non-conforming use or if the old :~J \) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 1983 - Minutes \Page 2 I (Sonsteby Rezoning, Cont.) building is the non-conforming use. Chairman Bosell noted that the old structure is the non-conforming use. It was the con census of the Planning Commission that since this property is 8 acres short of what is required for General Business as proposed in the update of Ordinance 8, their recommendation would be to vary from Ordinance 8, Section 4.03(B) as far as structural alteration to a non-conforming use is concerned. MOTION by Perry Seconded by Rogers that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit requested by Glenn M. Sonsteby, 14101 - 7th Avenue to expand the existing shop at the same address. The request originally came in as a rezoning request; however, the parcel under consideration is two acres which the Planning Commission does not feel is adequate for General Business. In the discussions that the Planning Commission has been having regarding the update, the General Business size has been recommended as a minimum of 10 acres. It was noted that the existing building and shop are a non-conforming use under Ordinance 8, Section 4.03(B). However, the Planning and Zoning Commission would recommend that Mr. Sonsteby be granted a Special Use Permit to expand the shop under the current Neighborhood Business designation. The Special Use Permit will be reviewed on an annual basis. Notices were sent to the City of Anoka and the adjacent property owners and no response was received. No one was at the Planning Commission meeting nor were there any written or verbal responses. Motion carried unanimously. This will go the City Council on July 19, 1983. James Canfield Lot Split (Comm. #6-83-5) James Canfield, 16021 Goldenrod Street he wants to split it into two parcels. also requesting a variance. N~W. - stated that his property is 4.935 acres and Each will be less than 2.5 acres. Therefore, he is Chairman Bosell asked if Goldenrod Street is a city street. Mr. Canfield noted that it is. Commissioner Rogers asked why the survey received by the Planning Commission is in the name of Mr. Peters. Mr. Canfield explained that he originally owned 10 acres and Mr. Peters, in exchange for 5 acres of the property, had the survey done and built the road. It was questioned whether a park dedication fee would be required on this split as it was paid when the 10 acres was split. Chairman Bose11 asked if there would be any problems building on the lot. Mr. Canfield stated that there would be none. ,At this time, the Planning Commission discussed the variance being requested by Mr. Canfield. , /Commissioner Spotts noted that since the original parcel was not a true ten acres, there should be no problem with the variance. Commissioner Rogers asked what would happen if he did a split and one parcel was 2.5 acres and the other was under 2.5 acres. Chairman Bosell stated that he would still need a variance. (j u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting . June 28, 1983 - Mi nutes ; Page 3 (Canfield Lot Split/Variance, Cont.) MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Rogers that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a variance requested by James Canfield, 16021 Goldenrod Street N.W. for the property described as The North 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest One-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County,Minnesota, subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 43 feet thereof, for the following reasons: 1) It will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of adjacent lands; 2) It is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 3) A hardship is created because the legal description states the property is less than a full ten acres; 4) It is necessary to the reasonable use of the land. This variance is contingent upon the granting of alot split. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on July 19, 1983. MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Rogers that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a lot split requested by James Canfield for the property described as the North 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest One-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 43 feet thereof, for the following reasons: 1) A public discussion was held and there was no opposition; 2) it is in compliance with the planned development of the rural area; 3) The lot which will be created is less than 2! acres (see variance); 4) It may be subject to a $100 park dedication fee; 5) Any structure placed on the vacant lot will have to face the interior street and not the county road. This lot split is contingent upon the variance being granted. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on July 19, 1983. Ordinance 8 Amendment Public Hearing (Comm. #6-83-4) Chairman Bosell opened the public hearing. It should be noted for the record that there was no one in the audience for this item. Recess: 8:50 - Reconvene: 8:55 The amendment proposed deals with the size of accessory buildings and the requirement of a two-car garage. Commissioner Perry felt that the section dealing with accessory buildings makes sense in that it deals with size and not location. Cha i rman Bose 11 noted that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent lots from bei ng covered with accessory buildings. Commissioner Knutson noted that the way the amendment reads, a person could build two accessory buildings that are both smaller than the size of the house. It should read 'No Accessory buildings in total....' , J ,- Commissioner Rogers noted that according to the proposed ordinance, a person could have a 2400 square foot house and build two 2300 square foot accessory buildings. Commissioner Perry suggested that the proposed amendment dealing with Accessory buildings u u Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 1983 - Minutes Page 4 j(Ord. 8 Amendment, Cont.) be changed to read as follows: 'Accessory buildings in a residential area shall not exceed the square footage of land cover of the principal building on lot areas containing not more than five (5) acres of less than one acre. Accessory buildings in a residential area shall not exceed 75% of the square footage of land cover of the principal building on lot areas containing less than one acre.' The Commissioners concurred with Commissioner Perry's suggestion. Chairman Bosel1 noted that the second section of the proposed amendment requires a two-car garage. . Discussion centered on the size of a two-car garage; someone thought it was 24' x 22' and some- one else thought it was 20' x 24'. It was questioned whether the building code deals with a size for a two-car garage. Commissioner Spotts felt that economics would dictate the size of the garage. He opposed this section of the ordinance as he didn't feel we should tell someone that they have to have a two-car garage. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the people building new homes will say whether they need a one-car or a two-car garage. We shouldn't have anything to say about what they want. MOTION by Perry, seconded by Spotts that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of an amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 dealing with Accessory Buildings and Structures. We would further recommend to the City Council that Section 6.02, Minimum Requirements, remain unchanged, i.e., single car garage be required. Commissioner Knutson didn't feel that we should require a garage at all. He asked if there could be some type of agreement that they don't have to build a garage for a certain period of time. Amendment to Motion: The Planning and Zoning Commissi.on does not recommend adoption of Section 6.02 requiring two car garages. We do suggest the City Council consider removing the single garage requirement and instead consider including a covenant agreement whereby a homeowner could build a single family residence with the understanding that at a later time a garage would be constructed. If after one year's time there have been numerous complaints from the neighbors, the City will then initiate action to have construction started. Amendment withdrawn. Vote on original motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on July 19, 1983. The next work session on the ordinance update will be Thursday, July 21, 1983. The secretary will contact Joan Archer from the Manufactured Home Association to come to the meeting. MOTION by Perry to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. /Respectful1y submitted, L'L'J:a Vicki Volk, Commisslon Secretary