Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 13, 1981 o o 00 Call to order o 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 13, 1981 7:30 P.M. 1. Comm. #12-80-6 Approval of Minutes 2. Comm. #12-80-4 Gerald Lazarz Variance Ordinance 8, Sections 4.02 & 3.02(WW) o 00 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER o o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 13, 1981 MINUTES ~~ The Regularly Scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair- person d'Arcy Bosell at 7:33 P.M., Tuesday, January 13, 1981 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Anoka, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Apel, Kishel, Anstett, Lobb, Johnson, Scherer Also Present: Gerald Lazarz Chairperson Bosell congratulated Commissioners Scherer and Apel on their reappointments for three year terms on the Planning Commission. Approval of Minutes December 23, 1980 Page 1, under Marek Lot Split: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence take out 'and width'. Third paragraph, Chairperson Bosell's comments: Change 'width' to'depth'. Page 2, Discussion: Change to read: Chairperson Bosell stated that the variance was initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and therefore no fee is required. Page 4, 1st paragraph, change 'Anoka County Soil Conservation Plans' to 'Andover Community Shopping Center'. Page 5, Earth Home Ordinance - Add 'within 60 days' after ....such time as Commissioner Scherer can get his material together. Add 'within 60 days' after ...Commissioner Lobb was requested to gather together any material available regarding solar heating. MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Lobb to approve the minutes of December 23, 1980 as corrected. Motion ca~ried on a 6 yes - 1 present (Johnson) vote. Gerald Lazarz Variance (Commission #12-80-6) Gerald Lazarz, 3705 - l57th Avenue N.W. - Stated that in the mid to late 60's he built a 30' x 45' barn. Last fall he put a 16' x 45' addition onto it, which he is using for hay storage and some farm machinery. He was not aware that galvanized sheet metal is not allowed. From the front of the building there is only 2~' to 3' of steel that is visible because of the garage and service doors. Chairperson Bosell noted that in the strictest sense of the law, this variance is not allow- able, but it makes sense in that the addition would have looked out of place if part was galvanized and part was color-coded. She recommended that the variance be denied because a hardship is not created due to the topography of the land and it does not adversely affect the existing or potential use of the adjacent land; however, based on the fact that the building is already constructed and the old part is galvanized steel, we recommend approval. Commissioner Kishel stated that the ordinance states that galvanized steel can be used in c=>proper arrangement or combination with other materials. Commissioner Anstett felt that the building would be an eyesore if the addition was color- coded. Planning and Zoning C~~isf"~ Meeting 'L ' January 13. 1981 - Mi__~es~ Page 2 o o - MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Scherer that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission ~recommend to the City Council approval of the Gerald Lazarz variance for his addition to an agra-building located at 3705 - l57th Avenue N.W. The variance would be from Ordinance 8, Section 8.20. Amendment 8I, Visual Standards relating to the materials used on the addition. Approval is recommended for the following reasons: 1) The new galvanized corrugated metal covered addition to the existing building matches with the existing structure in that the sheathing of the old building is galvanized corrugated metal; 2) Granting the variance is necessary to the reasonable use of the land and will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of the adjacent land; 3) The variance would allow a more asthetic building because of the fact the entire building would then be galvanized corrugated metal instead of a non-contrasting color creating an eyesore; 4) There was no opposition to the variance from the public; 5) It is consistent with the spirit and intent of Ordinance 8. Section 8.20. Amendment 8I. Vote on motion: Yes - Scherer. Johnson. Apel. Anstett. Kishel; No - Bosell; Present _ Lobb. Motion carried on a 4 yes, 1 no, 1 present vote. This will go to the City Council on February 3. 1981. Discussion: not because Bosell. Chairperson Bosell noted that she voted no because of the form of the motion. she felt it should be denied. Commissioner Lobb concurred with Chairperson Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 and 3.02(WW) (Commission #12-80-4) Chairperson Bosell explained that at the last meeting, the Commissioners were given copies of previous variances dealing with accessory buildings which they were asked to review to determine if the Commission has been consistent in their decisions. Commissioner Apel felt that the Commission had been reasonably consistent but they had made some mistakes. Commissioner Kishel noted that each variance must be dealt with in its own case. Chairperson Bosell asked if any of the Commissioners had come up with any suggestions for changes in the ordinances. Commissioner Kishel stated that the ordinance is proper and the ordinance allowing variances is proper and the reasons for granting variances are limited and each request is unique. Commissioner Apel noted that he didn't know how you could amend the ordinance to make it more proper. Commissioner Lobb stated that this Commission really couldn't go back and look at the variances that were done by a different commission. Chairperson Bosell felt that if all of the Commissioners are in agreement that there should be no changes in the ordinances, a recommendation should be sent to the City Council stating such. Commissioner Kishel stated that the City Council is being picky about these small things when every day they drive past big things that are in violation of our ordinances and nothing c-JiS done about them. - MOTION by Apel, seconded by Lobb that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to pIanning and Zoning OiS:'~\ Meeting January 13, 1981 - Minutes '--/ Page 3 o o the City Council that no changes be made in Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 dealing with accessory ,buildings and structures for the following reasons: 1) That within the ordinances as we now ,->have them, we as a Planning and Zoning Commission have adequate power to make reasonable decisions and that the ordinances, after all, are guidelines helping us to arrive at decisions on the cases presented to us, which each in their own way are unique; 2) That we feel that we can, by using a good deal of common sense, apply the ordinances in their present form, to satisfy the needs of our city; 3) We have reviewed a number of variance requests presented to us over the last few months and have concluded that there are really none that we would wish to do over. We therefore feel that we have been reasonably consistent in our handling of this matter; 4) We also feel that our method of gathering the necessary input from the people requesting variances and their neighbors has given us sufficient material to make a fair judgment. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on February 3, 1981. MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Lobb to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, LL, V/J Vicki Volk, Recording Clerk ;'---...., \ .1