Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 23, 2002 1'- ." ("-~ C) o ~cW ~ <6\I?>I{)~. CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - July 23, 2002 - MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Dean Daninger on July 23,2002, 7:0] p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson, Dean Daninger;.Commissioners, Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, and Tony Gamache. Commissioners absent: Chairperson, Jay Squires, Commissioners Douglas Falk and Rex Greenwald. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz, Planning Intern, Jon Sevald,and others. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2002 .\ 'J Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. July 23, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02-10) FOR HOME OCCUPATION NAIL SALON FOR TRACEY EDWARDS AT 14824 EAGLE STREET MY. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report, and stated that the only question that remains is the hours of operation. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the driveway faces Eagle S1. or Hanson Blvd. Mr. Bednarz responded that the driveway faces Eagle St. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the suggested hours of operation of 8:00 am to 9:00 pm seven days a week would be adequate. 1'- " o The applicant Tracey Edwards said it would be. o o o Commissioner Daninger questioned if the salon would be open earlier or past those hours. The applicant Tracey Edwards responded no. Commissioner Gamache questioned ifthe salon would be by appointment only. The applicant Tracey Edwards responded yes. Motion by Kirchoff, second by Gamache to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4- ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, second by Gamache to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Approval of the Special Use Permit of Tracey Edwards to operate a home occupation nail salon for the property located at 14824 Eagle Street NW. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a state board required an inspection. The Applicant Tracey Edwards responded yes. Once she receives her cosmetology license, she will be inspected once a year, or every other year. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. -\ Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 20, 2002. G PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 7.04 PROHIBITED USES TO ADD COMPOST FACILITIES AS A PROHIBITED LAND USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. The object of the amendment is to put regulation in place to limit the location of a potential compo sting facility within the City of Andover. Commissioner Gamache questioned that by passing this, would there be any chance of locating such a facility in Andover? Mr. Bednarz stated that ifthe ordinance is passed as is, there would be no chance of locating such a facility in Andover without some other consideration. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a variance could be considered. Mr. Bednarz stated that a variance to a land use could not be approved, although an ordinance could be amended allowing such a facility to exist if a suitable location was agreed upon. o u o Commissioner Daninger questioned if this amendment more clearly defines what is and is C) not allowed in the city. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct, and that there has been an effort not to restrict individual residents from composting on their property, along with city services or in the event of a natural disaster where a site would be needed to collect debris. Commissioner Daninger questioned if this amendment would limit nurseries from having their own composting facilities for their own use. Mr. Bednarz stated that this ordinance would limit any commercial, industrial, or institutional facility where material is collected from elsewhere and stored on site. This is typically not part of a commercial or retail operation. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there are any such facilities at this time. Mr. Bednarz responded that besides the Public Works facility, there were none to his knowledge. Composting on residential property is covered under a different ordinance. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. There was no public input. () Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he supports the proposed amendment, acknowledging the facility's associated smell. Commissioner Hedin stated that he supports the proposed amendment, sighting this would further tighten the city's regulatory control. Commissioner Gamache questioned ifthere would be a reason to relocate the present county facility because of homes being built near by. Mr. Bednarz stated that to his understanding, there is pressure from surrounding developments. The area could be serviced by utilities. Commissioner Daninger stated that he supports the proposed amendment, stating that sometimes you have to change ordinances as you grow, and this is an example of that. Commissioner Gamache stated that he supports the proposed amendment, agreeing with Commissioner Daninger, and stating that it's better to be proactive now than to have residents fighting against it later. o C) () o u o Motion by Gamache, second by Hedin to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Approval of the amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 7.04 Prohibited Uses to add compost facilities as a prohibited land use in all zoning districts. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 5, 2002. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.21 FENCES AND WALLS TO ALLOW DECORATIVE FENCES TALLER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBA CK OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE R-I AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this amendment would require a fence permit. Mr. Bednarz responded that it did not. lfthe commission wishes to go forward with requiring fence pern1its, the ordinance would require adjustments. Commissioner Daninger stated that a person could receive guidance from staff members, but it is their responsibility to follow the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated that information regarding the fence ordinance is provided in the spring newsletter, the city's website, in handouts, and over the phone. Commissioner Daninger questioned if a person would be allowed to grow vines on a six- foot fence with the vines protruding higher than six feet, possibly creating a sight obstruction. Mr. Bednarz responded that would not be allowed as the ordinance is written. Commissioner Hedin suggested that four inches between pickets may be too far, and that three inches may be better. Mr. Bednarz stated that the four-inch minimum was an attempt to keep in mind if the homeowner had a pool and the fence was intended to be a part of the containment of that pool. There is a four-inch maximum between those pickets. Commissioner Hedin questioned if other cities have different minimum and maximum widths. Mr. Bednarz stated that this is a compilation of different manufactures definitions and that he was unable to find another example of an ordinance ornamental fence definition used by another city. o o Commissioner Daninger questioned if we are creating a hazard if a child's head can fit (~ through the four-inch minimum space between pickets. .J Commissioner Gamache clarified the four-inch maximum space allowed as it pertains to decks, where there is a difference in elevation stating that with a fence, there is not a danger of a child getting through a fence. Commissioner Hedin stated that the reasoning behind that is so that things can't pass through that shouldn't be passed through. Commissioner Gamache stated that an ornamental fence isn't designed to contain an animal, but to be an ornamental fence. Commissioner Hedin stated that he did not see anything wrong with allowing a three-inch minimum space between pickets, saying that you could still see through it, and it may prevent pets from climbing through the fence. Commissioner Daninger stated that he is more concerned with safety and wasn't sure if it would be better to have a space wider so that a child could fit all the way through it, or small enough so that they wouldn't be able to get anything stuck between the pickets at all. Mr. Bednarz commented that there are competing interests between trying to maintain /-, visibility through the fence and minimizing the space between individual pickets. ~-) Commissioner Gamache expressed concern that the whole ordinance would have to be reworded. Commissioner Hedin clarified that he would only like to change "four inches" to "three inches" as a minimum space between pickets. MotiOIl by Gamache, seconded by Hedin to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. John Dalos, 15672 Kiowa St., expressed concern about the four-inch minimum, stating that Chanhassen's pool fence ordinance is such that a four-inch sphere could not pass through its pickets. Most fences in brochures that he has obtained have a maximum width of four-inches. He strongly recommends that a three-inch minimum and four inch maximum space between pickets be considered for safety purposes so that a child could not get their head stuck in the fence. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that this is an ornamental fence, not a security fence. f\ ~/ /-'\ I, ) '. , '.,,/ :'~, , '--' o o Commissioner Hedin questioned if it could serve a dual purpose. Commissioner Kirchoff responded that it can, and that he could live with a lower minimum width between pickets. Commissioner Gamache stated that a three-inch minimum would be keeping within the character of an ornamental fence. Commissioner Daninger stated that safety issues must be considered with Commissioner Hedin's comments. Motion by Hedin, second by Gamache to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences and walls to allow decorative fences taller than four feet in height within the front yard setback of residential properties in the R-l and R-2 Zoning Districts (with a change in the width between pickets to be a minimum of three-inches apart). Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 20, 2002. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz recognized Commissioner Hedin's service on the Planning & Zoning Commission, as this is his last meeting. Commissioner Hedin will be recognized by the City Council at a future Council meeting. Commissioner Hedin thanked staff and the commission. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, 0- nayes, 3-absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Jon Sevald, Planning Intern