Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 14, 2000 o o o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -NOVEMBER 14, 2000 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on November 14,2000, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Larry Dalien, Douglas Falk, Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, and Dean Daninger. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Maynard Apel. Also present: City Planner, John Hinzman Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES, October 24, 2000 Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, I-present (Kirchoff), I-absent (Apel) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 00-11) - ERECT AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN-15629 OSAGE STREET-MIKE GOETZ. Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to review the Special Use Permit request by Mike Goetz to allow for the construction of an Area Identification Sign on the property at 15629 Osage Street NW. He stated that all applicable ordinances will be required to be met if approved. He explained that the area is larger than 5 acres, and therefore one sign is allowed by a Special Use Permit and any additional signs would need to be reviewed by the City of Andover Review Committee, Planning Commission, and finally approved by the City Council. He also explained that the maximum square footage of the sign is 32 square feet in area, and the sign is located IO-feet from the property line. (J U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 2 ~-J Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an Area Identification Sign measuring 18' square feet at the southeast comer of the property, which is located on the comer of Nightingale St. NW and 1 56th Avenue NW. The sign would consist ofa 6'X3' stone portion and supported by two brick pillars 2'X4' in size. The sign would be approximately 10' from the right of way of both Nightingale 8t. NWand 1 56th Ave. NW. Mr. Johnson also mentioned that this request is for a Special Use PermitlVariance request. He explained that the applicant recently completed the variance application and therefore will be submitted along with the Commission's recommendation to the City CounciL Motion by Daninger, seconded by Palk, to open the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Brad Wesley, (no address stated), explained that he purchased a home in the Willington Ridge area and is present with the intent of just becoming more informed. He questioned how the sign would be maintained and why there is a need for a sign since there hasn't been one in the past. Mike Goetz, 15629 Osage Street, explained that it has been a neighborhood decision to F \ request the Special Use Permit for the sign. He stated that Hanson Builder's has donated l_. ) money along with a cost of $250 per house, but only from residents that were interested. He stated that it is a neighborhood effort, however it is not required. He mentioned that the neighbors in the area have also offered to assist with the maintenance and upkeep of the sign. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the sign will be lighted. Mr. Goetz explained that they are unsure at this time, since there currently is no electricity. Commissioner Palk questioned who would maintain the sign if Mr. Goetz moved. Mr. Goetz explained that the neighborhood would still help with the maintenance even though it is technically on his property. There was no additional public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Commissioner Palk mentioned concerns about the maintenance and cost for upkeep of the sign if at some time the Goetz's moved. He questioned who would the City go after. , \ '- ) Chair Squires mentioned that there are many signs throughout the City such as this where it is a neighborhood responsibility. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 3 ) Commissioner Dalien questioned if there would be a written agreement. Mr. Johnson explained that there would be an agreement tied to the property owner, therefore if they were to move there would have to be a new agreement drawn up with the new property owners. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there has been any problems with neighborhood signs in the past. Mr. Hinzman explained that there have been instances where the owner has removed the sign. He also mentioned that if there seems to be a lack of maintenance the City would work with the property owners and it would be their responsibility to improve the situation. He stated that if they didn't improve the situation the City would treat it like any other code when it isn't in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Dalien questioned if it would be up for annual review. Mr. Hinzman stated that it would be up for a review from the City. \ , / Chair Squires questioned if the maintenance agreements are reported. He suggested there be some way to be sure the property owner is obligated to care for the sign. He questioned Mr. Goetz ifhe was aware that there was a maintenance agreement. Mr. Goetz stated that he wasn't aware of any such agreement, however stated that he would not be opposed to the idea. Commissioner Daninger mentioned that since there is no lighting it becomes tough to approve the request since it is possible that things could change. Chair Squires questioned if any of the Commissioners were opposed to the idea of lighting on the sign. The Commissioners did not object if lighting was added to the sign. Commissioner Daninger explained that he is not opposed to the idea of lighting, but just wanted to bring it up since it would affect the neighbors in the area, and if they were opposed at least they would be aware of it. Mr. Hinzman stated that he would add the clause to the variance approval as noted by the Commission. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the Resolution No. R _ -DO, granting the Special Use PermitlVariance of Mike Goetz to allow for the construction of an Area Identification Sign pursuant to Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 on the property located at 15629 Osage Street NW, subject to the following conditions: " '\ '--/ 1. That the Special Use PermitlVariance be subject to an annual review by staff. 2. That the applicant executes a written agreement for the maintenance of the sign. 3. That the applicant obtain a sign permit prior to erection of the sign. o 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 4 :' \ '--J 4. That the Special Use PermitlVariance be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03 (D). 5. That the Resolution be amended to state that what is being granted is the Special Use PermitIVariance. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. PRESENTATION: WOODLAND CREEK TOWNHOMES -18 TOWNHOMES ON 4.7 ACRES - PRESENTATION BY WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Hinzman introduced Byron Westlund, representing Woodland Development, to present the proposed development ofthe Woodland Creek Townhomes. ~J Mr. Westlund presented the Woodland Creek Townhomes proposal before the Planning Commission. He explained that they are proposing 18 units, 9 twinhomes on 4.8 acres of land. He stated that the layout of the development has not changed from the original sketch plan. He mentioned that city sewer and water services are already stubbed and ready. He also mentioned that they were the developers for the Majestic Homes Developments that are located off of Bunker Blvd. He briefly reviewed the changes that were made such as the size of the units and the exterior of the buildings. It was stated that the units should sell for around $200,000. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned the size of the units. Mr. Westlund explained that they plan to build one unit at 1400 square feet and the other attached-unit at 1600 square feet. Commissioner Squires questioned if the exterior for both units would be the same even though the size of the units will be different. Mr. Westlund explained that it would not change the exterior appearance of the building, with the exception that the length of the garage wall would be longer. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (REZ 00-05) -REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-4, SINGLE FAMILY URBAN (DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS UNDER PUD OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO M-1, MULTIPLE DWELLING, LOW DENSITY- 4.7 ACRES - 32XX BUNKER LAKE BLVD. - WOODLAND CREEK TOWNHOMES - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT. ~. '\ V PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 00-12) - AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - WOODLAND CREEK , U Regular Andover Plan~",J and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 5 " ) TOWNHOMES -18 TOWNHOMES - 4.7 ACRES - 32XX BUNKER LAKE BLVD. _ WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - WOODLAND CREEK TOWNHOMES-18 TOWNHOMES-4.7 ACRES-32XXBUNKERLAKE BLVD.- WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 00-13) -AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN - WOODLAND CREEK TOWNHOMES - 32XX BUNKER LAKE BLVD. - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT. City Planner John Hinzman presented the staff report for each issue, this was followed by questions of staff and the applicant. Chair Squires then recommended that all four public hearings be lumped together into one public hearing, since they were all related. Mr. Hinzman explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to review the request to rezone approximately 4.82 acres from R..4, Single Family Urban to M-l, Multiple Dwelling - Low Density. He stated that the property is located on the northeast comer of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Marigold Street. He mentioned that if approved all applicable ordinances will be required to be met. / '- \_J Mr. Hinzman stated that the proposed rezoning request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from RU, Residentiai Urban Single Family to RM, Residential Medium Density was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2000. He also gave a brief history of the property, mentioning that it was originally platted as Woodland Creek in 1988. Mr. Hinzman stated that the property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property is adjacent to a major thoroughfare and compatible land uses including commercial, institutional, and multiple family development. The rezoning will be subject to contract provisions formalizing development standards and ensuring consistency with surrounding land uses. Finally, he mentioned that the townhome development of the property would result in fewer vehicle trips per day than office, retail, or single family development based on Institute of Traffic Engineer standards. /\ <J Mr. Hinzman explained that the Commission is being asked to review the Amended Special Use Permit request of Woodland Development to amend an existing Planned Unit Development to develop a residential development consisting of 18 townhome units on 4.82 acres. He stated that a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development was. granted by the City Council on July 21, 1987. He mentioned that the PUD was a mixed- use development consisting of 232 single-family lots, a golf course and a commercial lot. Regular Andover Plann~~ and Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 6 ~ '\ . ) \.j He also mentioned that the commercial lot is the parcel being proposed with this application to change the use to allow the to"TIhome development. Mr. Hinzman stated that the Commission is also being asked to review and recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Planned Unit Development of the "Woodland Creek To"TIhomes" to the City Council. He explained that the Andover Review Committee and the Park and Recreation Commission have reviewed the proposal and listed their comments in the staff report. He mentioned that the Review Committee suggested that the variances or development standards for the development shall be approved with the Special Use Permit for the PUD. Also there may be minor housekeeping items or changes needed on the plat presented to the Commission. Mr. Hinzman explained that the Commission is also asked to review the request for a Special Use PermitlVariance request by Woodland Creek To"TIhomes to allow for the construction of an Area Identification Sign on the property located at 32XX Bunker Lake Blvd. He stated that in conjunction with the Special Use Permit a variance is sought to allow the Areas Identification Sign on the owners 4.82 acre parcel, since Ordinance No. 8, Section 8.07 requires 5 acres or more. ,") V Mr. Hinzman explained that the sign would measure 32 square feet at the southwest comer of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Marigold St. NW. He stated that the structure would consist ofa 4'X8' stone sign supported by two brick pillars 2'X2', and will be approximately 10' from the right of way of both Bunker Lake Blvd. and Marigold St. NW. He also mentioned that since the proposed variance is less than 4% of the 5-acre requirement and due to the characteristics of the land create practical difficulties in the acquisitioning additional acreage, staff recommends the variance be granted. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the developer has addressed the concerns of the neighbors to the north of the site since there was some concerns last spring when the proposal was originally presented. Mr. Westlund explained that he recently dropped off a revised plan to an individual that originally had some issues, however those have been addressed and resolved. He also mentioned that they have held a number of meetings with the residents in the area in order to receive their input and concerns. Mr. Hinzman explained that the rezoning request would be subject to contract provisions per ordinance. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the minor housekeeping items or changes needed on the plat as stated in the staff report have been completed. City Engineer Todd Haas explained that there was one change made to one of the intersections, however it was very mmor. o ) Regular Andover Plann\llg and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 7 I ') U r-) ,,~ Commissioner Daninger questioned what kind of fence they are proposing to have along Bunker Blvd. Mr. Westlund explained that they are proposing a split rail fence that would be continuous from Marigold Street to the church east of Marigold Street. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the four public hearings related to the Woodland Creek Tov'I1lhome Development at 7:33 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 0- nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the four public hearings related to the Woodland Creek Townhome Development at 7:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 0- nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Commissioner Hedin commented that it is nice to see the development coming together without any major complications. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed, especially since there were residents this last spring that had numerous concerns and tonight there isn't anyone with concerns. ~J Mr. Westlund explained that they are unsure at this time as to what the wording will be on the Area Identification Sign. Chair Squires questioned Mr. Westlund if it is correct to say that what is presented in the staff report may not be the final wording for the sign. Mr. Westlund stated that that is correct. He offered to resubmit the wording before the Commission once it has been decided. The Commission agreed the final wording could be worked out before the City Council. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 6.03, Zoning District Map of the City of Andover, for Woodland Creek Townhomes to rezone approximately 4.82 acres from R-4, Single Family Urban to M-I, Multiple Dwelling - Low Density, subject to the following condition: 1. Execution of a zoning contract pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 5.02 (g) for the property. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, a-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. () \.'--./ /\ Regular Andover Plann\ng and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 8 ,- --, , I "---~ .r ) "- Motion by Daninger, seconded by Dalien, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve Resolution No. R_-OO granting the Amended Special Use Permit requested by Woodland Development to a Planned Unit Development to develop 18 Townhomes in an area designated as Commercial in the original approval of July 21, 1987 on the property legally described as Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland Creek. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. Motion by Falk, seconded by Dalien, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve Resolution No. R _-00 approving the Preliminary Plat of the Planned Unit Development of "Woodland Creek Townhomes" by Woodland Development located in Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, O-nays, I-absent (Apel) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. ~J Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve Resolution No. R _-00 granting the Special Use PermitlVariance request of Woodland Development Company to allow for the construction of an Area Identification Sign pursuant to Ordinance No.8 Section 8.07 on the property located at 32XX Bunker Lake Blvd. Further Discussion Chair Squires noted that the exact wording to be used on the sign will be clarified between now and the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, O-nays, I-absent (ApeI) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. VARIANCE: (VAR 00-18) - ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6,02 -REAR YARD SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING-14287 RAVEN STREET NW- GARY GROUSTRA. Mr. Johnson explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to review the variance request of Gary Groustra to allow for the construction and placement of an accessory structure to encroach into the rear yard setback on the property located at r-,\ 14287 Raven Street NW. ' } '--../ o () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 9 .r) , - Mr. Johnson explained that on November 4, 1999 the applicant was issued a building permit to construct an accessory building and on November 8, 1999 the Building Inspector approved the footings and a cement slab was poured. He stated that before the stud walls were completed, the Building Department stopped work on the project knowing that the building did not meet the setback requirements. He mentioned that the permit was issued in error, and therefore the applicant has submitted the costs associated with the removal of the structure and the restoration of the property. Mr. Johnson explained that the City Attorney has reviewed the material and recommends that the City either pay the costs or issue the variance to correct the situation. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there is any past history of granting a variance due to a permit being issued in error. Mr. Hinzman explained that there has been a couple that have taken place in the past and in those situations the City looked at it as an error and therefore granted the variance. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what the requirement for the setback would be if the property is located along a county road. Mr. Hinzman explained that Ordinance No.8; Section 6.02 requires a 40-foot setback from any major arterial. ,'---') '- , Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the county highway department has reviewed the request. Mr. Hinzman stated that they have not reviewed the request, since it would be outside of their jurisdiction. Commissioner Dalien questioned ifthe backyard is currently fenced. Mr. Johnson stated that the backyard of the property is currently fenced. Chair Squires questioned whose handwriting is in the upper right hand comer of the drawing included in the staff report. Mr. Johnson explained that it is the Building Inspector's handwriting. Commissioner Hedin questioned how close to the setbacks has the City approved in the past. Mr. Hinzman explained that some have been between 5 and 10 feet, however most ofthem were front yard encroachments. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there was another request recently involving a swimming pool that is similar. Mr. Hinzman stated that that request was approximately a year ago and was a side yard setback. r "- . ) '--- Chair Squires mentioned that he doesn't recall the City ever issuing a variance to allow for something to encroach 30 feet into the required setback. He stated that in the past they have tried to stay clear from these requests since often times the road is widened. (J / ) '-- F ') ~ U Regular Andover Plan~}~ and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 10 Commissioner Hedin questioned stated that even if the road were widened it still wouldn't be in the right of way and furthermore it isn't on the corner. Chair Squires questioned a specific cost the applicant had listed which was included in the staff report. The applicant Gary Groustra explained the costs in question. Commissioner Daninger questioned if it was within forty feet then would it still be possible to put a garage there. Mr. Groustra stated that it would be very difficult to do so. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the accessory building is a garage or a shed. Mr. Groustra stated that the building is a garage. Commissioner Daninger questioned if there would be a driveway. Mr. Groustra stated that indeed there would be a driveway. He pointed out the location. Chair Squires questioned what the City's deductible is for insurance in a case such as this. Mr. Hinzman stated that he is unsure of the amount of the deductible. Chair Squires mentioned that if the Commission is trying to compare the two options it is important that the deductible is taken into consideration. Commissioner Hedin questioned if Mr. Groustra plans to plant large trees between the garage and the road. Mr. Groustra stated that he is unsure at this time, however would like to do so. Commissioner Palk questioned how many feet are between the garage and the road. Mr. Groustra stated that there would be 10 feet. Commissioner Daninger questioned where the materials are being stored. Mr. Groustra explained the location of the materials. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the applicant has everything that is on the list he submitted. Mr. Groustra explained that he has everything with the exception of the trusses and he explained their location. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the City anticipates that the road will be upgraded in the future. Mr. Hinzman stated that it is currently not within the 5-year plan, and believes that it is also not a candidate for the 2020 plan. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned the reason the ordinance requires a 40-foot rear yard setback and not 10 feet. Mr. Hinzman gave reasons to support the ordinance. J () Regular Andover Plann~g and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 11 (J Commissioner Hedin stated that he is leading towards granting the variance instead of having the applicant go through the process of tearing down what has already been started. He mentioned that he would recommend that trees are planted in that 10- foot rear yard setback. Commissioner Falk commented that he is pleased to see that the City is working with the applicant on this issue in trying to come to a reasonable conclusion. Commissioner Dalien questioned if the Building Rules & Guidelines pamphlet mentions the 40-foot rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Hinzman stated that he is unsure, but mentioned that it should be listed. Mr. Groustra stated that he has the pamphlets in hand and mentioned that there is nothing in there explaining the setback requirements. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there was and is now a drawing available. Mr. Groustra stated that indeed there was a drawing available and it is also included in the packet of information provided for the Commissioners. {~ "J Chair Squires stated that some of the confusion might be a result of the drawing not showing a street at the top of the page. He asked to review the pamphlets Mr. Groustra was given. Mr. Groustra handed the following pamphlets to the Commission; Permits Made Easy - Garages, Accessory Buildings & Structures, and Building Rules & Guidelines. Commissioner Dalien questioned if the building inspector was out to the site. Mr. Groustra stated that he thinks so, but was working at the time and therefore wasn't home. Mr. Johnson explained that the footing was first approved and after the stud walls started going up it was then caught. Commissioner Dalien agreed with Commissioner Hedin in that it wouldn't be right to inconvenience the applicant anymore than the City already has and therefore would support the variance request. Commissioner Daninger stated that he understands the pain and suffering the applicant has gone through, especially since it appears that the garage is probably a "dream garage". He mentioned that he doesn't support the variance request, since it is possible the County could widen the street. He stated that he feels there is a better solution to the problem. u Chair Squires stated that the Building Rules & Guidelines pamphlet does have the setbacks included. Regular Andover Plann~12 and Zoning Commission Meeting () Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 12 ~J Commissioner Hedin questioned that if the road is widened would Mr. Groustra loose his garage. Mr. Hinzman stated that he is unsure, since it would depend on where they put the right of way. He did mention that it is likely the expansion would be to the south of the road and therefore would not effect Mr. Groustra's garage. Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Hinzman if the City could expand the road within the 10-foot buffer. Mr. Hinzman stated that indeed the City could expand the road within the IO-foot buffer, however the chances would be slim based on the present right of way. Commissioner Kirchoff mentioned that it should have been clarified to the applicant what was written in the pamphlet. He mentioned that he would like more information as to what the county's plans would be if the road were expanded. Commissioner Dalien mentioned that if it doesn't require any additional right of way then it shouldn't matter where the garage is located. He mentioned that there are houses closer than 10 feet to the road in other parts of the City. ( -\, V Commissioner Daninger mentioned that the reason the ordinance is there is because people don't want to see buildings that close to the road. He stated that it is important to consider that people will be noticing the garage everyday as they drive by since it is so close to the road. Commissioner Hedin stated that it isn't right to punish the applicant since there were two City officials on site, neither of which caught the mistake. Mr. Groustra submitted another piece of paper for the Commission's'review. He explained that the Building Inspector stated that at the time he didn't need a copy of it, however had he made a copy this mistake would have never happened. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve Resolution No. granting the Variance request of Gary Groustra to Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 which requires a forty foot setback from a major arterial and to allow for the construction and placement of an accessory building to encroach thirty feet into the required setback on the property located at 14287 Raven Street NW, subject to the following condition: 1. That trees are planted in the 10 foot rear yard setback between the garage and the road. Further Discussion () Regular Andover Plan~Jl) and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 13 Chair Squires stated that he believes the setbacks should be honored to the extent of the City Guidelines. He mentioned that he believes it is more important to meet those setback requirements than recommend the variance. He respected the agony and inconvenience it is to the applicant, but believes there be another solution. Commissioner Daninger agreed with Chair Squires in that there is a better solution to the problem. Motion carried on a 3-ayes (Hedin, Dalien, and Falk), 3-nays (Daninger, Squires, and Kirchoff), I-absent (Apel) vote. Chair Squires stated that this item would be considered at the December 5, 2000 City Council meeting. PRESENTATION: UPDATE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICIES - DAN WINKEL, FIRE CHIEF. c ) Mr. Hinzman introduced Fire Chief Dan Winkel to update the Commission on the Fire Department's current policies. Chief Winkel reviewed the policies as presented in the staff report. He eXplained that the packet before the Commission is the same packet that is distributed to planners, builders, contractors and others who have applied for some type of building pennit. Some of the policies he touched on were; fire alarm installation procedures, monitoring system installation procedures, sprinkler system installation procedures, sprinkler system - emergency repair work procedures, sprinkler system - day work installation procedures, lock box/key box policies, requirements for posted fire lanes, temporary access roads and water supply during construction, and the guidelines of the Andover Fire Department. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the City can plan on seeing temporary turn arounds in the future. Chief Winkel stated that the City does have a few temporary turn arounds and do plan on using them more often in the future.. He mentioned that it sometimes can be difficult in an emergency situation since there aren't very many straight through streets in the City. He explained that they have started to eliminate the dead end streets by connecting the developments together. Commissioner Daninger thanked Chief Winkel for attending the meeting. He questioned Chief Winkel ifhe had any guidance to give the Commission on the concept of residential sprinkler systems. Chief Winkel stated that it would be great if every home had a sprinkler system, however the cost is substantial and would drive up the costs of homes and provide even less affordable housing. (-J Commissioner Falk questioned if Chief Winkel believes that they could become mandatory for all new homes in the future. Chief Winkel stated that he doesn't see it r-, I Regular Andover Plann)r/g and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -November 14, 2000 Page 14 (\ .~J -, happening in the near future due to the cost factor. He mentioned that the fire department isn't pushing for it to be mandatory. ... ~' OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Hinzman updated the Commission relative to Council actions on planning items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn. Motion carried on 6-ayes, O-nays, 1- absent (Apel) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc . \ , I . .