Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 27, 1999 o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -JULY 27,1999 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Maynard Apel on July 27, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, and Mark Hedin. Bev Jovanovich and Jay Squires. City Planner, John Hinzman Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Planning Intern, Megan Barnett Others Commissioners present:. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. ~~ July 13, 1999 Commissioner Dalien requested a correction to the minutes of July 13, to indicate the correct spelling of his name "Dalien." Motion by Daninger, seconded by Apel, the Minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT (ASUP 99-10) - PARKING LOT ADDITION - 3037 BUNKER LANE BOULEVARD NW - MEADOW CREEK CHURCH. City Planner, John Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve an amended special use permit to construct approximately 200 parking stalls for Meadow Creek Church, located 3037 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. The property is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. Mr. Hinzman stated that Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, regulates the amended special use permit process, and outlined the criteria presented. Mr. Hinzman stated that Ordinance 8, Section 7.03, Special Uses allows churches as a special use in residential districts. 8 f " \, ) Regular Andover PlanC~ and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 2 / ) \,-./ Mr. Hinzman reviewed the site plan and described the adjacent properties. He stated that the parking lot expansion would measure approximately 300 feet by 200 feet, consisting of approximately 200 parking spaces. The lot would be located northwest of the intersection of the current church driveway and Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. He stated that additional site plan review would be conducted through the commercial site plan procedure. Mr. Hinzman stated the proposed parking lot is buffered on the north and west by existing trees, and to the south by Bunker Lake Boulevard. The facility is currently deficient in meeting minimum parking requirements - 261 spaces are needed, 240 spaces exist. Mr. Hinzman stated that a left turn lane from Bunker Lake Boulevard would be provided to access the proposed parking lot. He stated that the Andover Review Committee would review the commercial site plan for the addition including parking, lighting, grading, drainage, and erosion control. Mr. Hinzman stated staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the provisions of the resolution. Commissioner Falk stated he was a member of the church, and therefore, would abstain from voting. .:-) Motion by Daninger, seconded by Apel, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Keith Jesser stated that he was the owner of property adjacent, and to the south of the church. He noted that the site plan did not indicate the size of the parking lot, and inquired if the proposal would utilize all of the indicated parking spaces. Mr. Hinzman stated that the proposed expansion would be approximately 200 feet north of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Mr. Jesser inquired regarding the buffer of trees between his property and the proposed expansion. Mr. Hinzman stated that there should be sufficient buffer, with a playground to the north of the expansion, and trees between that and Mr. Jesser's property. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Apel, to close the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Daninger inquired where the entrance to the property was located. Mr. Hinzman stated that the driveway entrance to the church was located to the west of the pond, as indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Daninger asked if there were two exits. Mr. Hinzman stated that there were two entrances, one for the church and one for the school. / '1 ....J Regular Andover PlanC)g and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 3 :- ) Commissioner Hedin inquired if the Andover Review Committee had conducted their review. Mr. Hinzman stated that they had not. He explained that typically, they sort through the issues to determine if the proposal is acceptable, prior to proceeding with their review. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution approving an amended Special Use Permit for a parking lot expansion at Meadow Creek Church, 3037 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (PIN 33-32-24-23-0005 & 0006). Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated that the Council would consider this proposal at the August 17, 1999 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE (SUP 99-11) - INSTITUTIONAL SIGN - 3037 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW - MEADOW CREEK CHURCH. , ) Ms. Barnett stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to review the Special Use Permit request by Meadow Creek Church to allow for more than one(l) institutional sign per lot frontage with an aggregate square footage exceeding thirty-two (32 s.f.) square feet along with a Variance to exceed the one hundred (100 s.f.) square feet aggregate sign space allowed by Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 on the property located at 3037 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (PIN 33-32-24-23-0002). Ms. Barnett provided a review of the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. Ms. Barnett stated that the existing sign located on the property would be removed due to the expansion of Bunker Lake Boulevard. She referred to the site plan, which indicates one (1) existing institutional sign located on the property, and stated, with the addition of the proposed institutional sign, the property will contain two (2) institutional signs. The total square footage of the proposed sign will be eighty-seven (87) square feet, and will consist of a four (4) line LED message board and a Meadow Creek Church identification sign. Ms. Barnett stated the variance request requires that the variety of uses and the size of the property causes a hardship to stay within the aggregate sign area allowed by Ordinance No.8, therefore a variance has been requested. She stated that similar variances have been granted in the past. She explained that in 1996, Andover Elementary and Oak View Middle School were both granted a Special Use PermitlVariance to allow for more than one (1) sign per lot frontage with and aggregate square footage exceeding thirty-two (32 s.f.) and which the aggregate sign space of one hundred (100 s.f.) square feet was exceeded. Ms. Barnett stated staff was recommending approval ofthe proposal subject to the provisions of the resolution. 'I , / ') 0 Regular Andover Plan~:"lg and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 4 / \ ,) Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Colin Weiss stated he lived directly across from the proposed sign. He inquired regarding the proposed height, the lighting and how often the parking lot will be lit. Mr. Hinzman stated, in regard to the parking lot lighting, the standard requirements were that the lighting not exceed a one-foot candle on the parking lot surface, and the lighting must be diffused away from residential properties Mr. Weiss stated that this has not been the case at this location in the past, and inquired how they could be assured this would be enforced. He asked how many signs would be at the Meadow Creek Church, noting that, in addition to the existing sign shown of the site plan, there was another located further down on the property. Mr. Hinzman stated that the permit would allow for one sign; in addition to the existing sign represented on the site plan. He explained that the sign Mr. Weiss noted was actually for the school, and on a separate property. Mr. Weiss requested clarification of the location of the proposed sign. Mr. Hinzman stated that it would be located toward the west, adding that the pond would be reconfigured to include a peninsula type area, and the sign would be placed in that location. :. ) Ms. Barnett stated that the proposed sign would be fourteen feet in height. Mr. Hinzman stated that the proposal would go through a commercial site plan review to determine the specific lighting for the parking lot, and that he would make special note of Mr. Weiss's concerns. He stated that the proposal would go through the sign permit process as welL Mr. Weiss stated that when there is a function at the Church, the spotlights are out and not properly diffused for the residents that live in that area. He requested that these concerns be reviewed and addressed. Chair Apel stated that Meadow Creek Church should be made aware of Mr. Weiss's concerns, so that they could assist in resolving the matter. Warren Schmalzer, the applicant and Pastor of Meadow Creek Church stated that he was not aware that the floodlights they utilize occasionally were causing a problem, and if he had been aware, he would have taken measures to correct the situation. He stated that they would like the opportunity to resolve any issues that might be affecting their neighbors. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. '"1 '- ../ n 0 Regular Andover Plamwlg and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 5 r- \, ,) The commission requested clarification of the variance request. They inquired if it was for this particular sign, or for the specific requirements of the sign such as lighting and size. Chair Apel stated that the main focus of the process was in regard to the message. He noted that the top of the sign and emblem exceeds the square foot requirement. Commissioner Daninger inquired regarding the LED lighting, and asked if this was a case where the light was brighter during daylight hours, and would be dimmer at night. Ms. Barnett explained that LED lighting is dimmer when the sun is out, and is brighter in the darkness. She added that, although the lighting appears to change, it actually does not. Commissioner Dalien inquired if there was any other lighting for the sign. Mr. Schmalzer stated that the upper portion of the sign utilizes fluorescent tubes, which provides low candle lighting. Chair Apel stated, in his opmlOn, the proposal could be forwarded to the Council for approval, and consideration of the items discussed directed to the Andover Review Committee and City Council. ~ ) Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution approving a Special Use PermitlVariance request for Meadow Creek Church to erect one (1) institutional sign (total of (2) signs on the property) with an aggregate square footage in excess of thirty-two (32 S.F.) square feet and exceeding the maximum one hundred (100 S.F.) square feet aggregate sign space with more than one (1) sign per lot frontage pursuant to Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, located at 3037 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW (PIN 33-32-24-23-0002), Legal Description contained therein. Motion carried on a 5 - ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated that Council would consider the matter at the August 17, 1999 Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMITIVARIANCE (SUP 99-12) INSTITUTIONAL SIGN(S) - 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD - CITY OF ANDOVER. Ms. Barnett stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to review a Special Use Permit request by the City of Andover to allow for more than one (1) institutional sign per lot frontage with an aggregate square footage exceeding thirty-two (32 s.f.) square feet along with a Variance to exceed the one hundred (100 s.f.) square feet aggregate sign space allowed by Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 on the property located at 1685 Crosstown Boulevard, NW. She presented the site plan of the property, and stated that it is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. . '\ , \..j Regular Andover PlanOg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 6 / '1 \. ./ Ms. Barnett stated that the applicable ordinances were the same as those that apply to the Meadow Creek Church request. She stated that Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, allows institutional signs in residential districts, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit process, and Section 5.04 establishes the variance procedure. Ms. Barnett stated that all existing signs on City Hall property and the proposed signs total a 1,232.17 square feet. She stated that with the seven signs currently existing, and incorporation of the proposed two signs, the property will contain a total of nine signs. She stated the proposed institutional signs will consists of a two-line incandescent message board and an Andover City Center sandblasted sign. She provided a brief description of the appearance of the proposed signage. Ms. Barnett stated that the variance was being requested because the variety of uses and the size of the property causes a hardship to stay within the aggregate sign area allowed by Ordinance No.8. She added that in the past, Andover Elementary and Oak View Middle School were both granted a Special Use PermitlVariance to allow for additional signage. Ms. Barnett stated that staff recommends approval subject to the provisions of the resolution. \ '. ) Chair Apel inquired regarding the square portion on top of the sign, as indicated on the site plan. Ms. Barnett stated that this indicated the incandescent message board. She added that the tallest brick pillars would contain the Lion's Club logo and establishment date. Commissioner Dalien inquired if the Lions Club was donating the sign. Ms. Barnett stated that they were donating a portion of it. Commissioner Falk asked if both spotlights, as indicated on the site plan, would be located in front of the sign. Ms. Barnett stated that the retaining brick would be removed, and the specific lighting had not been determined at this point. Motion by Falk, seconded by Dalien, to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, O-nays, 0 absent vote. Commissioner Daninger inquired if the lighting would be acceptable, in regard to the neighboring residents. Mr. Hinzman stated that the lights would be directed towards the sign and City Hall, and there were no residences in the surrounding area. '1 \. j Regular Andover PlanOg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 7 t- '\ ,.J Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution approving a Special Use Permit to erect two (2) institutional signs (total of (9) signs on the property) with an aggregate square footage in excess of thirty-two (32 s.f.) square feet and which exceed the maximum one hundred (100 s.f.) square feet aggregate sign space with more than one (1) sign per lot frontage pursuant to Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, located at 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW (PIN 22-32-24-41-0001), Legally described therein. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARlANCE (SUP 99-13) - IN-HOME THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT -1411154TH AVENUE NW - CINDY MCKEE. Zoning Administrator Johnson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to review the Special Use Permit requested by Cindy McKee to operate an in-home therapeutic massage establishment (Body Image Therapeutic Massage) on the property located at 1441 154th Avenue NW. I ) Mr. Johnson stated the applicant is currently operating an in-home therapeutic massage establishment in the community of Blaine. She has been operating at this location for the past seven (7) months and has over 600 hours of massage training. She was previously employed with Marc Stevens Salon in Anoka as a massage therapist. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant is in the process of constructing a new home which will be located in Chesterton Commons Second Addition, which is zoned R-4 Single Family Urban. The establishment itself will be located on the main floor of the dwelling. He provided a plan of the interior of the house for the main floor. Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. McKee has submitted applications for the therapeutic massage establishment and the therapist license to the City for review and approval. Staff has reviewed the license applications and has no concerns. Mr. Johnson stated that Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03, allows in-home therapeutic massage establishments in all residential districts by the granting of a Special Use Permit, and Section 5.03 establishes the criteria to be considered in reviewing applications for Special Use Permits. He provided an overview of the criteria presented. Mr. Johnson stated Ordinance No. 110 regulates therapeutic massage and requires all in-home therapeutic massage establishments and massage therapists to be licensed with the City. '\ \ ) Mr. Johnson stated the resolution contains conditions for the permit, which indicate the business shall be limited to one employee, which is Ms. McKee herself, and shall comply with all home occupation regulations as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that all parking requirements must be met, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, and that prior to any Regular Andover PlanC)g and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 8 / '\ I , / business conducted on the premises, staff will conduct an on-site inspection to assure it complies with City Ordinance requirements. He stated that there were conditions that the residence be owner occupied, and that the hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He explained that Ms. McKee's has indicated that the majority of her work will take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; however, she indicated that she might have emergency situations, where a client may require therapy. He stated that other conditions require that upon the sale of the premises for which the Special Use Permit is granted, the permit shall terminate, and the Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review and inspection by staff. He stated the last condition was the Sunset Clause. Mr. Johnson presented the Commission with a letter from Anthony Gamache, indicating concerns regarding traffic which may result from this proposal, and. a letter directed to Ms. McKee from the City of Blaine, which indicates that she has operated a in-home therapeutic massage establishment, and there have been no complaints or concerns filed with the City in regard to her business. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Falk requested clarification regarding the customer parking. / \ I \. j Cindy McKee, the applicant, stated that customers would be allowed to park in her driveway, which will be triple wide, and will accommodate six cars. She stated that she sees one client at a time, and no more than four clients per day. She explained that she generally takes an hour break between clients, and that she did not think parking would be a problem. Ms. McKee stated that she had received a letter from a nearby resident, which indicated concern regarding possible signage in her yard. She explained that she would not be utilizing any signage for the business, and that she advertised via brochure, newspaper and referral. She stated that the letter also indicated a concern in regard to parking as relates to the children in the neighborhood. She stated that she also had children, and would not have a traffic issue when she sees one client at a time. Commissioner Hedin asked if the applicant would be operating the business on Saturday or Sunday. Ms. McKee stated that this would only be in an emergency situation, adding that it was very rare that she see a client on the weekend. Commissioner Daninger requested clarification of the driveway. Ms. McKee stated that it would be triple wide, and clients would be asked to park on the driveway, not on the street. Commissioner Daninger asked if the driveway would be triple wide to the curb. , '\ '_J Regular Andover Plan(Jg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 9 / \ ) Steve Feldman, general contractor for the McKee's, stated that they had planned on tapering the driveway, but could construct it to be triple wide to the curb if the City recommended it. He stated this was a three-stall garage with a twenty-five to thirty-five foot setback. Mr. Hinzman stated the maximum setback requirement was thirty feet for the driveway entrances. Motion Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Commissioner Daninger inquired if the Special Use Permit was reviewed annually. Mr. Johnson stated yes. He added that if there were any issues regarding traffic or complaints they would be addressed at that time. Chair Ape! requested staffs recommendation. Mr. Johnson stated that staff recommends approval. He stated that there were no issues, and that the proposal meets all the zoning and ordinance requirements. .' ... , ) Motion Daninger, seconded by Dalien to recommend approval of a resolution granting the Special Use Permit request of Cindy McKee to operate an in-home therapeutic massage establishment on the property located at 1411 154th Avenue NW, legally described as Lot 1, Block 6 Chesterton Commons Second Addition. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated that this recommendation would be forwarded to the Council for consideration at the August 17, 1999 Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10, SECTION 6, SKETCH PLAN - SAID AMENDMENT WILL CLARIFY THE SKETCH PLAN PROCESS. City Planner Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Ordinance 10, Section 6. Said amendment more clearly defines the sketch plan process. Mr. Hinzman stated many of the proposed revisions to Ordinance 10 were currently incorporated into the review process, and that this item was in consideration of formalizing those changes. He provided a brief summary of the proposed revisions to Ordinance 10, which included adding City Council to the review list. Mr. Hinzman stated that this is current practice, but not presently indicated in the ordinance. He stated that they would also be formally billing staff review time to the preliminary plat application at the time it is submitted, as staff review time that is incurred is not being picked up by the developer. He stated that they were setting forth a formalized review policy for sketch plans, explaining that they would be holding public hearings for sketch plans to provide notice to the public earlier '\ in the process. , ) ') () Regular Andover Plan(,,/g and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 10 .' \ ) Chair Apel stated that the major change appeared to be the public hearing for sketch plans. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He stated that currently the sketch plans are addressed at the meetings, however, the public is not notified. He stated that it is not published in the newspaper as a separate item, and the adjoining property owners are not notified, as is the case with the rest of the public hearings. Commissioner Daninger stated that it appeared it would benefit both parties. Mr. Hinzman stated that the entire process of the sketch plan, was to formalize the general plan for the development and work on the specific issues later. He stated that if there were major street alignment changes, they would occur at the sketch plan review, rather than the preliminary plat. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Dalien, to open the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 - ayes, 0 - nays, 0 - absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 - ayes, 0 - nays, 0 - absent vote. / "\ ,) Commissioner Falk stated that he believed this item had been thoroughly discussed. Chair Ape! stated that he thought it was an excellent plan. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10, the subdivision and platting ordinance of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated that this recommendation would forwarded to Council for consideration at the August 17, 1999 City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION - REVIEW ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS 4.05, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 4.21, FENCES AND 6.02, SETBACKS - DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN SIDE YARDS FROM STREETS ON CORNER LOTS. , ) Zoning Administrator Johnson stated, at the City Council meeting on July 6, 1999, City Council requested the Planning and Zoning Commission review the setbacks for structures and fencing requirements on corner lots. Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with copies of the applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No.8) for their review. He stated that Section 4.05 requires that all detached structures meet the side yard setback from Regular Andover Plan(Jg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 11 .' , '- ) the street requirements, Section 4.21 allows six foot high fences on comer lots, and allows them to encroach into the thirty-five foot side yard setback from the street. He stated that Section 6.02 of the ordinance provides the general setback requirement for each Zoning District. Mr. Johnson stated that numerous discussions have taken place over the years at regular City Council meetings regarding setbacks and uniformity for accessory structures and fences on comer lots. He stated the Zoning Ordinance Review Task Force has reviewed the ordinance regarding these issues and has recommended no changes to these requirements. Mr. Johnson stated Section 4.05, which indicates that the Zoning Ordinance should allow sheds and accessory structures to encroach, was addressed with an amendment adopted in 1997, which clarified the requirement to indicate all sheds and detached structures should meet the side yard setback from the street requirements. Mr. Johnson requested the Commission consider whether or not they should require a building permit for side yard structures less than 120 square feet in area, so that the Building Department could review them to make sure they meet the setback requirements. He stated some cities require permits for these structures, to facilitate a review by the Building Department. r " '--) Mr. Johnson requested the Commission consider whether to allow a maximum four-foot high fence, rather than a maximum six-foot high fence, to encroach upon the street on comer lots. He stated that this matter was discussed at the Zoning Ordinance Review Task Force and City Council levels at one time, and they had decided to leave it as it was. Commissioner Dalien inquired if a six-foot fence on a comer lot was permitted. Mr. Johnson stated that it was. Chair Apel stated that this is the first time, to his knowledge, that there was a conflict regarding these requirements. Mr. Johnson stated that there were three applications for variance in this regard, within the last twenty-five years. He added that he believed everything in the ordinance has worked well for the City, and that the problem occurs when the property owner begins constructing a small shed without contacting the City. Chair Apel stated that he thought it was the property owner's responsibility to research these matters, as well. Commissioner Daninger stated it appeared the language of the ordinance was acceptable, but that the property owner should be aware of the ordinance. Chair Apel stated this was correct. He added that he would not want to require a building permit for a structure less than 120 square feet in area. ) Regular Andover Plan\)g and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 12 .' " \ J '-' Mr. Johnson stated the 120 square foot limitation was applied, as anything less than that was considered portable. Chair Apel stated that a property owner is generally aware of that, and therefore, it is his responsibility to accept the consequences. He stated that he would not change the ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated the Building Department and the Planning and Zoning staff has worked diligently to enforce the setback requirements, and to work with property owners to ensure that uniformity is met. He stated that he was a firm believer in the principal of uniformity. Commissioner Dalien inquired if this was a typical ordinance in other municipalities in the area, and if these types of lots are generally handled by excluding sheds and outbuildings on the side yard setbacks. Mr. Johnson stated that he was not certain, but that staff could research the matter. He stated Mr. Hinzman had experience in many metropolitan communities, and requested his opinion. Mr. Hinzman stated that this appeared to be somewhat typical, however, he would like to research the matter further, prior to giving an opmlOn. Dan Dekok stated that he had checked the setback requirements in other communities in the area, and had found Andover to have the largest setback requirement at thirty-five feet. Mr. Johnson stated that staff should discuss the matter with those communities to determine if they were meeting the setback requirements, or allowing some encroachment. ~ '\ \.) Commissioner Daninger inquired regarding the size of the shed. Mr. Dekok stated it was a ten by ten structure, 100 square feet in area. Commissioner Hedin stated that he had been to the property, and spoken with the neighbors. He stated this was a very attractive shed, sided to match the house. He stated that the neighbors had no complaints. However, he explained, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not have the authority to change the Council's direction, and he would not amend the ordinance to accommodate one situation. He stated that the structure was not on a concrete slab. He stated that it appeared that it would fit behind the house temporarily. Mr. Dekok stated the shed had already been moved, and he did not think he could meet the setback requirement behind the house either. Chair Apel stated that staff could conduct their review, and if they found a comparable situation, and could determine a hardship, they might resolve the problem in that manner. Commissioner Daninger inquired if there was any place on the property where the shed would meet the setback requirement. Mr. Dekok stated that that he was uncertain. He inquired if the size of his lot might be considered in terms of the zoning, explaining that original lots in that area were ninety feet wide, and the new zoning requires they be 100 feet wide. Commissioner Dalien stated that it would depend upon the research. , ') / Regular Andover Plan(Jg and Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - July 27, 1999 Page 13 .' , , J , ' Commissioner Hedin stated one reason for the setback is to provide visibility around comers. Commissioner Dalien stated that was correct, however, six-foot fences are allowed up to the property line, and he believed the setback had more to do with aesthetics. He explained that people would not like to come out of their front door and see a shed, basically, in their front yard. He added he lived adjacent to a comer lot, and might have a similar situation, however, ifhis neighbor were to construct a fence, he would find that aesthetically acceptable. Commissioner Daninger stated that it would be helpful to conduct comparative research. He stated the objective of the present discussion was to prevent problems in the future. He added that he would be willing to discuss the matter further, based upon the results of the research, at the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Johnson noted a current request for an extensive variance on a thirty-five foot setback, which did not appear to be favorable. He stated they would research the matter to see if something could be done to resolve this situation. Chair Apel stated the Planning and Zoning Commission would direct staff to conduct further research, and bring the matter forward at their next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS ,- " ,-.J Mr. Hinzman updated the Planning Commission regarding recent Council action. He stated there was an amendment to the Development Policy Guidelines, in regard to preliminary plat submittal. He stated that there was discussion regarding Ordinance 266 Rental Housing, and 267 Housing Maintenance Code, as well as approval of the Amended Special Use Permit for Beck's Auto for the construction of storage area. Mr. Hinzman stated the City is utilizing a new policy of advertising proposed land use changes on development signs within City. He stated these signs would include a telephone number for a 24-hour hotline that will provide a summary of the application, and contact names for further information. He stated another new policy being implemented by the City is the posting of meeting minutes and agendas on the City Website. Mr. Hinzman stated that the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission would include discussion of the variance item, and a Special Use Permit application by U.S. West. He stated the joint meeting of the Zoning Task Force and the City Council would be held at 7:00 p.m., on August 12, at City Hall. There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT .'--') .~/ r, 0 Regular Andover Plan~.,,{g and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 27, 1999 Page 14 ;', '--. .r Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 0- absent vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver OffSile Secretarial, Inc. / .... '-...J r--' :_J