Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 10, 1999 r- '\ o () \-.....f r, o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING ANDZONING COMMISSION MEETING -AUGUST 10,1999 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 10, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, Mark Hedin, Bev Jovanovich, and Jay Squires. None Zoning Administrator, Jeff Johnson Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. June 27,1999 Staff requested the body of the Minutes be corrected to reflect all motions carried on a 5 - ayes, 0 - nays, ~ - absent vote. Staff requested Page 3, fourth pa,ragraph, first sentence be corrected to indicate "Planning Intern, Megan Barnett stated..." Staff requested Page 6, fifth paragraph, second sentence be corrected to indicate "Ms. Barnett stated that this is incandescent lighting." Staff requested Page 7, second paragraph, first sentence be corrected to indicate "Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson stated..." Staff requested Page II, second paragraph to be more accurately stated to indicate "Mr. Johnson stated an amendment to Section 4.05, was adopted in 1997, which clarified setback requirements to indicate all sheds and detached structures should meet the side yard setback from the street." Motion by Apel, seconded by Hedin, the Minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried on a 7 - ayes, 0 ~ nays, 0 - absent vote. r \ '. " o U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 2 , PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. 247 - RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. Zoning Administrator Johnson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing to review and discuss the ordinance for the City to manage its public rights-of-way and recover its rights-of-way management costs. Mr. Johnson stated, at the March 16, 1999 City Council meeting, Council directed the Commission to hold a public hearing on the ordinance. This ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney (William Hawkins) for the Commission's review and comment and is similar to the model ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Johnson noted the League of Minnesota Cities' Attorney, Thomas Campbell, has reviewed the document, and has indicated through correspondence that it is well written, and should address the City's needs. Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with a copy of the draft ordinance for their review and comment. Motion by Falk, seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 - ayes, 0 - nays 0 - absent vote. / Chairperson Squires stated this proposal was to adopt a right-of-way ordinance which would establish the terms and conditions for use, improvement and construction within the right-of- way. Mr. Johnson added the City Attorney and City Engineer would further review the ordinance, as many details required resolution. Chair Ape! inquired if variance on utility lines had been addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated they had, and if necessary, the City could require utility companies to bury their lines. Commissioner Dalien stated it appeared that the City was attempting to address telecommunication companies, public utility services and similar undertakings. He noted, however, some of the definitions could also be construed to apply to a homeowner who, in the process of constructing a new driveway, might find it necessary to excavate the right-of- way. He inquired if this situation would require an additional permit. Mr. Johnson stated that he was not certain this type of construction had been addressed, however, he agreed it was a consideration. Commissioner Dalien stated the terminology also appeared to indicate that people performing this type of work would be required to go through some type of process and to have a plan in place. He stated he was concerned this might include contractors who were in the business of constructing driveways and reconstruction in housing '\ () () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 10, 1999 Page 3 \ ;' developments projects. He stated this matter should be investigated to be certain these businesses are not included by default. Chairperson Squires stated this was a good point. He stated Page 4, Section 4, Subdivision 2 indicates "No person shall construct, install, repair, remove, or relocate or perform any other work on, or use any Equipment or any part thereoflocated in any Right-of-Way without first being registered with the City." He stated that this language was somewhat broad, and that he did not think an application to private property owners was the intent of the ordinance. He suggested staff request the City Attorney to review the language to insure it is not too broad. Motion by Falk, seconded by Dalien, to close the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 - ayes, 0 - nays, 0 - absent vote. Commissioner Apel stated the Commission could forward a recommendation of the ordinance, with the stipulation that the City Attorney review the language to insure that it does not interfere excessively with homeowner driveway construction or improvement, adding, if interpreted as written, it might be very restrictive. j Motion by Apel, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council Approval of Ordinance No. 240, an Ordinance Providing For Public Right-of-Way Management, with the Request that the City Attorney and Staff Review the Issue of the Scope, to Assure it is Not Openly Broad, and Covers Private Land Owner Activities that It Was Not Intended To. Motion carried on a 7 - ayes, 0 - nays, 0 - absent vote. Mr. Johnson stated that this matter would come before the Council for consideration at the September 7, 1999 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION CONTINUED: ORDINANCE NO.8, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 4.21 FENCES AND 6.02 SETBACKS - DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN SIDEYARDS FROM STREETS ON CORNER LOTS. Zoning Administrator Johnson stated, at the July 27, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the setback requirements for structures and fences on comer lots. Mr. Johnson stated the Commission requested that staff contact neighboring communities to determine if they allow detached structures to encroach into the sideyard setback from the street on comer lots, and to see if structural uniformity is being met. He provided the Commission with the results of the research. Mr. Johnson stated staff had contacted the cities of Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Champlin '\ and Ramsey. He stated four of these five communities do not allow any structural j CJ U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 4 \ ) encroachments to the sideyard setback from the street. He stated Blaine, which has a 35-foot sideyard setback, allows a 20-foot sideyard setback from the street, which indicates they allow a ten-foot encroachment. Mr. Johnson stated, with the exception of Blaine, the research appears to indicate these cities are maintaining uniformity. He stated that the City of Andover requires the 35-foot front yard setback, and the other communities require 25 to 30- foot front yard setbacks. He stated the City's 35-foot setbacks are fairly restrictive in the urban areas, however, they allow for large front yards. He stated the other cities' requirements provide property owners more use of their property. Mr. Johnson stated the City Council directed the Commission review this matter, and provide their opinions and recommendations regarding whether or not they wish to amend the ordinance, and allow some encroachment into the sideyard setback, or leave it as is. Commissioner Hedin stated he would like to see further information indicating the actual setback requirements. Mr. Johnson stated, as he was aware, none of the communities researched had a 35-foot setback. He stated that four of the five, maintained uniformity, with the exception of Blaine. Chairperson Squires opened the floor for public input. '_/ Chair Apel inquired regarding the number of years this ordinance has been in place. Mr. Johnson stated it has been in place since the adoption of the City's zoning. He explained that the ordinance has always been enforced as it exists, however, in 1997, it was amended to clarify the language of the uniformity requirements and setbacks. " " Commissioner Hedin inquired if a structure of less than 120 square feet in area could be located within the setback in the other cities. Mr. Johnson stated many of these communities permit all structures, regardless of the size to assure setback requirements are met to protect themselves. Commissioner Dalien inquired if the other communities allowed fences. Mr. Johnson stated that this question had not been explored in the present research. Commissioner Daninger stated the deep setback has made it difficult to meet the strict requirement with structures at the rear of the property. Mr. Johnson stated this was correct. He explained many of the other communities' require a minimum front width of 80 feet at the setback, as does the City of Andover. He stated the requirement for comer lots was previously 90 feet, however this had been changed to 100 feet, to allow for more use of the space. Commissioner Daninger stated there were a number of lots existing prior to that change that an amendment to the ordinance could effect. Mr. Johnson stated this was correct. " , I () l) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 5 '\ J Dan Dekok, 1297 l42nd Avenue NW, stated he had contacted the other communities to leam their setback requirements for accessory structures on comer lots, and provided the Commission with his research. Commissioner Apel stated if the Commission decided to recommend an amendment to the ordinance to benefit people in Mr. Dekok's situation, they could provide an exception to the requirements for comer lots. He stated it appeared problem was primarily in regard to comer lots. Chairperson Squires stated that if they amended the ordinance to be consistent with the neighboring cities, it would help this particular case. Commissioner Apel stated this would not affect the body of the ordinance, as it would only apply to sideyard setbacks on comer lots. Commissioner Daninger stated the 90-foot lot width requirement was changed to 100 feet in an effort to prevent a problem. He inquired how many 90-foot lots would be affected in light of this situation, and if the ordinance should be amended, or rather a hardship be considered. He noted the requirement had previously been challenged only three times, and two of these requests for variance had been denied. '-_./ Commissioner Apel stated he believed, short of amending the ordinance, this vanance request would have to be denied as well. He stated the Council had the same problem the Commission, in that they would like to grant the variance, however, without an amendment to the present ordinance, they were unable to. Commissioner Daninger stated the Council had denied this particular request on a three - two vote. Commissioner Apel stated this was correct, and a valid point, however, the Council itself could take the opposite position, and the only way Mr. Dekok could solve his problem would be through an ordinance amendment. He added it is possible Mr. Dekok's problem was created by the previous amendment to the ordinance, which changed the minimum lot width requirement to 100 feet, in recognition of the problems caused by the 90-foot lot width. .-- '" Commissioner Daninger inquired if this situation would be considered a hardship, and if so, would the City need to amend the ordinance with every hardship presented. Commissioner Apel stated not necessarily, however, it should be considered from the standpoint of whether or not the language of the ordinance was too restrictive in this regard. He stated that the setback requirements were somewhat arbitrary, explaining that the property owner can construct a six-foot wooden fence on his property line, yet could not place a small shed closer to the fence, due to the side yard setback. He stated this does not appear to be very logical. Commissioner Apel stated the ordinance required some minor adjustment to provide more logical results. He stated this matter does not affect health, safety and welfare, which are the main criteria to be considered in amending the ordinance. He stated that this matter had been sent to the Council on a unanimous Commission vote for approval of a variance. He stated ... the matter was directed back before the Commission, and if their position was the same in , j () () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 6 '\ -, / regard to the structure, and for the sake of consistency, it was up to them to recommend a change to the ordinance. He stated it was for the Council, through consultation with the City Attorney, to determine if their recommendation was a valid one. Mr. Dekok stated that not every comer lot would be affected in the same manner, as most are back to back, and require a 25-foot setback. He stated, however, his backyard butts up to his neighbor's front yard. He stated that even if he did not have a swimming pool, there was very little space to place a structure on his lot. He stated when his house was built, the minimum lot size requirement was 90 x 130 feet, and many other lots of the same width are possibly 150 feet deep. Commissioner Hedin stated, upon reviewing the research, he did not see any other communities requiring a 35-foot sideyard setback, and would not be opposed to amending the ordinance to indicate a 30-foot sideyard setback. Commissioner Daninger stated if the requirement was changed to 30 feet, Mr. Dekok's situation would still require a variance. Mr. Dekok stated that it would not in this event, as he could place the structure outside his fence, and under his window which would be five feet under the setback. He stated this would meet the requirement, however, the Council had considered the question of uniformity, and that you would not be able to see the shed if it was inside the fence, where it is less visible. "-_/ Commissioner Falk inquired if Mr. Dekok's house was built prior to the ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated the ordinance had always been in place, however, it was amended to provided the 100-foot lot width to prevent problems. Commissioner Dalien inquired if this was originally done for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Johnson stated he believed so. .- '1 Mr. Dalien stated his neighborhood was comprised of some very small cul-de-sacs, which entrances are only one lot deep, and there were cases where some backyards are someone else's front yard. He stated an owner of one of the above-described lots had constructed a shed and placed at the side of the house. He stated, however, if this property owner had placed the shed in the back of the lot, it would have been directly in his neighbor's front yard. He stated attempting to address this matter is difficult due to the different circumstances within the City. He stated, in regard to aesthetics, he was not certain the present ordinance addressed the matter sufficiently. Commissioner Hedin stated aesthetics could not be codified. Commissioner Dalien agreed. He stated, however, if the ordinance was amended strictly on the basis of aesthetics, he thought it was unusual to allow a six-foot fence. He stated that he was not certain regarding his leaning, or if he would recommend a change for one particular circumstance when they haven't had a great deal of problems with the ordinance. Mr. Dekok requested the Commission consider the owners of other 90-foot lots who were in this situation. He stated, with the 35-foot setback requirement on this size lot, none of these / r ~ ~ , '. J \./ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 7 \ J property owners would be able to construct a three-car garage. He inquired where possessions are to be stored, if you purchase this type of house, adding he was not able to utilize them from the backyard. Commissioner Dalien stated these circumstances are not unusual, in purchasing existing property with the desire to change the use of it, and are restricted by the size of the lot. He stated this should be considered at the time of purchase. He stated he is not able to construct a three-car garage on his lot, however he liked the lot, and purchased it regardless. He stated he did not believe Mr. Dekok's argument was valid in this respect, and that it is the property owner's choice to purchase the lot. Commissioner Jovanovich inquired if Mr. Dekok had come to the City originally to determine ifhe was proceeding properly, or if someone had found fault with his project. Mr. Dekok stated Zoning Administrator Johnson resided in his neighborhood. He stated when he had completed constructing the shed, Mr. Johnson came by and told him it was not proper. Mr. Johnson stated he was made aware of a complaint received by the Building Department. \ , J Commissioner Daninger stated the object of the present discussion was the ordinance. He stated all of the neighbors indicated through a letter they were agreeable to the project, with the exception of one. He stated that he would like to have a swimming pool in his backyard, however, his lot is too small. He stated if he wanted to have a pool, he would purchase a lot suitable for that purpose. He stated he was comfortable with the way the ordinance was written. He stated that argument in Mr. Dekok's case, might be hardship. Commissioner Dalien stated this would only be due to the size of the lot, and there must have been some problem with the 90-foot lots, to result in an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Dekok stated Dave Carlberg informed him this amendment was due to problems builders were experiencing with fitting houses on the smaller lots. Mr. Johnson stated that there was no question in regard to the difficulties with comer lots, and that not many homeowners realize this when they purchase the property. Mr. Dekok stated that the City of Andover was the only City, which required the specific setback for a lot that has a backyard butting up against a front yard. He stated he would like to see a straight corner yard setback of 25 to 30 feet, to clarify the situation, and to allow other people in this situation to use some of their property. He stated, with an additional five feet, he could place his shed in front of his fence and would meet the requirements. He stated, in his opinion, the 35-foot setback was too restrictive. He stated the other cities do not require two different setbacks for corner lots. He noted that Ramsey requires a building permit for any size shed, which prevents problems before they occur. -' o (J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 10, 1999 Page 8 / Commissioner Hedin stated changing the setback from 35 to 30 feet would benefit many people, regardless of the size of the lot. He stated he would have no problem voting for a 30- foot setback. Mr. Johnson stated staff, in conjunction with the Building Department, have done much work in past years, in regard to enforcement of the encroachment and variance provisions of the ordinance. He stated they have not had many problems in this area, or in resolving these issues with the property owners. Commissioner Apel stated he had never agreed with the non-encroachment rules, as they take away property rights, which run 35 feet along the property. He stated a temporary shed, should it ever become a problem, could be moved. He inquired why they should take away a property owner's rights for aesthetic purposes, as aesthetics are simply in the eye of the beholder. He inquired why a person on a comer lot should be penalized because of the placement of his neighbor's house. Mr. Johnson stated if they were to allow a 25-foot setback, and the property owner was to construct a ten by twelve metal shed, which could deteriorate and rust, this would not be aesthetically acceptable. He stated that Mr. Dekok's shed was an attractive structure, and they could stipulate a requirement that these types of structures match the house. , , ) Commissioner Hedin stated it was his understanding that Mr. Dekok had relied upon the advice of his pool builder and neighbors when constructing his shed. Mr. Dekok stated this was correct, and explained that he had also looked at other sheds within his neighborhood, by which he assumed the setback was five feet of the property line. He stated, this being his first house, he was not aware that comer lots were subject to different requirements. Commissioner Daninger stated that the issue of encroachment is the discussion at hand. He stated that with 30 feet, there would always be a variance for encroachment. He stated that this particular situation might be approached from the aspect of hardship. He stated he was comfortable with the way the ordinance was written. He stated he agreed with Commissioner Apel in regard to restricting a property owner from utilizing 35 feet of their property, however, to allow a metal shed might deteriorate the property value. He stated, if the ordinance is amended, they might be called upon to change it again. Mr. Dekok staled, in his opinion, the reason the City Council sent this matter back before the Commission was because they had taken the final vote on it, with only 4 members present, and after three votes, they had deadlocked each time. He stated, in his opinion, they realized there was a problem, but did not want to grant a variance, which might create a precedent. Commissioner Apel inquired if the City Council wanted the Commission to recommend a change. Mr. Johnson stated the reason the matter was sent back to the Planning and Zoning Regular Andover Plan~,)g and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 9 , ) '-.J , / Commission was to provide further research regarding other communities' requirements regarding uniformity and front and side yard setbacks, and to provide a recommendation as to whether or not they should make a change. Chairperson Squires stated, although Mr. Dekok's situation had brought this issue to the forefront, it would be more appropriate for the Commission to focus upon the rationality of the ordinance. He inquired, is the current setback adequate, and if not, is there sufficient reason to change, and what would be the reason for change. He stated, in his judgement, the current 35-foot setback has a rational basis because it is borne out of considerations of uniformity and visibility. He stated, prior to selecting different footage requirement, the rational reasons for doing so should be considered, rather than solving one specific problem. He stated he also had concerns in regard to amending ordinances that work. He stated this particular problem is enlightening, however, the Commission should focus more intently upon the discussion. Mr. Johnson stated he believed they should focus upon what is best for the community. / Chairperson Squires inquired regarding the front yard setbacks, in those cities that had lower sideyard setbacks requirements. Mr. Johnson stated all five cities maintained the uniformity, and regardless of the sideyard setbacks, the front yard setback requirements remained the same, in the range of 25 to 35 feet, with the exception of Blaine. Chairperson Squires stated the information suggests these communities also have concerns regarding uniformity. He stated, perhaps this is in consideration of impact to visibility. He stated it indicates that the communities with the same front and side yard setbacks are concerned in regard to uniformity of setbacks and structures on comer lots. He stated, while they may be smaller, the are uniform. ., Mr. Dekok inquired why a six-foot fence is allowed. Chairperson Squires stated it has probably been determined a fence is not a structure, in the same regard as a house or shed. Mr. Dekok stated that a fence would impact visibility. Chairperson Squires stated that this might be an argument to not allow fences in the 35-foot setback. Don Legge, a resident, stated the present language of the ordinance appears to work. He stated if the City were to move the boundaries in, sooner or later someone else would request an additional variance. He requested the Commission leave the ordinance as it is. Commissioner Daninger stated he was comfortable with the ordinance as it is written Commissioner Jovanovich stated she agreed. Commissioner Hedin stated having discussed, in general and in particular reasons for this discussion, he would recommend no changes to the ordinance at this time. , () C) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 10 ) / Motion by Hedin, seconded by Jovanovich, to Recommend to the City Council, after Having Studied and Reflected upon the Corner Lot Setback Issue, the Ordinance Remain As Is. Motion carried on a 6 - ayes, 1 - nay (Apel), 0 - absent vote. Mr. Johnson stated the matter would come before the Council for further discussion at the September 7,1999 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 7.01, PERMITTED USES - DISCUSSION ON PRIVATE KENNELS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND THE NUMBER OF DOGS ALLOWED IN PRIVATE KENNELS AS PROVIDED IN ORDINANCE NO. 233. Zoning Administrator Johnson stated, at the August 3, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss private dog kennel license requirements. More specifically, the maximum number of dogs permitted for a private kennel, and whether or not a private kennel license should be issued based on a zoning requirement (R-1, Single Family Rural) or a minimum acreage requirement (2.5 acres). J Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with a copy of Ordinance No. 233 for their review. He stated private dog kennel licenses may be granted by the City Council in an R-1 Zoning District, provided that the number of dogs do not exceed six (6), provided by a previous amendment to the ordinance. He stated prior to the amendment, the licensing was handled via conditional use permit, and did not regulate the number of dogs. He stated the Council had indicated concern regarding the number of dogs that were allowed in private kennel situations. He stated the amendment required each situation to be evaluated on a case by case basis. He stated that the number of dogs on the premises was limited to six. . Mr. Johnson stated staff had conducted random research with fifteen cities, in this regard, and provided the Commission with the results of the research. He stated that two thirds of the cities required a permit, either granted by the Councilor conditional use permit, which regulated the process on a case by case basis. Mr. Johnson stated that two weeks ago, the City received a request from Rose Marie Julig, for a private kennel license. He stated Ms. Julig desires to move to the City Andover and is currently considering property which is zoned R-3, Single Family Suburban. Mr. Johnson stated this property meets the 2.5-acre requirement. He stated Ms. Julig was requesting a private kennel license for twenty indoor poodles, which she owns and shows. He stated Ms. Julig had submitted application material and information regarding her background to staff. He provided the Commission with this information for their review. ) Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to provide a recommendation regarding a possible amendment to Ordinance No. 233. He stated the issues .. () U Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10. 1999 Page 11 / are whether or not private kennel licenses should be issued based upon a zoning requirement, or if they should include a minimum acreage requirement. He requested the Commission also consider the number of dogs allowed, and if this should be regulated per private kennel license or on a case by case basis, with the special consideration that these particular dogs are small housedogs, de-barked, and lodged within a garage. Commissioner Apel inquired if Ms. Julig had been unable to obtain a permit under present conditions. Mr. Johnson stated yes. He explained this was based upon the zoning of her property, which is R-3, and requires a private kennel license. Commissioner Apel stated he was not fond of the "R" zoning requirements. \ / Chairperson Squires inquired regarding a public kennel license, in addition to the private kennel license. Mr. Johnson stated that there are both private and commercial licenses, which are defined in the ordinance. He stated presently there is only one commercial kennel license granted within the City, and two or three private kennel licenses granted in the past few years. Chairperson Squires inquired if someone in Ms. Julig's situation could obtain a commercial kennel license regardless of the number of dogs. Mr. Johnson stated that the ordinance defines a commercial kennel as "any place where a person accepts dogs from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training or grooming." He stated that Ms. Julig shows dog, which might be a commercial aspect, however, her application indicates they are her own dogs, and she shows them for her own enjoyment. He stated this falls under the definition of private kennel. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the maximum number of dogs stipulated in the conditional use permit. Mr. Johnson stated that private kennel licenses do not require a conditional or special use permit. He stated that the number of the dogs was determined on a case by case basis. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the maximum number of dogs allowed within the City. Mr. Johnson stated that a maximum of three dogs are allowed, a dog being defined as being six months of age or older. He stated if they exceed the maximum, they would be required to apply for a private kennel license, and must meet the R- 1 zoning requirement. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the cost of a private kennel license. Mr. Johnson stated this was one hundred dollars for the initial application fee, and a twenty-five dollar renewal fee per year. Chair Squires clarified the ordinance indicates in the R-4 Urban Zoning District, you are allowed three (3) dogs of your own, and in the R-l zone, you are allowed to have six (6) dogs of your own through the private kennel license. He stated if these were someone else's dogs, you could apply for the commercial kennel license. He stated that the Commission is presently considering the propriety of this number of dogs, and whether or not they want to change it. \ . J () U Regular Andover Planmng and Zoning Commission Aleeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 12 ) Mr. Johnson stated private kennel licenses were previously obtained via conditional use permit, and this was changed to provide that the applicant did not have to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and could go directly before the Council with their request. He stated that there were good aspects to the conditional use permit process, in that it was a recorded document, and conditions could be specified within the document pertaining to the use, in the event of problems. Commissioner Hedin stated he was comfortable with the maximum number of three, prior to requirement of a private kennel license, as well as a maximum number as stipulated within the conditional use permit. He added that he agreed with Commissioner Apel in regard to the "R" zoning, and, if presented with the opportunity, would vote to eliminate the "R" zoning and replace it with acreage requirements. Commissioner Apel inquired if Ms. Julig had purchased a 2.5-acre or larger lot in R-I, would this problem still exist. Chairperson Squires stated that he believed they would, as she owns twenty dogs herself. Commissioner Apel stated he did not believe so, as the purpose of obtaining a license in these areas in the past, was simply for record keeping purposes. He stated he liked the idea of the conditional use permit, as it provides an oversight of the situation. / ' - 'I '_/ Chairperson Squires stated one alternative that could be considered in this case, would be to set a limit that staff could approve, and anything over that would be required to go through the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Apel inquired, if the Commission recommended a change to the ordinance to require conditional use permit proceedings for private kennel licenses, would this solve Ms. Julig's problem in the R-3 zoning. Mr. Johnson stated they would have to amend the ordinance to indicate an acreage requirement to accomplish this. Chairperson Squires stated they would still have the R-I requirement, and possibly would want to change that to acreage. He stated he had some concerns and did not like the idea of six dogs, let alone 20, in an R-4 District. Commissioner Apel stated he agreed. He inquired if they could stated R- 4, anything outside R-4 would be subject to an acreage requirement, and more than six (6) dogs would be subject to a conditional use permit. He noted that a problem might arise with R-llots that may not be 2.5 acres in size. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the process of conditional use permit were utilized, and there were problems in the future, would the matter come back before the Commission. Commissioner Apel stated it would. He stated that Mr. Johnson might wish to review the ordinance and provide recommendations regarding the changes he thought might be appropriate. , j Cl l) Regular Andover Planmng and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 13 ) Commissioner Dalien inquired if Ms. Julig could obtain a commercial license permit for her particular situation. Mr. Johnson stated that the very first sentence of the definition of the commercial kennel indicates a place where a person accepts dogs. Commissioner Dalien stated, in light of this, they might wish to consider changing the definition of a commercial kennel. He inquired if Ms. Julig shows dogs for others. Ms. Julig stated she did. She added that she had additional room for other people's dogs, and also did some training and grooming of other people's dogs. Commissioner Dalien inquired if a commercial license could be issued in an R-3 zone. Mr. Johnson stated no. He explained that a commercial license could only be granted in an R-l zone. Chairperson Squires stated that the rationale for this is that an operation of this magnitude should not be located in the urban or more densely populated area. Commission Dalien stated Section 19 of the ordinance relates to the issuance of private kennel licenses being limited to R-l zoning, and there was no restriction to that effect in Section 20, pertaining to commercial licenses. Mr. Johnson stated the restriction was listed as a conditional use permit requirement in the zoning ordinance. He added that this should be clarified. ) Chairperson Squires stated they could recommend a revision to the definition of commercial kennels, because there is no rational distinction between accepting someone else's dogs and having your own. He stated the intent was to address the concern with the number of dogs, and relegating them to a commercial area. Mr. Johnson stated, in terms of Ms. Julig's situation, the ordinance would require an amendment of the R-3 zoning requirement. He stated, rather than basing a private kennel license on the zoning requirement, staff would feel more comfortable with establishing a minimum acreage requirement. He stated that from staffs perspective, this was, by definition of a private kennel. Commissioner Apel suggested they change the requirement to 2.5 acres, and require a conditional use permit process for more than three (3) dogs. He added that this would provide for public notification. '\ ) / Mary Schaltz, friend of Ms. Julig, stated the aspect of the conditional use permit appears to be a good one, in the sense that it imposes upon the dog owner a great number of restrictions. She stated that self-restriction under the conditional use permit addresses the issues of dogs being de-barked, and contained. She stated Ms. Julig's dogs are show dogs, and therefore, would not run free. She stated the dogs would be indoors, and would only be allowed to exercise in a 30-foot by 30-foot private fenced area. She stated the issue of sanitation had been addressed, and that all refuse would go out the day of, double sealed in two plastic bags. (J Regular Andover Plan~zn1 and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 14 ) She stated that the dogs would be housed in an air-conditioned, insulated and heated garage, which would comply with rigid AKC standards. She stated the concept would be to have the tremendous restriction as a model for future protection. Ms. Schaltz stated the property is 2.53 acres, and that Ms. Julig had fully outlined what she was proposing for the property for her neighbors. She stated that, with the exception of one person who had recently had a death in the family, all signed a petition indicating they did not object to the proposal. Ms. Schaltz stated there is no house facing the Ms. Julig's house on the right hand side, and I 78th lane is at the front of her property. She stated they were concerned specifically with the adjacent neighbor on the left who is the closest neighbor, and he had indicated he had no objections to the proposal. She stated the closest neighbors, those to the side and behind Ms. Julig's property, are buffered by dense woods and foliage. She reiterated that she liked the idea of the acreage concept, self-restriction, and the neighbor's agreement regarding the proposal. Chairperson Squires requested clarification regarding the size of the subject parcel, and if this was an assemblage of separate lots, or one lot of record. Mr. Johnson referred to the site plan. He stated the lot was 2.53 acres, located in the midst of the R-3 Zoning District. He , added that it was surrounded by properties of similar size. / Chairperson Squires inquired if the lots could be subdivided. Commissioner Apel stated that no change had been allowed since 1971. He stated that when they passed the ordinance of 1971, a lot of record, which was 60 percent of the total requirement, was buildable. He explained that this is why they were allowed to build on every third lot. Chairperson Squires stated this might exemplify how the use of the zoning designation in this ordinance pertaining to dogs may not be as specific with the intent. He stated if staff could make him comfortable that there are R-I designated areas that he would envision as rural, he would not have a be opposed, as his concern would not exist. He stated he would like further information on land, other than R-I, which present to be consistent with the rural character envisioned with R-I zoning. Commissioner Daninger inquired if the concern was based upon the "R" zoning being too small. Chairperson Squires stated this was to assure the larger operations remained in the R- 1 area. He stated, however, the R-I might be arbitrary, as there are some non-R-I pieces that are rural in character. He stated he was willing to look at those different situations, and adopt an amended standard either by indicating the zoning, or the lot size or acreage. He stated he did not want to see any loopholes. \ , ) Commissioner Dalien stated, if tying the requirements to lot size, they should review the size of the surrounding lots as well, as they might have lots that are 2.5 acres, and along side of (~ C_) Regular Andover Plan~mg and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 15 , '_.J these, one acre lots. Chairperson Squires stated he agreed. He added that there may be out- lots, or properties adjoining a wetland, which would draw the boundaries into the wetland. Commissioner Daninger stated a conditional use permit would control that situation. Chairperson Squires stated he would not consider a conditional use permit, in this case. He stated the Commission would have to create a formula, which includes lot size and other factors that might grant relief in similar circumstances, without any loopholes or problems. Commissioner Hedin stated that they would require more information from staff. Commissioner Apel agreed, adding that they should review the GIS maps, as well the history of the subject area. Chairperson Squires requested Mr. Johnson focus upon the R-2 and R-3 zoning, and determine how many larger lots are buried within the R-4 zoning, so that they could determine if those situations truly exist, as believed. He stated this information would help them to craft a formula. Commissioner Apel inquired if there were any orphan properties within the City. He stated these should be considered as well. Mr. Johnson stated that there are some out there. Commissioner Dalien stated, in order to craft some language, consideration should be given to the one acre lots that are not buildable, which might be adjacent to a one acre lot with a houses upon it, and how to exclude the smaller lots from the discussion. , "\ '--) Mr. Johnson stated Ms. Julig is subject to a time frame, and would like to know if the Commission would be willing to change the ordinance. Chairperson Squires stated that the Commission is an advisory body, and could not make that decision. Mr. Johnson stated staff would present the research, and proceed with the August 24, 1999 public hearing of the matter. He stated this would indicate a minimum acreage requirement of 2.5 acres, a conditional use permit, and determination of the maximum number of dogs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. He stated the research could be reviewed, changed, or a recommendation provided by the Commission at that time. He stated staff would like to move forward to suit Ms. Julig's needs, and obtain a recommendation. Chairperson Squires stated this was fine, however the Commission required further information in order to make a well-informed decision. He stated he was not willing to make an accelerated decision that he was not comfortable with, in order to meet a closing date. Commissioner Dalien stated, in light of the time consideration, it would be helpful for the Commission to be provided the necessary information as gathered, prior to receiving their packets, so that it may be reviewed. OTHER BUSINESS \ ) , '\ J ~- ) ) Regular Andover Plan~~ and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - August 10, 1999 Page 16 , '\ '-J Mr. Johnson updated the Planning Commission regarding recent Council action. He stated the Special Use Permit request for a storage addition at Beck's Auto had been approved, as well as two ordinance revisions regarding rental housing and housing maintenance. Mr. Johnson stated the joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, for the review of the revised zoning ordinance, would be held on Thursday, at 7:00 p.m., in Conference Room A. He stated that the Commissioners had been provided with copies of the ordinance, and if additional information was required, it should be requested of staff. There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Apel, seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 7 - ayes, 0 - nays, o - absent vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.