Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 12, 1999 o o o o o CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 12,1999 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to . order by Acting Chairperson Maynard Apel on October 12, 1999, 7:03 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Larry Dalien, Dean Daninger, Douglas Falk, and Mark Hedin. Bev Jovanovich, and Jay Squires. City Planner, John Hinzman Planning Intern, Megan Barnett Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 28, 1999 Motion by Hedin, seconded by Dalien, the Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 99-18)-ANTENNA IN EXCESS OF 35 FEET IN HEIGHT - 32XX SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE NW - US WEST WIRELESS, LLC. City Planner, John Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to review the request of US West Wireless to construct a Wireless Communications Facility (antenna/tower) on the property located at 32xx South Coon Creek Drive NW. Mr. Hinzman stated the subject property is located just west of the crossing of South Coon Creek Drive and Coon Creek, and to the North of the Woodland Creek Golf Course. Mr. Hinzman stated the property is zoned R-I, Single Family Rural, and is 17.3 acres in size. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the applicable ordinances, and the criteria presented. He explained Ordinance No. 113, which regulates antennas and towers, regulates the construction and maintenance of private and commercial antennas and towers, and requires a Special Use Permit prior to construction of any tower/antenna in excess of thirty-five (35) feet in height. Mr. Hinzman stated Ordinance No. 113 requires minimum of twenty (20) acres on a parcel for telecommunication towers that are located in residential area, and additional acreage will need to be ! \ \ / ~ ) Regular Andover Plannin1Jd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 2 ~J acquired on this parcel to meet this twenty (20) acre provision. He explained the applicant and the landowner are aware of this provision. Mr. Hinzman stated landscaping and screening must be provided with the site, and the applicant will go through the Commercial Site Plan process, upon approval of the Special Use Permit, as well. Mr. Hinzman stated the Special Use provision of Ordinance 8 is applicable in terms of the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land. Also applicable are the criteria relating to traffic conditions, including parking facilities upon the property, the effect on property values and scenic views, and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hinzman explained that the site located approximately 110 feet off of South Coon Creek Drive. He noted the site has been reviewed for buildability, and the City Engineer has verified that the site is located outside the 1 DO-year flood plain, and the property is buildable. ~J Mr. Hinzman stated there is a residential area to the west of the subject property, which is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban, and the nearest residence is approximately 500 feet in that direction. He noted there were also some rural residences along South Coon Creek Drive to the east, with Woodland Creek Golf Course to the South, and an agricultural area to the north of Coon Creek. Mr. Hinzman explained the proposed antenna will consist ofa single monopole structure, 150 feet in height. There will be six (6) directional panels on the structure, four (4) feet long, seven and one- half (7.5) inches wide, and two and one-half (2.5) inches in depth. Mr. Hinzman explained two of these panels will be placed at the ISO-foot level, and four panels will be located at the 120-foot level of the structure. There is additional space on the structure to provide for co-location of other PCS uses in the future. Mr. Hinzman stated the ground equipment would consist of two weather resistant cabinets, approximately two and one-half (2.5) by two and one-half (2.5) by five (5) feet in size, to house equipment near the base of the structure, and fencing and landscaping will be provided around the equipment for screening purposes. Mr. Hinzman noted the Commission has recently considered the previous request to locate this structure to the east of the proposed site, and a number of questions came forward as a result of that discussion. He explained the site has been verified by the City Engineer, and is not located within the flood plain, which was a concern in terms of the original site. He noted in regard to issues of interference with other communications facilities, Mr. Anthony Segale, Executive Director for US West Wireless, has provided a letter which explains the facilities and operations of the US West, and clarifies the FCC regulations in this regard. Mr. Hinzman explained that the applicant operates within the two-Gigahertz frequency band, and must remain within that frequency, pursuant to their ~) FCC license requirements. /'1 , ../ o / " ".) Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Hinzman noted concerns regarding health and safety issues. He commented that US West Wireless has provided information regarding Radio Frequency Safety near PCS Cell Sites, and indicates that they work within the standards ofthe FCC. Mr. Hinzman stated Mr. Dave Fisher of US West Wireless has indicated they have researched alternative locations in the Andover area, including the City water tower, other private property, and a park in the same location. He stated, however, the applicant feels the proposed site is the best site for the facility, and would like to proceed with the Special Use Permit request. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant has indicated they operate approximately 300 cell towers within the Twin Cities area, and the residential requirements in each of these areas differ. He stated they look primarily for rural agricultural areas in which to install these structures, and as the proposed site consists of agricultural use, they desire to proceed at this location Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant was requested to provide a list of complaints in regard to the telecommunication tower located at Grumpy's Bar in Coon Rapids, and additional correspondence from Mr. Segale indicates they have received no complaints regarding this facility. Mr. Hinzman stated that questions were raised regarding the issues the City may consider in approving the Special Use Permit, in relation to the Telecommunications act of 1996, and the restrictions placed upon cell tower facilities. He explained he has received a letter from City Attorney, William Hawkins, which indicates that cities have discretion as to where the cell towers may be located, however, they may not outlaw the facilities altogether. He advised there must be a substantial issue cited in the areas of health, safety, and general welfare concerns, in order to deny the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Falk asked ifthis was a continuation of the previous public hearing. Mr. Hinzman explained this is a new public hearing, as the applicant has withdrawn their previous request, which was located upon a separate parcel of record. He noted the proposed site is approximately ISO west of the original site, which is also owned by Ken Slyzuk. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the height of the tower located on the comer of County Road 20 and Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Hinzman eXplained this tower is 150 feet in height. Commissioner Hedin inquired regarding the height of the water tower located at City Hall. Mr. Hinzman stated the water tower was approximately 160 feet in height. Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 4 , " ,__J Commission Daninger inquired how many towers were located within the City. Mr. Hinzman stated there were two facilities located upon the water tower, a single monopole on County Road 20 and Round Lake Boulevard, and a facility that was approved for construction at Eddie's Auto on Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated he was not certain if the cell tower at Eddie's Auto had been constructed to date. He commented the water tower at City Hall was located within the residential zoning district, and the other two locations were zoned for industrial uses. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, vote, 2-absent vote. Bill Hentges, 3061 142nd Lane NW, stated he was one of the property owners notified regarding the original cell tower proposal, and again, for the current proposal. He requested the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Special Use Permit application on a number of different grounds. ~-) Mr. Hentges stated Ordinance No.8 indicates criteria regarding the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, moral, and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land. He noted there was a residential area located immediately west of the proposed site, and although he was ware the tower would be operating within FCC standards, the FCC has not come forward with a categorical indication that there is no harmful effect from these towers. He stated the current Office of Engineering Bulletin, No. 56, issued by the FCC, indicates "While the possibility of non-thermal biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects may indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects, and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standard setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity, and determine whether alterations in safety limits are needed in order to protect human health.' Mr. Hentges advised, while the FCC, at this point, has not stated the effects are harmful, they are also very careful to indicate they have not determined there is no harm presented to humans. He commented the majority ofthe residents would prefer not to be guinea pigs, at this point. Mr. Hentges stated the provision of Ordinance No.8, in regard to the effect of the proposed use upon the property values and scenic views of the surrounding areas is applicable in this case. He noted several of the residents in this area are very concerned in this regard, as they have only recently moved into the area, and may not have purchased these properties, had the tower been located at this site. He explained that when they sell their land, it is very likely they will not be able to obtain the same amount as they would if the cell tower was not there, and this represents an effect upon the property values. ~) Mr. Hentges stated that several of the audience members had spoken to realtors, who have indicated that the proximity of their property to the tower may affect the type of financing they are able to obtain, and some types of government financing may not be available at all. Other realtors have Regular Andover Planning~~d Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 5 " I '- ./ indicated that even if the tower is within the range of visibility, it will affect the salability of the property. Mr. Hentges stated the picture of the tower provided by the applicant was not a proper representation of the scale of the tower in relationship to the trees on the site. He stated the tallest tree on the property is approximately 42 feet in height, and the tower will be 100 feet above the tree line, which will be very visible from the neighborhood immediately adjacent to it, and in the surrounding area. He provided the Commission with pictures of other towers in the surrounding area, and explained that even from a substantial distance the towers dominate the skyline. He stated the proposed tower would definitely affect the property values in the surrounding area. Mr. Hentges stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan and the powers of the City provide the Commission the authority to determine where these towers will be located, as long as they provide some location and do not discriminate against providers. He cited a specific example of this as referenced in the FCC's Fact Sheet No.2, which indicates "the contraries do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit for a commercial district, that it must also grant a permit to a competitor's 50-foot tower in a residential district." He acknowledged, however, it does indicate that the City can not discriminate against providers. , '\ '--) Mr. Hentges explained that once a permit is granted in a residential area, or any special exemptions are made for a tower to be installed, other providers will have the opportunity to require the City extend to them the same considerations. He advised that once they allow a tower to be located within a residential area, the City will not be able to prevent other towers from being located in other residential areas within the City. He reiterated his request for denial of the Special Use Permit. Don Bowers, 14570 Jonquil Street, presented the Commission with a petition, signed by approximately 140 residents of Jonquil and Kerry Streets, Coon Creek Drive, and the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated the residents had contacted the city of Coon Rapids in regard to the tower located at Grumpy's Bar. He explained this tower is approximately 75 feet in height, constructed next to the building, and does not look like a tower, rather almost appears to be some form of sports communications device. He commented that the property is zoned commercial, therefore, public notification of the tower was only required within 300 feet of the site, and many of the residents were not aware of it. Mr. Bowers stated he agreed the picture of the tower was not proportionate in relation to the trees on the proposed site. He stated, in addition, there would be a two-foot red, blinking light located at the top of the proposed tower, which would affect the neighborhood. He requested the Commission deny the Special Use Permit application, and direct the applicant to utilize the water tower for this purpose. He stated other telecommunication providers were using the water tower, and this would provide the best alternative. ) o () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 6 ,r- \ . I , _/ Lynette Bowers, 14570 Jonquil Street, stated she had contacted two financing companies in regard to the issue of the affect of the tower to property values. She stated Mr. John Anthony, of Focus Reality, has indicated that if the tower proceeds, any property within the fall zone of the tower will not be able to obtain FHA financing. She stated another Realtor has indicated that those properties within visibility range of the tower would also be limited in their financing options. She provided the Commission with pictures of the present view of the proposed site, and stated the residents were very fond of this view. She stated eagles fly over the site, and feed in the field in the springtime when it is flooded. She noted one of the pictures, which indicated standing water on the proposed site, after a storm in July. Mrs. Bowers requested the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the timing of the withdrawal of the applicant's original request. She stated the applicant cancelled this hearing on a Friday, and the majority of residents were not notified until Saturday. She added that some residents were out of town, and only had a one-day notice. She stated some of the residents obtained babysitters, and some took time off from their jobs in order to attend the meeting, however, the applicant cancelled a day or two ahead of time. She stated she was certain the applicant was aware they were going to withdraw their request, and should have given the people more notice. , , , ) Mrs. Bowers stated US West Wireless was fined 5 million dollars in 1996, and continues to be fined daily, for non-compliance with customer service issues related to traditional telephone service. She commented that she had contacted the Public Utilities Commission in this regard, and they have indicated this is an ongoing problem, and US West Wireless is not meeting customers needs. She remarked that she was concerned if US West Wireless is unable to manage a telephone service which has been around for years, how would they manage the new technology. She stated the had received an advertisement in the mail, regarding the latest digital technology, and called the listed telephone number, by which she was advised the applicant is a subdivision of the parent company, US West. Mrs. Bowers stated she had contacted the city of Coon Rapids to inquire regarding their ordinances, and they have indicated that towers over 90 feet in height are restricted in residential areas, can not be located or within view of the Mississippi River, or from public parks. She stated Coon Rapids desires to keep these towers out of residential areas, and the service providers must prove there is no other site that is applicable for their tower, before they proceed within a residential area. :- ) Mrs. Bowers stated the FCC has issued a fact sheet, Section 1.1301 through 1.319, which indicates categories which require the filing of an environmental assessment for wilderness area, wildlife preserve, situations which may upset listed endangered or threatened species or critical habitats, Indian religious sites, flood plains, and high intensity white lights in a residential neighborhood. She stated the present proposal falls within a number of these categories. She commented she was uncertain if the relocation of the site from the flood plain was an attempt on the part of the applicant to avoid conducting the environmental assessment, however, if they are required to file, the public must be provided the opportunity to voice their opinion. She stated that moving the tower 100 feet Regular Andover Plannin~Jd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 7 , \ , ./ would not make any difference, adding that the amount of flooding from one year to the next could not be determined. Mrs. Bowers stated the applicant was permitted to co-locate two other facilities on the proposed tower. She pointed out that the applicant is leasing the site from Mr. Slyzuk, and was uncertain ifhe was aware ofthis. She further indicated if US West defaults in any way, the property owner could be subject to having a lien placed upon his property to insure the site is cleaned up. She stated this proposal scared her, and requested the Commission deny the application. Mr. Hinzman stated he has contacted the County Tax Assessor regarding the potential effect of the proposed tower to property values, and the Tax Assessor has indicated that similar utilities have been installed, and he has not seen a decrease in property values as a result of this. Mr. Hinzman stated he inquired if this might be contra-indicated due to the strong market values, and properties that are selling fairly well, and the Tax Assessor responded that this was the case during the slower times, as well. The Assessor further stated there is nothing comparable to the cell tower within the residential district in Andover, however, he has not seen a decrease in property valuation as a result of similar utility power lines. r .. , ) Cheryl Nelson, 14457 Jonquil Street stated she was opposed to the proposed tower. She provided the Commission with a picture of the view of the proposed site from her property. She commented that the view was part of the reason they had purchased this home home. She commented that the tower would not discourage the wildlife from coming to the property, however, it would ruin the view. She eXplained although specific decrease in the property value might not be indicated, prior to purchasing this property, they had looked at houses that had towers in the backyard, and some homes that were in close proximity to high power lines, and she did not want one of these houses. Mrs. Nelson stated the main selling point in the computer listing of her home was the view, and that was what sold them on this property. She stated they have three decks and a patio in their backyard that they use quite frequently, and two small children. She stated that the proposed tower would not be an attractive sight. Mrs. Nelson stated the field looks like a lake in the springtime when the snow melts, and there are actually small waves on the standing water when the wind blows. She pointed out that people have inquired if this was a lake. She indicated when passing around the petition, someone had mentioned there was a proposal for a cell tower to be located in downtown Andover, however, the City did not want to construct a tower in downtown Andover because it would obstruct the welcoming view of the City. She stated she did not want to come home and be welcomed by a 150-foot tower with a blinking light. She inquired why it could not be located in the middle of the field and out of the visible range of the residents. She reiterated she was opposed to the proposed tower. Robert Norling, 14505 Jonquil Street, stated the proposed tower presented and issue in regard to , 'j potential vandalism at the site. He commented the proposal would invite more people to come .~. ___I Regular Andover Plannin}Jd Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 8 , , \, , through the area and vandalize the property. He explained that the bridge had been vandalized several times. He stated he had lived at his property for 11 years, having moved from a farm, and he enjoyed the view and the wildlife in this area. He stated he did not want to look at the tower, and was opposed to the proposal. Jerry Schmidt, 14372 Jonquil Street stated his home is currently for sale, and has been on the market for 21 days. He pointed out, although it has been stated that the proposed tower would not affect the property values, no one has shown interest in purchasing his home. He explained that he has had to disclose the information regarding the tower, as the notice was mailed to him. He stated the primary feedback he has received in regard to his home not selling is that the tower is to be constructed. He stated it may not affect the value of the house, however, it is deterring people from purchasing property in this area. He inquired why the tower could not be constructed in the industrial park on Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated it does not make sense to locate it within the view of residents, and once it is constructed, more facilities can be added on to it, and it will expand in size. Mr. Schmidt stated his house was in excellent condition, however, it was located in a zone that will be affected in terms of FHA financing. He requested the Commission consider an alternate site. r , , \, / Janice Smith, 3150 South Coon Creek Drive stated she and her husband moved to the area three years prior, and they chose this area because of the beautiful neighborhood, and closeness to wildlife. She stated other audience members had already expressed her point of view, adding that she did not want the tower. She requested the Commission ask themselves if they would like to look out their door and see a tower leaning over God's beauty. She requested the Commission deny the proposal. She commented she sympathized with the applicant, however, there must be some other alternative, rather than pushing something onto the residents they have already indicated they do not want. Dave Piacentini, 14424 Jonquil Street, stated he lived a few doors down from Mr. Schmidt's house, and could vouch for the fact that his home has one of the nicest curb appeals of any house in the 70 home neighborhood. He stated he believed he would also have difficulty attempting to sell his house next year. He stated he had a much work to do to make his house look as good as Mr. Schmidt's, however, stated he planned on doing this, and was looking at thousands of dollars of loss as a result of the proposed tower. Mr. Piacentini commented that even if he remains in his home, it will cost him an additional $400 per year to live there, because he will have to have cable service. He stated he worked on televisions and VCR's as a living, and was aware of what the tower would do, in terms of reception. He stated he has not had to have cable service during the 12 years he has lived in his home. Mr. Piacentini stated he has had very difficult experiences in dealing with the City of Andover over issues in the past. He remarked that the consideration of this proposal was an insult to his intelligence. r '\" .> Regular Andover PlanninfJd Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 9 / '\ '-J Mr. Piacentini stated he had a digital cellular telephone. He pointed out there was service available in the area, and added that the proposed tower is not necessary. He explained that the tower would be double the height of the existing tree line, which he estimated to be between 65 and 75 feet high, and would be an offensive sight to anyone who sees it. He added if the proposal goes forward, he will sell his home as soon as he can, and move out of Andover, as this will be the final straw for him. Vicki Oren, 14423 Kerry Street suggested instead of building this "major eyesore" they attempt to construct walking paths, which they have been attempting to acquire in the area since she moved there 11 years ago. She stated there was no place to walk, and no place for their children to go except around their small block. She added, with the current construction on Bunker Lake Boulevard, it takes her 20 minutes to get out onto Round Lake Boulevard. Acting Chair Apel stated it was important the speakers do not expand upon the topic, in consideration of the time. He stated he understood Mrs. Gren's position, however, the City Council provided an open forum for such topics, and inquired if she had a specific question in regard to the issue at hand. Mrs. Oren stated the residents did not want the tower. She inquired when the Commission would make their decision to approve or deny this request. :~) Acting Chair Apel explained the Planning and Zoning Commission does not make the final decision, rather they are an advisory body. He stated the Commission would forward a recommendation of approval or denial of the Special Use Permit, or table the item. Mrs. Oren stated the residents on Jonquil Street were not notified regarding this proposal. Acting Chair Ape! suggested Mrs. Gren bring this up during the open forum at a City Council meeting, along with her request for walking trails. He explained it was necessary to keep the discussion germane to the issue at hand. Mrs. Oren reiterated the residents do not want the tower. Acting Chair Apel stated he understood this, as no one had come up to speak in favor of it at this point. He stated the Commission did not need to be told this over and over again. He stated he would provide the applicant the opportunity for rebuttal, as this was a democratic proceeding. There was an objection from the floor. Acting Chair Apel stated if anyone had new information to present, the Commission would be happy to listen, however, it was not sensible to continue to reiterate the same concerns, and indicate their opposition to the proposal. :J Regular Andover PlanninJu~d Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 10 ~) The objecting audience member stated he had the right to voice his opinion. Acting Chair Apel stated he certainly did, however, he should understand that the discussion is getting out of hand, and he may decide to curtail it. He explained that the Commission had already heard the opposition to this proposal, and were fully aware of it. He pointed out that if it was necessary he could limit the public forum and the minutes as well, and would do so, if necessary, unless someone presented information that had not been previously stated. Mike Becker, 14436 Jonquil Street NW, stated one of the issues brought up earlier related to the fines of US West Wireless in 1996. He explained the applicant was fined by the Attorney General's Office for performance issues, and had announced they would donate this fine to the community school library services. He stated the ongoing fines are related to a meeting that he had with the Public Utilities Commission many months prior, at which a case was decided in his favor, and US West Wireless still pays fines for issues related to services. ./- "\ ,.J Mr. Becker apologized for not being involved in this matter prior to this meeting. He noted the statement that this was a new issue, and inquired if this represented the entire process was to be undertaken again. He stated his concern was that this proposal might set a precedent in a residential area. He explained if the proposal is approved, it will be set a precedent to allow these towers in residential areas. Mr. Becker stated it would be responsible for the Commission to decline this request based upon the ongoing potential cost to the taxpayers, as relates to environmental impact requirements which may be sought, as well as potential litigation costs, if the community chooses to object to the decision, should it be approved and constructed. He stated the residents who live in the area could best indicate the effect to the property values as a result of this proposal. Mr. Becker stated the Commissioners were the representatives of the people, and requested they vote according to the wishes of their constituency, and in the best interest ofthe City of Andover. Dave Fischer, representative of US West Wireless, the applicant, expressed his thanks to Mr. Hinzman for his comprehensive site plan summary. He clarified that the proposed tower would not require any lighting as it will be less than 200 feet in height, and according to FAA requirement compliance, lighting will not be required. He stated they would comply with the Environmental Protection Agency, in relation to the flood plain and other issues. Mr. Fischer stated the proposed site is within the zoning compliance and regulations. Mr. Fischer pointed out that they have been pursuing a site in the Andover area since November of 1998. He explained they have looked at several different locations including the water tower, and had recently conducted a drive test, which indicated it would provide marginal coverage for them. Mr. Fischer stated they had researched several different ground build opportunities, however, they ~J were outside of the service range. , -\ '-~ , '\ \.-./ ~) Regular Andover Plannini~~d Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Fischer commented there are other service providers in the area, however, US West Wireless feels it is very important they bring another carrier into the area, in order to provide more competitive rates to the consumers. He requested the proposed site be approved. Mr. Becker inquired if US West had performed an environmental assessment. Mr. Fischer stated they had not. Mr. Becker inquired if the cost of construction would be higher in a commercial zoned area. Mr. Fischer stated they were attempting to find a location in agricultural, industrial, or rural zoned areas. Mr. Becker inquired if Mr. Fisher was aware if costs of constructing the tower were higher in commercially zoned properties. Mr. Fisher stated the consideration was to find a location that was acceptable in terms of coverage area and co-location. Mr. Hentges inquired regarding the necessity of a tower 150 feet in height. Mr. Fisher stated the height of the structure was based upon their design requirements, and the location of other sites in relation to the proposed tower. Mr. Hentges inquired if it would be possible to co-locate this facility on the water tower and meet the coverage area. Mr. Fischer explained that this would not be acceptable in terms of meeting the design requirements. Mr. Hentges inquired regarding other residential areas in which US West Wireless had constructed ISO-foot towers. Mr. Fischer stated he was uncertain. Acting Chair Apel advised he would close the debate at 8:00 p.m., and invited anyone else desiring to speak before the Commission to do so at this time. Mrs. Piacentini, 14424 Jonquil Street stated she was opposed to the proposal. She stated the residents did not want the tower, and in light of the other providers in the area, the additional service was not necessary. She asked how much income this proposal represented for US West Wireless. Steven Mangold, Regional Real Estate Manager for US West Wireless, stated the applicant is licensed to operate by the Federal government, and a requirement of their license is to provide service to the areas they are licensed in. He noted it was also a matter of good business to provide these services in Andover, as they have received a number of complaints regarding service, and this was the factor that generated the proposed site. He explained they must maintain their license agreement with the Federal government, which requires they must provide the service for the area in which they are licensed. Regular Andover Plannin[Jd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 12 ~) Mohammed , Design Engineer for US West Wireless, stated the reason they desired to construct the tower on the proposed site is because if the towers are constructed in too close a proximity to each other, they will experience interference. He explained the height of the tower was required, as it would be quite a distance from the town area, and the higher the tower, the more coverage they can obtain. Mr. Hentges inquired if the applicant would not receive the same amount of coverage by constructing their facility on top of the water tower. Mohammed explained they would not obtain the same coverage, as the area is wide Mr. Piacentini inquired regarding the coverage difference between aIOO-foot and ISO-foot tower. Mohammed stated without calculations he could not answer this question. He stated, however, they required the ISO-foot height in order to reach their coverage area objective. Acting Chair Apel closed the debate at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Daninger inquired if he took a cellular telephone to the proposed site, would it work. Mohammed stated this would depend upon how many people are using the service at that time. :) Commissioner Daninger inquired if he took his cellular telephone to the site during non-peak time, would it work. Mohammed stated that the quality would be very poor. Commissioner Hedin inquired if there was any other location on the twenty-acre parcel that was not in the flood zone, where the antenna could be placed. Mr. Fischer stated the proposed site best meets their objective, as well as the property owner's preference for the location of the tower. Commissioner Hedin inquired if there was any other place further into the interior, or farther away from the residential areas where the structure could be reasonably placed. Mr. Fischer stated not within the discretion of the property owner Acting Chair Apel explained the Commission was looking for a yes or no answer. Mr. Fischer stated he did not know. He explained that another location could be discussed, however, the landowner would have to agree to this. He stated their landowner was willing to allow the tower to be located at the site they are proposing. Commissioner Hedin stated, in his understanding the remainder of the parcel that is needed is agricultural, which is not located within the flood plan. Mr. Fischer stated this was correct. Commissioner Hedin inquired, therefore, was it not possible to place the structure elsewhere on the twenty-acre parcel, away from the residential area, if the property owner would permit this. Mr. ~ Fischer stated this was correct. Regular Andover Plannin})d Zoning Commission Meeting U Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 13 /- \ 'oj Commissioner Hedin inquired if the only other problem with doing this would be the cost of installing utility lines, and constructing a roadway to access the structure. Mr. Fischer indicated this was correct, and the fact that the landowner would have to drive around the structure in his field. Commissioner Hedin stated he understood this. He asked, however, if there was any other location on the twenty-acre parcel that would satisfy US West Wireless' need for a tower in this area. Mr. Fischer stated another area would achieve the objective, however, it would not be their preference. Commissioner Falk inquired regarding the setback requirement ofthe tower from the road. Mr. Hinzman stated the setback requirement was equivalent to the fall-zone of the tower. He stated they have received some information from one of the structural engineers that the tower would collapse onto itself, if it were to fall, however, staff will review the design engineer's report for further clarification. He stated the IIO-foot setback from the roadway is a sufficient setback for the City Ordinance, because the fall-zone indicated by the structural engineer would be within that area, and not a public road. There was no other public input. :) Motion by Daninger, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, vote, 2-absent vote. Acting Chair Apel stated the Commission had heard much discussion on this subject. He suggested the individual Commission members provide their opinions. Commissioner Dalien stated the area he would focus upon in Ordinance No.8, is Item 3, the effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area. He commented this seemed to be the major issue brought forward by the neighborhood. He stated he would agree with the residents who spoke in that he would not want the view to be interrupted by a ISO-foot tower. He stated he understood the technology used by all requires these facilities, however, he would hope they could find more appropriate places to locate them. He stated he would vote against placing the tower in this particular location. Commissioner Daninger stated he thought the ordinance was not beneficial to US West Wireless. He explained that the applicant had spent much time on this proposal, based upon how the ordinance was written, and if it was changed, and they had been aware of this at the beginning they may have saved some time. His stated he had asked if a cellular telephone would work at this location, and he understood they were attempting to obtain promulgation beyond that point, and did not doubt that. He pointed out, however, he would not want a tower in his backyard, and based upon the scenic view provision of the ordinance, would request denial of the application at this time. ~J ') () Regular Andover Plannin~ und Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 14 ,- '\ '- _.J Commissioner Falk stated prior to the current debate, he had circled Item 3 of Ordinance 8 regarding property values. He stated he would not want this tower to be located in his back yard. He explained he has a cellular telephone, as he believed the majority of people present do, and he becomes frustrated when he can not get a signal. He stated he would side with US West Wireless in their attempt to provide service so that their customers can communicate with each other via cellular telephones. He reiterated, however, he would not want this tower in his backyard. He stated he was voting for denial of the tower. Commissioner Hedin stated he also used a cellular telephone, which fluctuates between digital and analog technology. He stated the proposed tower would likely benefit him. He explained, however, scenic views are important. He pointed out that 150 people have indicated they do not want the tower, and he has not heard anyone who was in favor of the tower. He stated the applicant missed the opportunity to educate the Commission regarding why they required a ISO-foot tower, instead of a 120 or 12S-foot tower, as well as the opportunity to inform the Commission why any other location on the property would or would not have worked. He stated it was overwhelmingly the public's desire not to have the tower, therefore, he would vote for denial. /\ ,_J Acting Chair Apel stated a more basic question was presented in this consideration than the applicant's right to build, and this is the concept ofthe Special Use Permit. He explained the Special Use Permit was designed to test the neighborhood, to determine if it would accept a proposal coming forward, therefore, it is the neighborhood that is important, and the neighborhood does not want the tower. He stated there must be an extremely compelling reason to impose such a thing upon a neighborhood. He stated this basic concept is often overlooked, because people seem to think Special or Conditional Use Permits are a right, however, they are not a right, they are simply a means to test a neighborhood. He stated more importantly, in this specific case, the proposed site was not appropriate for a commercial enterprise, regardless of its nature. He stated it would change the nature of the neighborhood significantly, and the tower is an "eyesore." Acting Chair Apel stated he believed everyone had spent time reviewing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which reiterated the rights of citizens to protect their neighborhood in regard to a similar installation. He explained in this specific case, there was significant amount of money involved for the landowner, however, the District Court directed the Council who had denied the proposal to let the paella have their right to the Conditional Use Permit, and the Fourth District Court reversed that decision. He stated he believed this points to the fact that Conditional Use Permits should be controlled and guided by different considerations. He noted there are no such towers in residential areas at present, and US West Wireless has not answered the request to provide the residents with a list of such towers in residentially zoned areas. He explained that this did not mean that if they had provided a list, the Commission would have gone along with this proposal, as he did not believe they could. He stated he would vote for denial. , "- I '- j ( ) () Regular Andover Planniniund Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 15 / , J './ Commissioner Dalien stated he would move to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit, and indicate the reason for denial is that the residents do not want it, due to their concerns regarding the affect to property values and scenic views in the surrounding area. Acting Chair Apel stated he would also indicate that Andover has none of these towers in residential areas at present, and the Commission does not desire to set a precedent. Commissioner Dalien stated he agreed. Acting Chair Apel stated he would further indicate that the relocation of the tower 100 feet west of the original site has not adequately addressed the flood plain and endangered wetland concerns, and these issues were not resolved. Commissioner Dalien stated he agreed / " '.J Motion by Dalien, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Resolution No. _, a Resolution Denying the Special Use Permit Request of US West Wireless for the Construction of a Wireless Communication Facility (PCS Antenna/Tower - 150 Feet in Height From Ground Level) on the Property Located at 32XX South Coon Creek Drive NW (Pin # 29-32-24-41- 0003), Legally Described as the East 615 Feet of the NE Y. of the SE Y. Lying Northerly of the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of South Coon Creek Drive NW, Excluding Roads Subject to Easement of Record, for Reasons Including the Concerns of the Neighborhood in Regard to the Effect to the Property Values and Scenic Views in the Surrounding Areas, and that None of These Towers are Presently Located Within the Residential Areas of the City of Andover, and the Commission Does Not Desire to Set a Precedent, and the Issues Regarding the Flood Plain and Endangered Wetland Have Not Been Adequately Addressed. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 99-17) - LAND RECLAMATION - 27.xx SOUTH COON CREEK DRIVE NW - DIONICIO BORJA. City Planner, John Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve a Special Use Permit for land reclamation at 27xx South Coon Creek Drive NW. The subject property is located between South Coon Creek Drive and Coon Creek, to the east of South Coon Creek Drive, and adjacent to Kensington Estates. He stated the property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant proposes to replace approximately 2,600 cubic yards of sand with " clean fill, to replace some of the topsoil that was lost in the area due to wind erosion that has './ Regular Andover Plannini'~~d Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 16 , '1 \....) / , , , / occurred over the years. He indicated that some of the fill has already been brought onto the site, necessitating the Special Use Permit, which is required when more than 400 cubic yards of fill are brought onto the property. He explained that the finished grades would bring the elevation of the site up between one and four feet. Mr. Hinzman stated the proposed site is buffered to the north by trees and Coon Creek and to the south by South Coon Creek Drive. He noted the nearest resident is located over 350 feet from the subject property. He stated staff will require the applicant to provide a final determination of the 100-year flood elevation. He explained that staff has determined the flood elevation through FEMA maps, however, requires a closer delineation of the plan, and a condition that this be better identified has been included in the resolution. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the Commission's options for action. He stated staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, pursuant to the submittal of the final grading plan identifying the 100-year flood elevation, and the exclusion of that land from the grading. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin to open the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. " \ "--_/ There was no public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger to close the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Commissioner Falk inquired how the City regulates the amount of fill brought onto the site prior to approval of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Hinzman advised staff will go to the site during the application process, and examine the grading as it continues, to insure it is up to contour. He indicated at that time, staff will also insure that clean fill is being brought onto the site, adding there is an agreement between the City and the property owner to verify that the fill is clean. Commissioner Falk inquired how staff would verify that the fill previously brought onto the site is clean. Mr. Hinzman stated this would be more difficult to determine, however, staff will examine the site in this regard as well. Acting Chair Apel pointed out that 400 cubic yards of fill were allowed on the site without necessitating a Special Use Permit. Motion Daninger, seconded by Hedin to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Land Use Permit for Land Reclamation for Dionicio Borja on Land Located at 27XX South Coon Creek Drive NW (PIN 28-32-24-13-0003). Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. .- '\ , , , -' Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 17 Acting Chair Apel stated this item would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 99-19) - LIQUOR LICENSE - 135xx MARTIN STREET NW - LOT 3, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER STATION -116, LLC PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 99-20) - TWO (2) LIGQUOR LICENSES -19xx BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD, NW - LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER STATION 0116, LLC Mr. Hinzman requested the Commission combine Items 5 and 6 for consideration. The Commission agreed. t' " '-- ) Mr. Hinzman stated the Planning Commission is requested to review the request for three (3) liquor licenses for 116, LLC in Andover Station. He explained one of the sites is located at 135xx Martin Street NW, and the applicant proposes a banquet hall facility at this site, and requests to have one liquor license at that facility. He indicated the facility will be approximately 18,000 square feet, with a 17,000 square foot courtyard area to the west for receptions and other events, and liquor will be served outdoors in this area. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant is proposes to construct a sports bar and restaurant on the same lot of record, and two liquor licenses are requested. He indicated the restaurant will be 6,400 square feet in area, and the sports bar and gaming facility will be approximately 22,000 square feet. Mr. Hinzman stated both facilities anticipate 2,000 square feet of outdoor patio area in which to serve liquor. He explained these areas will be connected to the building, and will be closed off to access, to limit service to patrons only. Mr. Hinzman stated the site will be predominantly surrounded by commercial uses, and the only residential area is south of Commercial Boulevard, which presents a substantial boundary. He added that the use is consistent with the planned uses of the Andover Station Master Plan. Mr. Hinzman stated staff recommends approval of the three liquor licenses. He stated specific requirements in both resolutions stipulate that both areas must be contained and closed off for the outdoor liquor licenses. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearings for items 5 and 6 at 8:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. r-' 1 I ./ There was no public input. /-') '../ '--\ 'J :_J Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 18 Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearings for Items 5 and 6 at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Dalien to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit for a Liquor License at 135XX Martin Street NW, Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Station for 116, LLC. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2 absent vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit for Two (2) Liquor Licenses at 19XX Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, Lot 2, Block 1, Andover Station for 116, LLC. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated these items would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. Commissioner Falk inquired how soon the applicant proposes to commence construction of the facilities. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant is presently going through the Commercial Site Plan process and staff is expecting the plans to be submitted within the next two weeks. He explained, however, in terms of construction of the footings, it may be somewhat late in the season for this. Michael Quigley, representative of 116, LLC, the applicant, explained they were hoping to begin construction of two of the buildings in November, pending the site plan approval and the issuance of the required building permits. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 99-21) - REAL ESTATE SIGN - 1641 155TH A VENUE NW - FOX HOLLOW - GOR-EM, LLC PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - (SUP 99-22) - REAL ESTATE SIGN -15302 MARTIN STREET NW - FOX HOLLOW - GOR-EM, LLC Planning Intern, Megan Barnett requested the Commission combine Items 7 and 8 for consideration. The Commission agreed. Ms. Barnett stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to review a Special Use Permit request by Gor-em, LLC to allow for two real estate signs. She indicated one of the signs will be located at 1641 155th Avenue, and the other located at 15302 Martin Street. She stated the properties are both zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. Mr. Barnett reviewed the applicable ordinances and the criteria presented. Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 19 /) , ../ Mr. Barnett stated the applicant is requesting to erect two four (4) foot by eight (8) foot real estate signs to market the single family residential development of Fox Hollows. She provided the Commission with a picture of the proposed signs. Ms. Barnett reviewed the Commission's options for action. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin to open the public hearings for Items 7 and 8, at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin to close the public hearings for Items 7 and 8, at 8:36 p.m. ~J Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit Request of Gor-em, LLC to Erect One (1) Real Estate Sign Along Hanson Boulevard NW on the Property Located at 1641, 155th Avenue, Legally Described as Lot 4, Block 8, Fox Hollow (PIN 22-32-24-11-0022), and Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit Request of Gor-em, LLC to Erect (1) Real Estate Sign Along Nightingale Street on the Property Located at 15302 Martin Street, Legally Described as Lot 8, Block 1, Fox Hollow (PIN 22-32-24-13-0023). Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. Acting Chair Apel stated these items would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - (SUP 99-24) - RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE -159xx CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW - GARY CRIDER. Mr. Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the request of Gary Crider to relocate a home on approximately 17.5 acres located at 159xx Crosstown Boulevard NW. He indicated the subject property was located east of Crosstown Boulevard, to the south of Constance Boulevard, and the northwest comer of the site is the planned location of a future fire station. Mr. Hinzman stated the property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the applicable ordinances, and the criteria presented. Mr. Hinzman stated the proposed site is surrounded by the R-l, Single Family Rural Zoning District, and the nearest home is located approximately 560 feet from the subject property. Mr. Hinzman explained the proposed home is a 1,600 square foot walkout rambler, constructed in ~J the mid 1980's, and is currently located in the city of Coon Rapids. He stated staff has contacted the Regular Andover PlanningCdd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 20 " I ,-j Coon Rapids Assessors Department to determine if there were any outstanding issues with regard to the structure, and were informed that there were none. Mr. Hinzman provided the Commission with the site plan of the proposed site, noting that it is located a substantial distance, approximately 500 feet, from Crosstown Boulevard to the east, and approximately 130 feet from the northern property line. He indicated there were wooded areas to the north and east of the proposed site, with an open field located to the south. Mr. Hinzman stated staff has reviewed the age and value of the proposed home, in comparison with other homes in the area, and found it to be consistent with the value ofthose homes. Mr. Hinzman advised the site buildability will require official confirmation by the Building Department. He explained staff has had preliminary discussions with the Building Official in this regard, and the site appears to be buildable, however, final verification will be required, as well as identification of the primary and secondary septic system fields, at 5,000 square feet each, which will be set aside and undisturbed during the construction process. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant will be required to obtain a moving permit from the Building Department, prior to the relocation of the structure. \ ) Mr. Hinzman outlined the Commission's options for action. He stated staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to the provisions of the resolution, which include identification of the septic system areas, and that the structure be placed upon a permanent foundation within 30 days of the issuance ofthe building permit. Commissioner Hedin inquired how often houses had been moved into the City of Andover. Mr. Hinzman explained typically, this occurs once every few years, with approximately five or six relocations since 1980. Commissioner Hedin inquired if there were any issues with regard to relocating the structure, in terms of blocking off the streets. Acting Chair Apel indicated these matters are regulated by the State. Mr. Hinzman added, through the provisions of the moving permit, the applicant will be required to provide the Building Official with the identified route, and identify any overhead power lines or any other structures that might interfere with the movement of the structure, and make provisions for that. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the structure would be transported via a licensed contractor. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. , \ ,__J Regular Andover PlanningQd Zoning Commission Meeting () Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 21 , ) '-J Gary Crider, the applicant, indicated Audi Housebuilders of Lakeville would transport the structure. Mr. Hinzman commented he believed this company had relocated a structure onto Crosstown Boulevard a few years prior, and he did not recall any issues with regard to that project. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit for the Relocation of a Structure (Home) to 159xx Crosstown Boulevard, NW by Gary Crider on Property Owned by William Norlund (PIN 13-32-24- 32-0006). Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - (SUP 99-23) - GARAGE BEFORE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE -159xx CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW - GARY CRIDER. Ms. Barnett stated the Planning Commission is asked to review a Special Use Permit request by Gary Crider to construct an accessory structure prior to the placement of a principal structure on the property located at 159xx Crosstown Boulevard NW. ~J Ms. Barnett reviewed the applicable ordinances, and the criteria presented. Ms. Barnett stated the applicant is requesting to relocate the principal structure for storage of basement items. She stated the garage structure will be twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (6) feet, and the applicant will be required to place the structure in accordance with the minimum setback requirements of the R-l zoning district. Ms. Barnett requested the Commission consider setting a time frame for the placement of the principal structure onto the property. She explained the accessory structure will be placed onto the property so as to accommodate for the future placement of the principal structure. Ms. Barnett outlined the Commission's options for action. Commissioner Daninger inquired regarding the amount of time anticipated between the completion of the garage and the relocation of the house, and if there was any past history from which to draw guidance in regard to setting a time frame. Mr. Hinzman stated a 60 to 90-day time frame had been utilized in the past. Acting Chair Apel stated a 90-day period was the typical time frame. Mr. Hinzman explained that generally staff determines what the applicant is requesting to do, and if his time frame is reasonable for the ordinance. / \ . J '---./ ~J ~~) / '\ o o () Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 22 Acting Chair Apel commented that the City's concern has been with regard to the potential of a property with an accessory structure located upon it, and no main structure. He noted there were a few occasions where this had occurred, and the City has made some exceptions in the past. Commissioner Falk inquired regarding the applicable ordinance. Mr. Hinzman advised that a subsection of Ordinance No.8 regulated this matter. Acting Chair Apel asked if the Building Official had seen this proposal. Mr. Hinzman stated he had, and had expressed that his only concern was that the principal structure be placed on the property, prior to the accessory structure. Commissioner Hedin inquired if the applicant would have sufficient time to pour the footings if the Special Use Permit is not approved until the November 2 City Council meeting. Mr. Crider stated the construction would be ongoing throughout the fall. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. There was no pubic input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Motion carried on a 5- ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. Commissioner Falk noted the Commission was requested to indicate a time frame for placement of the house, after the completion of the garage. Mr. Hinzman inquired how much time the applicant anticipated between the completion of the garage structure and the placement of the home onto the property. Mr. Crider stated this would depend upon the moving contractor. Commissioner Hedin asked the applicant if 90 days would be acceptable. Mr. Crider stated it would. Commissioner Hedin inquired if this should be indicated as 90 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Hinzman suggested this be 90 days from the completion of the garage, as this is when the structure will be officially habitable, and in conformance with the zoning ordinance. Motion Falk, seconded by Hedin, to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit Request for Gary Crider to Construct an Accessory Structure Prior to the Placement of a Principal Structure on the Property Located at 159XX Crosstown Boulevard, NW (PIN 13-32-24-32-0006) with the Condition that the House Must be Moved Onto a Permanent r' () Regular Andover Planning'{fn~ Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 23 , "- ,_J Foundation on the Property 90 days from the Completion of the Garage. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent vote. Acting Chair Apel stated this item would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. VARIANCE: (VAR 99-10) - VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 - SIDEYARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT OF A GARAGE - 2551136TH A VENUE NW - JOHN STINSON. Mr. Hinzman stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the request of John Stinson for two variances to allow for an existing principal structure to encroach into the frontyard setback, and allow for an addition to an attached garage that will encroach into the sideyard setback from the street, on the property located at 2551, 136th Avenue NW. Mr. Hinzman stated the subject property is located on the comer of Yukon Street and 136th Avenue, in the Hidden Creek area, south of Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated the property is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban. Mr. Hinzman explained that one of the requested variances is a five-foot variance for the existing /-) structure and garage, and the second variance is to allow for the proposed addition of a third stall in " the garage, with the total variance being 12.1 feet. Mr. Hinzman stated the home was constructed in the mid-to-Iate 1980's, prior to the requirement of "as built" surveys of properties. He explained that a survey had been performed at the time of construction, however, the structure had been drawn in on the survey, and later inspection determined that the placement of the structure on the property was incorrect. He advised that the existing house is a non-conforming structure. Mr. Hinzman stated the applicant proposes to construct a three-season porch at the rear of the non- conforming structure, and work can not commence on this project until the variance is granted for the non-conformance of the house. Mr. Hinzman indicated the applicant's second request is for the issuance of the 12.l-foot variance to the third stall of the garage. He pointed out the Building Department first became aware of the non- conformance of the structure when the application came forward for the garage, and the Building Official went to the site and determined it was not in compliance. Mr. Hinzman explained that the general criteria presented for recommending approval of a variance include practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the hardships or difficulties must be related to the characteristics of the land, and not the property owner. He noted staff did not have an issue with , "\ regard to the criteria in terms of the existing structure, as the hardship was the result of an error that .'--./ Regular Andover PlanniniJd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 24 , '\ '-) was made at that time, and this is a means to alleviate that error. He explained however, staff has some question as to whether a hardship exists in terms of the third stall of the garage. He explained there might be other possibilities to construct an additional storage facility at the rear of the building, which would meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. He added, in light of the recent developments with regard to accessory structure provisions on other variances and rulings, the criteria is considered quite carefully to insure the variance provisions are being met. Acting Chair Apel stated the applicant's proposal was fairly clear, and he agreed with staffs determination that there was no issue with the five-foot variance request. He stated he personally had no problem in terms of the screen porch addition, although a solution that would allow for additional storage could certainly be accommodated. He pointed out however, this would likely alter the visual impact of the house. He stated he would forward a recommendation of approval of the request, as written. Commissioner Hedin commented if the original survey measurements had been correct, the matter would not be required to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hinzman advised if the house had been constructed at the correct setback, a varIance of approximately seven feet would still be required for the expansion of the garage. ~_) Commissioner Hedin inquired why the applicant had requested a refund of the variance fee, if a variance was still required. Mr. Hinzman stated whether or not to refund the variance fee was up to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He explained that the first variance was the result of an error made through the process with the study in the late 1980's and the variance process is required, however, it is required as a result of an error. Commissioner Falk stated he was not opposed to a refund of the variance fee. Commissioner Daninger commented that the major issue appeared to be in terms ofthe garage. Acting Chair Apel stated this issue could not be resolved, even through the granting of a variance, however, the City has made exceptions to similar considerations in the past. Mr. Hinzman advised that if the variance is granted, a unique hardship should be identified on this property, to set it apart from other variances that have been denied. Commissioner Daninger inquired what the hardship would be. :,) Regular Andover Plannin~Jd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 25 , , Acting Chair Apel stated the hardship would be denying a citizen of his property rights simply because of a rule. He added that many times a person is denied reasonable property rights, not because a neighbor objects, but simply because of a rule. Commissioner Hedin pointed out that the building permit was issued under the assumption that there was sufficient room for the garage expansion, and the applicant was proceeding according to what he assumed the City permitted. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He stated the building permit was applied for, the inspection was conducted, and the area was surveyed. He added that some site application has occurred on the property as well, and the applicants have signed an agreement to install some of the footings at their own risk. Commissioner Hedin stated the applicants were relying on measurements that were not correct. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. He explained that the measurements were not taken by the City, but by the original surveyor, and since an "as built" survey was not required in 1987, the City was relying upon measurements that were false. He explained when the error was determined, the variance process commenced, and the stop-work order was issued on the garage expansion. / \ ,} Commissioner Hedin noted the applicant had no reason to believe the previous measurements were incorrect. Mr. Hinzman agreed, adding that the City had no reason to believe the measurements were incorrect either. Commissioner Falk inquired how the mistake was determined. Mr. Hinzman stated the Building Inspector had examined the property, which did not appear to be correct, and after performing some field measurements, had the applicants prepare a new survey on the property, which indicated the correct measurements. Mr. Hinzman explained that the current "as built" requirements were designed to prevent these situations. He stated this was an unfortunate situation, and staff was agreeable to a variance to alleviate the problem to the point of where the house should have been located under the original ordinance, however, the placement of the house within the ordinance requirements would still require a variance. He advised that in order to proceed, some unique identifier is necessary, which indicates this situation is different from others that were denied. Acting Chair Apel pointed out that they could also find a similar situation to others that had been approved. . -- Commissioner Hedin stated, as the applicant was doing everything according to the letter of the rules of the City of Andover, and did these things in good faith. and spent some effort and money to " j Regular Andover Plannin[Jd Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 26 , , l , , remove the concrete slab, he would recommend approval of the variance with a refund of the variance fee. Commissioner Daninger stated it appeared staff had no problem with the house because of the error, however, the garage requires that a hardship be identified. He pointed out if the house had been properly situated on the property, the expansion would still have required a seven-foot variance. Mr. Hinzman stated this was correct. Acting Chair Apel pointed out that staff does not make the decision, and simply provides their opinion. He noted that Commissioner Daninger's interpretation of the matter was as valid as staffs or his own. Commissioner Daninger agreed, however, he could not find a hardship. Acting Chair Apel advised that Commissioner Daninger must follow his own beliefs. Commissioner Falk inquired if Commissioner Daninger did not understand the hardship presented with the existing structure. .,. '\ , _ j Commissioner Daninger stated he understood and agreed that a hardship could be established with regard to the house, however, he could not see a hardship in terms of the expansion ofthe garage. Joyce Stinson, the applicant's wife stated they were attempting to improve the appearance of the property. Acting Chair Apel stated one of the things overlooked in these situations at times, is that the property owner desires to improve the value of their property. He stated he would prefer not to have to turn down this type of request, and would rather leave that decision to the elected officials. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Falk, to Recommend Approval of Resolution No. R -99, a Resolution Granting the Variance Request of John Stinson to Allow for an Existing Principal Structure to Encroach 5 Feet into the Frontyard Setback and to Allow for an Addition to an Attached Garage which Will Encroach 12.1 Feet into the Sideyard Setback from the Street and Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.03 - To Allow Alterations to a Non-Conforming Structure on the Property Located at 2551, 136th Avenue NW, Legally Described as Lot 1, Block 3, Hidden Creek Addition. Motion carried on a 3-ayes, 2-nays, 2-absent vote. Mr. Hinzman stated this item would be considered at the November 2, 1999 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. r , ....- ,_/ Regular Andover Plannini~d Zoning Commission Meeting 0 Minutes - October 12, 1999 Page 27 ,- , . Mr. Hinzman updated the Commission regarding recent Council action. He stated the Council reviewed the Kerber Sketch Plan, and approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezoning for the Ashford area, located to the north of the Chesterton North subdivision. Mr. Hinzman stated at the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission there will be consideration of a Special Use Permit request for Bulk Storage of Liquid Fuels at Kotke's Bus Station. He noted the Council would provide a recommendation with regard to the ordinance pertaining to Bulk Storage of Liquid Fuels at the October 19, City Council meeting, however, the applicant desires to proceed with the application for a Special Use Permit at this time. Mr. Hinzman stated the Commission will be asked to consider an amendment to extend the time frame of the Special Use Permit for temporary classrooms at the Family of Christ Church, and possible consideration of a real estate development sign. There was no other business to come before the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Daninger, seconded by Dalien, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent vote. ! '\ ,_ _ J The meeting adjourned at 9: 11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Trish Pearson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ~ , -'-j