Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 24, 2007 C I T Y o F ~ Q....a/ NDOVE ~~ ~-H~ol 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -JULY 24,2007 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on July 24,2007,7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Michael Casey, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Tim Kirchoff and Valerie Holthus. Also present: City PI armer, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Plarmer, Chris Vrchota Others 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. June 26, 2007 Commissioner Cleveland indicated in the minutes on page 6, the name shown as Ms. Chris Warra should be Mrs. Kris Hora. Page 12, third paragraph should be 3 ~ and not 3 1/5. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Kirchoff, Holthus) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (06-09) TO EXTEND MINING PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16689 HANSON BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the applicant is requesting an extension of the mining permit that was initially issued in 1989. The permit was previously extended in 1991, 1996 and 2001. At this time the applicant is requesting that the permit be extended for two additional years. This item was tabled at the last meeting to allow the applicant to be present to answer 0 questions. A new grading plan has been provided since the last meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 24, 2007 0 Page 2 Commissioner Falk asked if the Watershed District has gotten back to staff on their findings. Mr. Bednarz indicated the applicant has not completed their application to the Watershed District. Previously there were some wetland violations that were followed up on by the Anoka Conservation District, those have been corrected but they do not have a permit from the Watershed District at this point. Commissioner Falk wondered if they will have a watershed permit by the City Council meeting. Mr. Bednarz said that that would be most unlikely. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Kirchoff, Holthus) vote. Mr. Jim Kuiken and Mr. Dennis Kuiken, 16563 Hanson Boulevard, were at the meeting to answer questions. Chairperson Daninger indicated at the last meeting there were a couple of open questions and he wondered if the applicants could address them. Mr. Dennis Kuiken stated they have one dump truck and they use the black dirt only for their sod farm. The City indicated to them they could take the Trucks Hauling sign down 0 because they did not have a lot of truck traffic, only their own truck. He actually thought the City took the signs down. Commissioner Walton wondered what the perceived time for mining was at this site. Mr. Dennis Kuiken stated they carmot get the black dirt out from the backside of the pond anymore and they would like to square it up and possibly apply for another pond somewhere else on the property. He stated they use the dirt for their sod farm. Commissioner Falk asked who told them the pond was oversized two years ago. Mr.Jim Kuiken stated Mr. Bednarz told him this. Commissioner Falk wondered if they knew they went over the amount allowed. Mr. Dennis Kuiken indicated he has not seen the original Conditional Use Permit and was the one working there and did not know they had gone over. Mr. Jim Kuiken indicated originally their father applied for the permit and they inherited it to continue the business. Chairperson Daninger wondered if they were aware of the meeting two weeks ago. Mr. Jim Kuiken indicated they were and were unable to come to the meeting. Chairperson Daninger asked if they were involved in the permit extension request. Mr. Jim Kuiken indicated they were. Chairperson Daninger wondered why they did not 0 request more time in 2001. Mr. Dennis Kuiken stated they did not know the limits and they were just trying to round out the pond. They also found more black dirt than they thought was there. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2007 0 Page 3 Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not have a problem with them taking black dirt out but it continues to grow based upon need. He stated his concern is that they will continue to take more dirt than is allowed per the CUP. He stated his goal is move this forward and not have anymore misunderstandings. Mr. Jim Kuiken showed a revised grading plan and stated they have not done anything to this area in the past year because they were told they could not remove anything, even soil. The Commission discussed with the applicants the grading plan. Commissioner Walton noted that if they approve the CUP extension, the Commission wants to be sure that the applicants know where their boundaries are and that they will comply with the boundaries approved. Mr. Jim Kuiken stated they can have this staked so they know the boundaries of the pond and the area where they can dig. Chairperson Daninger stated his concern is to make sure the City knows exactly where this is going. He wondered if the applicants have started any of the other processes for permits they need to get. Mr. Jim Kuiken indicated he has. 0 Chairperson Daninger asked if any are approved yet. Mr. Jim Kuiken stated they were not. He stated Mr. Craig Schlicter with Plow Engineering is completing all of the documents for them which should not take long. Chairperson Daninger wondered if this would be the last time they would be applying for an extension if approved. Mr. Jim Kuiken stated for this pond this extension would be the last one. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Kirchoff, Holthus) vote. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if there would be any reason why the Lower Rum River Watershed District would deny this. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was possible but he thought it was more likely that the pond could be created as proposed under additional conditions that they would need to comply with. Commissioner Walton wondered if there was any issue with them approving a CUP without the other permits being obtained. Mr. Bednarz stated the choice of whether or not to approve the CUP to allow the additional time for them to mine the site is up to the City, as structured here, that approval would be conditioned on them getting the permit and if for some reason that permit is denied the City would have to follow up and vacate Q or remove that CUP. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2007 0 Page 4 Commissioner Walton wondered if there was a permanent sign posted at one time and possibly got knocked over and was never replaced or was it always temporary signage there. Mr. Bednarz stated he has never seen a sign out there. Commissioner Walton asked if the condition for signs could require signs to face both directions on Hanson Blvd. Commissioner Walton asked if they could add to the Resolution that they stake the mining area so there is no confusion. Mr. Bednarz stated this should be included in the motion. Chairperson Daninger asked what the violations were that needed to be corrected. Mr. . Bednarz stated there. was an issue outside of the ponds where there was activity. The Anoka Conservation District followed up with the applicant and they did promptly correct the issue the Conservation District identified. That is no longer an issue on the site. Mr. Kuiken indicated that was a motor cross track and was corrected by the applicant. Chairperson Daninger wondered when the applicant was aware they went outside the 0 CUP permit from 2001. Mr. Bednarz indicated they were notified sometime last year. This application was actually filed sometime late last year and it was around that time . staff was in contact with the Conservation District and they also identified the issue. Chairperson Daninger asked what the best course of corrective action was. Mr. Bednarz stated staff is recommending approval so the City and the Watershed District can work with the applicant to complete this pond, make sure the slopes are safe, reseed along the edges and have this pond completed within the regulations. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to extend minine; permit for property located at 16689 Hanson Boulevard NW with changes to the Resolution involving a staking by the applicant with City approval of the proposed pond size area and a modification to bullet point seven about signs being placed by the driveway of Hanson Boulevard but servicing both directions of Hanson Boulevard alerting the traffic on Hanson that there are trucks hauling. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, I-nays (Daninger), 2-absent (Kirchoff, Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 8, 2007 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2007 0 Page 5 Mr. Vrchota explained based on input from a resident, the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider whether or not changes are needed to the City's Animal Control Code. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. . Nuisance Dogs/Barking Mr. Vrchota stated this is covered in the City Code under Section 5-1-Al. One thing that is not in there is a definition of what constitutes habitual barking. Looking at the City of Plainview's Code, they do have a definition of habitual barking as "Repeated intervals of at least five minutes with less than one minute of interruption". If they were looking to add something a little more objective to this, this definition is a little more concrete and . not so loose. He stated this is something they may want to consider adding to their code to make it a little more specific. Chairperson Daninger stated one of the things they need to change is they need to come to a decision about what is habitual. He stated he liked the five minute rule but he did not know if five minutes would be too little. He thought if it were a nuisance, the dog would continually bark and not stop after five minutes. 0 Commissioner Casey stated he agreed with the five minute interval. He thought this would give the Deputies some control because it would define the nuisance and give them some direction. He indicated he was under the interpretation until he read the report that it followed the noise ordinance of 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Chairperson Daninger indicated a Deputy has discretion in their authority to verbally warn or issue a citation so there are many avenues of flexibility but if it is not in their ordinance then it is just a judgment call. Chairperson Daninger wondered if any of the Commissioners thought the time limit should be longer. Commissioner Falk felt five minutes was the right amount. If they go ten minutes or longer, there is a point where enough is enough. Commissioner Cleveland thought having the five minutes allowed the Sheriff's Deputy to not have to exercise judgment and know that it is a violation and issue a citation. Commission concurrence was to add the five minute definition to the City Code. A resident asked what would happen if a dog would bark on and off throughout the day and night but not within five minute intervals. Mr. Vrchota stated that would be a difficult situation without a deputy witnessing this. He thought this type of nuisance 0 would be difficult to enforce. Chairperson Daninger concurred and indicated they are looking at just one area of the code but he wondered if they currently have anything in their ordinance for this. Commissioner Cleveland thought they did if someone was Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 24, 2007 0 Page 6 willing to define what it was to be armoyed. He stated Plainview has defined habitually but they did not define armoyed. He thought if someone was armoyed, it would be something where a person could make a call to the Sheriff's Department to have them come out. A resident thought certain breeds of dogs barked more than others and were armoying more than others. Commissioner Cleveland stated in the Plainview regulation, it indicates the barking has to be heard off the owner's property in the same paragraph where it defines habitual. He wondered if that was something they would also incorporate. Chairperson Daninger thought it only had to affect anyone who could hear it, which could be one neighbor. He thought if it affected a neighbor or neighbors that would be an Issue. Commissioner Falk wondered how they would define a neighbor that always calls on a certain dog barking which does not affect other neighbors, is that habitual or annoying. Commissioner Cleveland stated when he looked at Paragraph D in the report; to him it is sort of like the dog in a fenced yard that charges or barks specifically at the neighbor. This would fit armoy but it does not suggest the barking is armoying. 0 Chairperson Daninger thought they could add to Paragraph D, barking over time. He thought the problem may be coming with the enforcement side of it. Commissioner Walton wondered if it could do with the number of complaints filed with the Sheriff's over a certain amount of time. Chairperson Daninger thought if they included this a neighbor will call just to rack up the number of calls. He thought if a dog barked all night it would armoy the person. Mr. Vrchota thought the word "armoy" will be hard to define in the City Code because it is such a subjective term. He thought what they may want to look at is defining frequently and setting some kind of standard for that. Chairperson Daninger thought it may be a good start to put in the five minutes and then somehow define frequency. Commissioner Walton thought the missing piece is the corroboration part. He thought they needed to have more than one person indicating it is happening such as another neighbor, police officer or multiple complaints. Chairperson Daninger thought they were all in concurrence with adding the five minutes to the ordinance. He wondered how they could define the intermittent dog barking throughout the day or night and how they could enforce that. C Commissioner Walton wondered what the policy was for a nuisance dog. Mr. Vrchota referred to pages 16 and 17 which laid out the process. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2007 C Page 7 Commissioner Walton indicated in the Plainview Ordinance if a dog is viewed as a nuisance, their police officers can go in and take the dog to stop the nuisance and he wondered how their Deputies could enforce it. Mr. Vrchota stated there is a process laid out in the Code on how nuisance conditions are handled and it does go to the City Council before any action can be taken. The Commission discussed with staff the current regulations regarding how the City handles nuisance dogs. Commissioner Walton thought they should look at a quicker resolution to a nuisance problem. . Potentially Dangerous Dogs Mr. Vrchota stated the City currently defines a dangerous dog in section 5-1-Al of the code. There is one word that is not defined which is ''unprovoked''. He stated the City of Plainview does define it which may be further clarification they can look at for their code. Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not have a problem adding this because it is a 0 potential word that needs to be added. Commissioner Falk agreed with the addition of the wording. A resident asked if the threats are directed towards humans or other pets. Chairperson Daninger thought in Item C, it included everything except wild animals. Commissioner Walton indicated dogs are hunters and will go after wild animals so he did not think they wanted to go that far. Commissioner Walton stated in Section 5 .1.a-ll, page 11, paragraph A talks about resolution which will take two to three weeks. He thought there was something missing because they should be able to make a resolution faster about a potentially dangerous dog. Mr. Vrchota indicated the Sheriff's Department has other policies they do use and if they feel an animal is a threat they can take the animal. Chairperson Daninger indicated if a dog were to attack a child it would be immediately contained. . Restraint Mr. Vrchota indicated this section deals with "invisible fencing". He stated their City Code has a definition for restraint. He stated both staff and the Sheriff's Department had 0 interpreted that definition to mean that invisible fencing is a permitted type of restraint for a dog. The interpretation has been challenged. He stated the City ofLakeville Code Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes-July 24,2007 0 Page 8 has a more in-depth definition for "restraint". He asked the Commission whether or not invisible fencing would be permitted as the only restraint for fencing in the front yard. Chairperson Daninger stated restraint is to keep the dog in and is not to keep people out. He thought initially invisible fencing counted as a restraint because it has to work. It is not a restraint if it does not work. It is considered a restraint but if the dog is not trained, it is not a form of restraint. He stated this not stop a child from going into the yard. There are a lot of different issues that can be brought up. Commissioner Falk wondered how a person would be able to tell if a yard had invisible fencing or not. What if someone was walking along and a dog came running up to the edge of the yard, how would a person know if the dog would stop or continue on. Commissioner Walton stated they do not control invisible fence installation but do they need to define the installation to keep them six feet away from a sidewalk or driveway and do they need to tell people where they can install them to avoid those types of situations. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if signage should be required as an indication that an invisible fence is there. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Commission thought invisible fencing was considered a restraint. Commissioner Walton did not think it was. Chairperson Daninger thought 0 this would be a debate both ways because residents who have invisible fencing would consider it a restraint. He wondered if invisible fencing should only be used as a restraint in the back yard or both front and back yards. Commissioner Casey felt invisible fencing was a restraint for dogs. Commissioner Walton did not think it was a solid restraint and people do not see it so how would they know a fence would hold a dog in. Chairperson Daninger wondered why a dog would need to be restrained in the front yard. Commissioner Cleveland did not think invisible fencing was much of a restraint. Commissioner Falk did not think it was a restraint. The majority of the Commission did not feel that invisible fencing was a restraint. Mr. Vrchota stated the definition of restraint in the Code says "The dog or cat shall be deemed under restraint if it is on the premises of its owner." This does not specify that it needs to be fenced or tethered only on the premises and under control. He stated for clarification that if the invisible fencing stops a dog from leaving the yard is that considered a restraint. Chairperson Daninger thought it was because if it works, it is doing its job and controlling the dog. He did not think they could stop someone from installing an invisible fence in their yard to restraint their dog. 0 Commissioner Cleveland stated there is a limit to the predictability of the animals behavior and the ordinance does say that it is deemed to be under restraint if it is on the premises so there is an assumption to be made that if the dog is where it is supposed to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 24, 2007 0 Page 9 be, it is restrained, whether it is actually restrained or not is what happens next but the ordinance does not speak to what happens when someone walks by that dog. Commissioner Walton stated if someone walks by the property and the dog walks off the property and armoys or is dangerous, then it is deemed to have not been under restraint. If it is on the property and someone goes onto the property it is still deemed to be restrained because it stayed on the property where it was supposed to whether it was by invisible fence or training. It is only when the dog ventures off private property, then it is not restrained. Chairperson Daninger did not think the Commission could come out and say invisible fencing is not a restraint but they will also not say that invisible fencing is a restraint. He stated they did not want it in their ordinance to say invisible fencing counts. Chairperson Daninger thought any type of restraint could not leave the property. . Basic Care Mr. Vrchota stated in the Council workshop the section on Basic Care in the Plainview Code was indicated to be adopted. He indicated their Code section has the same 0 information as the Plainview Code but he thought this section needed to be labeled a little more clearly. The Commission felt comfortable with what they have in their ordinance but thought the title could be changed to make it more descriptive. WORK SESSION: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Mr. Cross stated for the last six months, City staff has been revising the Subdivision Ordinance, the section of City Code that determines the requirements and review criteria for new subdivisions. Like the Zoning Code, much of the language dates back to the origina11974 ordinance. Staffhas attempted to simplify the Subdivision Ordinance, remove outdated material, and update it to conform to policies and regulations that are currently being used. The Council has reviewed and commented on the changes at two workshops. Mr. Cross reviewed the proposed changes to the Ordinance with the Commission and indicated this will come back to a worksession on August 28, 2007. He asked the Commission to review the changes for further discussion at another meeting. 0 OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 24, 2007 0 Page 10 Commissioner Walton wondered if they have site line issues at intersections because of tree/bush growth and if they do, how that process gets handled. Mr. Cross indicated anyone can call City Hall to alert them to the growth and someone will go out and take a look and remove the overgrowth to make sure the vision triangle remains clear. Chairperson Daninger asked for summer road work project updates in the City. Mr. Bednarz stated starting July 25th Hanson Boulevard will be closed while they do further work on it. Chairperson Daninger wondered if there was going to be any improvements to the road in front of the High School. Mr. Bednarz stated Crosstown Boulevard is a County Road and they do not have any improvem.ents along there planned. If anyone has concerns, please call the County with concerns. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Kirchoff, Holthus) vote. 0 Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver OjfSite Secretarial, Inc. 0