Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 28, 1998 o u (j CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JULY 28,1998 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on July 28, 1998, 9:06 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Maynard Apel, Don Jacobson, Jeff Luedtke, Lorna Wells Mike Gamache, Randy Peek City Planning, Jeff Johnson Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14, 1998: Correct as written. (J Motion by Wells, Seconded by Squires, approval of the Minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 2- Yes (Squires, Wells), 3-Present (Ape!, Jacobson, Luedtke), 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 230, NOISE ORDINANCE- ADOPT MPCA NOISE STANDARDS 9:07 p.m. Mr. Johnson explained the amendment incorporated the language from the MPCA and the League of Minnesota Cities model noise ordinance. The major change is to adopt the MPCA noise standards, which is a receiver based standard. A number of other cities have adopted the standard. The MPCA also makes available to the cities a sound level meter to monitor the noise. The Commission recommended several changes to the amendment: Page 1, Paragraphs LiO and L50 - Delete City Administrator and add "...and using generally accepted test procedures." Page 2, (7) - Delete the second sentence, which is very restrictive and could conceivably prevent any resident from gathering. Paragraph to read: "Participation in Noisy Parties or Gatherings. When a police officer determines that a gathering is creating an excessive noise disturbance,...." o Page 3, Section 3 - As worded, the ordinance would prevent someone from working inside his home, even though no noise can be heard outside of the home. Change to, "...gas-powered machine or other equipment which creates noise that is audible at the property line except between the hours of..." \. _./ \ ,-J I Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 28, 1998 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No. 230, Noise Ordinance - MPCA Standards, Continued) Page 4, Section 6 - Delete "City Administrator" Change second sentence to, "The City shall adopt..." Page 5, top paragraph - Commissioner Jacobson asked if there needs to be a test or standard to qualifY a person to do the testing. Mr. Johnson stated the use of the machine is vel)' straight forward, and the MPCA trains anyone wanting to use their monitor. Commissioner Jacobson thought that should be mentioned in the ordinance. Page 5, Sections 8 and 9 - Commissioner Jacobson asked the difference between civil remedies and criminal penalties. Chairperson Squires stated civil court pursues an action, whereas criminal court imposes fines and/or sentencing if found guilty. Having both options available gives the City Attorney discretion in handling problems. Mr. Johnson felt both provisions are necessary. Motion by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2- Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote. 9: 17 p.m. There was no public testimony. / Motion by Wells, Seconded by Jacobson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote 9: 17 p.m. The Commission discussed the proposed changes and clarifications to the amendment. Commissioner Jacobson noted the ordinance levels in the ordinance do not affect the intermittent noise at Pov's Sports Bar, which was the original complaint. Chairperson Squire stated the intent was to move toward an ordinance that was more objective based. It was felt the numbers in Section 4 might be preferable to the subjective based ordinance in place. Having no noise of any kind at all was never discussed. Motion by Apel, Seconded by Wells, to forward this to the City Council recommending approval with the amendment in Ordinance 230A as presented and with the changes as noted this evening. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the August 18 City Council agenda. 9:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 8./9(A), NOISE 9:27 p.m. Mr. Johnson noted this is the noise standard in the Zoning Ordinance that is now incorporated into the Noise Ordinance. Motion by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote 9:28 p.m. There was no public testimony. . / Motion by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote 9:28 p.m. ') " ./ , \ U , ) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 28, 1998 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 8. 19(A), Noise, Continued) Motion by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to forward this to the City Council with the noise levels removed as proposed by Staff; and the City Council then forward this back to review and clean up the remainder of the ordinance. Motion carried on a 5- Yes, 2-Absent (Gamache, Peek) vote This will be on the August 18 City Council agenda. 9:32 p.m. DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 8.24, JUNK VEHICLES - PROVIDING MORE RESTRICTIVE CONTROLS FOR REPEAT VIOLATORS Mr. Johnson explained the Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to look at ways to provide stricter enforcement controls regarding junk vehicles. Before the Commission is the July 13, 1998, letter from the City's legal firm regarding proposed ordinance changes. He noted the current process for dealing with junk vehicles and two proposed changes in that process. J Commissioner Jacobson asked how vehicles that are in the process of being restored would be handled under the amended definition of the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson stated the process would be the same unless the vehicle is kept in a garage. Commissioner Wells didn't want to see the City spending more time and money in court. She preferred notifying the offenders of the violation, notifying them a second time and then having the vehicle removed from the premises. Commissioner Apel cautioned that certified letters are needed to make sure the offender has received the City's notices. He preferred the second option presented because it has more leeway. Mr. Johnson stated the first preference is to work with the resident to bring the property into compliance. He still wants to do more research on the specific language changes to the ordinance. , Commissioner Jacobson suggested in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Page 2, delete "whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessee or otherwise", so that it would state, "No person in charge or control of any property within the City shall allow..." Several residents then addressed the Commission on the problem in their neighborhood. Mike Jensen - stated the situation in their neighborhood has been going on for the three to four years. Obviously, this hasn't been done in a swift manner. He and some other neighbors are now getting more involved in this hoping to get the situation resolved. He had pictures of an on-going problem for the last three months, and they need to see something done. If something doesn't happen, many good families will be moving out of that neighborhood, including himself. Another ordinance violation is the dogs. Clyde Bade. 14406 Vintage - stated there are several issues with the one parcel. He noted the dates the City contacted this resident. The most recent has been going on since the beginning of May, and the City Attorney has indicated they will now be asking for a court date, which will take another two / to three months plus another 30 days to clean it up. The brown parked car has been there about a year. The existing ordinance hasn't really helped them. They need to start by getting rid of the junk vehicles. Mr. Johnson indicated the property is the worst it has ever been. , , i \.._~ " \ 'J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 28, 1998 Page 4 (Discussion: Ordinance No.8, Section 8.24, Junk Vehicles, Continued) Mr. Bade - stated now there is a brown truck in which the engine was taken out. He stated this problem has been going on for six years starting with dirt bikes riding around hours on end. He is contemplating on moving. They are willing to work with the City, but they'd like to get started to clean up their area because there is another house that is starting to do the same thing. Don Legge - lives across the street from the property in question. He started submitting complaints to the City in July, 1996; so this has been a long process. Appraisals on his property indicate he's lost about $20,000 in the value of his lot because of that problem. He is contemplating on moving also, but he has to look at other alternatives to getting that valuation back. Last Friday those people were setting up for a graduation party. The vehicles left the property but were put out on the road and left there over night. Then everything was put back into the yard. There is business debris on the site, as scraps of building material are brought home from work and placed in a dumpster which sits on the lot. Only three vehicles were removed over the past year. An engine came out of one vehicles and sits on a tarp on the driveway. The City ordinance needs to be stricter. He doesn't like to see that happen, but this person just doesn't care and the properties in the neighborhood need to be protected. ./ Mr. Legge had mixed feelings about suggesting a change in the Attorney's letter, second page, top paragraph, "...unless it shall be within an enclosed garage or storage building or screened in area on such property." He was restoring a vehicle in the back yard that he screened in after discussing it with a neighborhood. It is hidden from view, and he wants to be able to keep that screened in area, but he felt that even that provision would be abused by the neighbor. He noted last year a car pulled into the neighbor's driveway with the rear end sticking out into the street. He also pointed out the many other vehicles, boats, etc. that are on the property right now. The Commission noted there are several issues involved on the property. For now, the issue is the junk vehicles. They noted that just issuing a fine for the violation doesn't address the problem. The junk vehicles need to be towed from the property, and that is why the majority of the Commission favored Option B, to tag and tow. The process needs to address the problem quickly and repetitively. They suggested Mr. Johnson discuss Option B with the City Attorney regarding its consistency with the State law. If the City Attorney does not agree with Option B, then language should be written for an amendment to the ordinance using Option A as the process. Mr. Johnson stated he will come back to the next meeting with suggested language change and for the Commission to hold a public hearing. Motion by Luedtke, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. <::::::::::. . ----~ ~pectfulI>\ s}\bmItte~~/ I ~Ur'\fc~ Mar a A. Peach, Recording Secretary