Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 27, 1995 o o o o ('\~~ ~ ~ '--"J r -111 I I '15 CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 27, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on June 27, 1995, 7:02 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich,.Jerry Putnam Maynard Apelr Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 13, 1995: Page 6: Correct title of PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 14278 UNDERCLIFT STREET Page 7, Variance for lot width, second sentence, change 260 feet to 246 feet. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Putnam, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS: REZONING - NB, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO GB, GENERAL BUSINESS - 14XX BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW - DAN FRIEDRICHS/TRACEY JEWETT and SPECIAL USE PERMIT - LIQUOR LICENSE 7:03 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request to rezone property from NB to GB located at 14xx Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, Lot 16, Block 5, Hills of Bunker Lake Third Addition. If approved, the applicants are also asking for a Special Use Permit for a liquor license. He noted the applicable ordinances for the rezoning and criteria to be examined. Colleen Friedrichs, 13829 Palm Street NW - read a letter providing background about herself and her family, some positive aspects of the liquor business, and their willingness to work with the community to provide a safe, convenient place for the neighbors to shop as well as build a positive relationship. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. 7:13 p.m. Mark woitowicz, 1426 137th Lane NW - noted the petition before the Commission of a number of area residents opposing the rezoning and liquor license permit. They disagree with the rezoning on the grounds that the Comprehensive Plan already indicates the type of business that needs to go in this location. It is designed to create a buffer zone , (j ! \ \.J u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 2 \. (Public Hearings: Rezoning - NB to GB and Special Use Permit for Liquor License at 14xx Bunker Lake Boulevard, Continued) between the residents and the general commercial and industrial area just to the west of Hanson Boulevard. The request is to remove that buffer for a different set of clientele and hours of operation. He noted the other liquor establishments in the vicinity and pointed out there is ample commercial property for this use west of Hanson Boulevard. They are concerned with the increase in crime and criminal activities in their neighborhoods. He pulled the records of the Sheriff's Departments and found liquor stores experience the same variety of crimes regardless of their location. He didn' t think it mattered that it is across from a police station. The long-term vision of the Comprehensive Plan was done to prevent that from happening. The intersection of Hanson and Bunker Lake Boulevards is already a circus. It is very poorly controlled, with a complete lack of regulation on the part of the law enforcement and the drivers themselves. Adding to that is not something that would be beneficial to an already bad situation. When they purchased their homes, it was their understanding tpe site is zoned NB, not commercial. He thought if people were told a liquor store would be going in there, many would not have purchased there. They would welcome a convenience and service use, but not a liquor store. -, ) Stan Deden, 1460 B8th Avenue NW - abuts the SuperAmerica "mud hole" and the new lot. He was concerned with the proposal meeting the criteria on the aesthetics. He didn't believe the lot is big enough to accommodate the kind of parking that will be required for that establishment. The majority of the lot is a drainage easement and pond. The back of the lot drops off sharply into the pond, and many trees would have to be cut down to provide adequate parking. He thought this use would reduce the property values and would interfere with the aesthetics of their area. Rod Russell, 1236 140th Lane - stated his children go to day care at Mr. Wojtowicz's, and he would not like to see a liquor store in that location. They bought their house with the understanding there will be residential businesses at that location. Taxes keep going up, but they don't want their property values to go down. There is a major traffic problem in that area. He preferred it to remain NB. Tim Douqhertv, 1346 138th Avenue - would live close enough to the proposed liquor store that it makes him uneasy. He bought in this development because there are many childrenr plus he has two. He is dead against a liquor store that close to families and children. There are several other places where this could be placed. Dick LaFond, 1415 137th Lane NW - was one of the first to move in the subdivision in 1987. He understood this to be NB. He has witnessed three serious accidents along Bunker Lake Boulevard and is concerned about the safety issue with the type of traffic generated with a liquor ~-~ store. He's also concerned about the land values and feels living that 'J close will not be positive for their property values. He hoped the request is denied. ~J :J (J u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 3 (Public Hearings: Rezoning - NB to GB and Special Use Permit for Liquor License at 14xx Bunker Lake Boulevard, Continued) Lvnette Scott, 1424 138th Avenue NW - has young children' with her property abutting the pond. She feels very uncomfortable with a liquor store and the pond being taken away from them. She can live with the SuperAmerica station, even though the traffic has increased tremendously. They moved out there for privacy, and she wouldn't appreciate a liquor store in that area at all. She doesn't feel safe even walking with her children to the SuperAmerica now because of the traffic. She'd be even more uncomfortable with a liquor store there. Tracev Jewett rebutted the concerns listed on the petition, highlighting the main points of the June 27, 1995, letter to the City of Andover regarding the issues that the community is already being served by three liquor stores, the amount of business property available, concerns with increase in crime due to a liquor store, and future planning for the City with regard to businesses. Also, a reputable realtor in the area has stated that the proposed project will in no way decrease the property values of the houses in this area. Mr. Woitowicz pulled the police reports from the county and surrounding cities and found significantly different numbers than what Ms. Jewett proposed as well as slightly different types of activities and calls. He questioned if even one call is acceptable and asked how much TIF money is justified for indecent exposure, fire, burgiary, etc. The small numbers for G-will Liquors is specific to them. Pov's has had more police calls in the six months they have been open than any other liquor stores in the area. It is not a question of whether a liquor store will be successful; it is a good money maker. He felt the area is being serviced by the existing liquor stores, that 3 1/2 miles is not a significant distance to go to buy liquor. Professional offices and other uses are more acceptable to the people he spoke with. It is the liquor store with its traffic and hours of operation that is the problem and the fact that it does not fit in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates what is needed in that area, and it was intended that a liquor store does not belong there. Ms. Jewett - explained such a large, lucrative business is needed at that location to be able to provide the other conveniences they plan to offer. Mr. Russell - was glad they did their marketing and understood that anyone in that area will be there to make money. But that type of business doesn' t need to be there; there are other places for this liquor store that wouldn't be so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. LaFond - stated if there was a hold up at the liquor stor~and shots ~, were fired, it could easily go through his house and injure someone in ~~ his family. There isn't a reasonable buffer between this property and his to have a liquor store and any kind of violence in that area. () u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 '-''j Page 4 '--j C) :~ (Public Hearings: Rezoning - NB to GB and Special Use Permit for Liquor License at 14xx Bunker Lake Boulevard, Continued) Dan Penn, 1430 l37th Lane NW - stated in order for any shots fired from the liquor store to get to Mr. LaFond's house, they would have to go through his house. He is very concerned, as he has two small children. He didn't believe this is the area for a liquor store, that there are other sites available for it. Dan Friedrichs - also built their home in this Addition. He didn't have the statistics for the traffic and crime at liquor stores, ~or did he have an answer for the concerns of gun shots being fired; however, it is more probable to happen at the SuperAmerica station which is open 24 hours than at a liquor store. Mr. LaFond - countered that SuperAmerica sits on the corner with a buffer lot between them. If there is a hold up there, it is very remote that the shot would come through his lot. The proposed site, however, is immediately next to his, and any violence will affect their neighborhood, their back yards and their families. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Putnam, to close the public hearing for both items. 7:35 p.m. Mr. Carlberg read the ordinance as to what is allowed and permitted by special use in a Neighborhood Business zone and a General Business zone. If rezoned, any of those uses would be allowed on the lot, though the proposal now is for a liquor store. The NB zone was done as a part of the platting process for the Hills of Bunker Lake 3rd Addition. He also pointed out those areas zoned GB within Andover. The NB zone has been used as a buffer area between residential areas and major arterials. So has the Shopping Center zone. Generally no one likes to see residential and industrial abutting, so they try to buffer that with lighter uses. This area is not large enough for a Shopping Center classification. The rezoning of this parcel to GB would not be spot zoning because of the other GB areas in the vicinity. Commissioner Jovanovich felt this should remain zoned NB to go along with the Comprehensive Plan. These residents built their homes knowing thatr and that is what they expect it to be. It should not be changed since there are other areas that are available. Commissioner Doucette felt this would be a good business venture for the applicants, but agreed that it belongs in another area. She favored staying with the Comprehensive Plan and leaving the zone as NB. Commissioner Putnam also agreed. He did not think it makes sense to change what everyone in the neighborhood has relied upon, especially since there is adjacent GB property that is buffered from the residents by the arterial of Hanson Boulevard and the NB district. He is not against the use of a liquor store, just against putting it in this location. Chairperson Squires felt the reason for the zoning difference is obvious in what is allowed in each zone. It appears the NB type of uses were meant to serve as a buffer to butt up against the residential developments. They are much more comprehensive with the residential developments for hours and ~ (j o Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 (-) Page 5 \...J ~ (Public Hearings: Rezoning - NB to GB and Special Use Permit for Liquor License at 14xx Bunker La~e Boulevard, Continued) traffic. As proposed with the liquor store, and even with the other allowable and permitted uses in the zone, it was his opinion that the GB should not butt up to a neighborhood area. He agreed with some of the comments that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, traffic concerns, effects on values and scenic views, and that there are other areas appropriate for a business like this. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to deny the request of rezoning Lot 15, Block 6, Hills of Bunker Lake 3rd Addition from the Neighborhood Business to General Business due to the fact that it would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. There was significant resident concerns, basically in the area of traffic, property values, aesthetics, and crime. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. " \ ~,J MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, that we recommend to the City Council denial of the request for the Special Use Permit for a liquor license which was applied for by Dan Friedrichs and Tracey Jewett for Lot 16, Block 5, Hills of Bunker Lake 3rd Addition based on the fact that the application for rezoning was not recommended for approval by the Commission. This was contingent upon that approval, that the Permit not be granted for the same reasons. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3- Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. These items will be on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:51 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES (GUN SHOP) IN AN I, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - 1714 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW - ANDOVER FIREARM, INC. 7:51 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Special Use Permit application by Andover Firearms and Shooting Supplies to operate a gun shop at 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. A Permit was granted for this operation on March 19, 1991, at this location. On August 17r 1993, another Permit was granted to move the business to 1860 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. They are now requesting to move back to 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard pending the upcoming acquisition of the property by the City and the demolition of the buildings at 1860 Bunker Lake Boulevard. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be examined when considering the request. Staff is recommending approval. The only incident he is aware of regarding the gun shop is a discharge of guns two or three years ago in a burglary situation. He did not have statistics on gun shops in other communities. Staff has received no complaints. Chairperson Squires recalled a condition to the August, 1993, Special Use Permit that the gun shop was to enlist the efforts of the Sheriff's /""\ Department to inspect the property to be sure there are adequate ,.,.J security measures. Mr. Carlberg stated that can be added to this Resolution. L) u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 6 o (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Retail Trade and Services {Gun Shop} in I District - 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard, Continued) MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the publi~ hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. 8:05 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Doucette, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. 8:07 p.m. Commissions Putnam suggested based on the past approval of the Special Use Permits and there being no complaints or problems, he would be in favor; however, he suggested the condition be added about the Sheriff's Department approving a security plan to be on file with the City. Discussion was that there be something in writing from the Sheriff's Department to the City stating they did inspect the site and find it to be secure. c~ MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Putnam, to forward to the City Council a Resolution granting the Special Use Permit request of Andover Firearms and Shooting Supplies to operate a gun shop at 1714 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW, PIN 34-32-24-41-0005, and to add to the condition No. 4 that the Sheriff's Department file with the City that they have inspected the property for security and that it is up to code and in compliance with the City and the Sheriff's Department. A public hearing was held and there was no opposition. Motion carried on a'4-Yes, 3- Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT - 16241 MAKAH STREET NW - CARL FRANZEN 8: 10 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Carl Franzen to subdivide a five-acre tract of land into two parcels of 2.5 acres to allow his son to build on the eastern most parcel on Seventh Avenue. He noted the applicable ordinances, pointing out that $400 will be charged for park dedication for the newly created parcel. Staff is recommending approval with a third condition added that access approval onto Seventh Avenue be obtained from Anoka County. All ordinance requirements are being met by both parcels. ~~) The Commission questioned what happens if the county does not allow access onto Seventh Avenue. Is a landlocked parcel created? Mr. Carlberg stated didn't believe it would be denied, as a similar request to the north was given approval. While input from the county is sought, it is the City that has the final authority on granting the access onto county roads. It may be that the City would want to see the driveway access as far to the north or south of the lot as possible based orr the site triangle. He suggested Staff request a response from the county prior to this going to the City Council. He didn't see a reason to table the lot split for that response. (j (j Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 7 C,J (Public Hearing: Lot Split - 16241 Makah Street, Continued) The Commission also questioned if the correct right-of-way is dedicated through there for Seventh Avenue. Mr. Carlberg stated it appears to be sufficient, but Staff will look at that. If not, it should be dedicated; however, it does not affect the calculations for the lots themselves. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote.8:21 p.m. ':J Todd Blank, 16389 Makah asked that the Commission look at the integrity of the neighborhood. They looked a long time before purchasing their lot in Andover. All of the lots were set up about 15 years ago into 21 five-acre lots. The developer had a covenant on the lots of a minimum value. Since that time, three of the them have been split, and three homes have been built that are substantially lower in value than the surrounding homes. He felt this would have a substantial effect on their property values. Before leaving, the developer told him he had removed the covenant. Mr. Blank didn't think that was right, nor was it right to allow the uniform lots to be split and to have houses scattered allover the place. His main concern is the character of the neighborhood and quality of homes being built. For that reason, he is opposed to the lot split. Amv Blank, 16389 Makah - stated the neighborhood is very unique. There are nice homes on five-acre lots. She felt it would be a tragedy to split the lot, as she would see the new house from the back of her house. The neighbors have worked hard to put in a pond; there are deer back there; it is definitely out in the country. She didn't think it is appropriate to split the lot in this neighborhood. Also, she didn't think it is a good idea to add more access onto Seventh Avenue, which is 55 mph and traffic coming off the curve. There was an accident there as they came tonight. There is too much traffic already. The lot split doesn't fit with the rest of the neighborhood and she doesn~t want to see the new house from her back window. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtker Peek) vote.8:25 p.m. Commissioner Jovanovich asked what protects the homeowners when the developer says there will be a covenant and then things change. Chairperson Squire questioned whether the developer has the right to pull the covenants after the property is developed. Covenants are filed and recorded with the property and will show up during a title search. Mr. Carlberg stated restrictive covenants are recorded as a part of the property when platted. There may have been a clause that within a certain amount of time the covenant is null and void. Otherwise he thought just pulling a covenant requires the signatures from the r', property owners. Covenants are not regulated by the City. Possibly the ~~ land owners should contact the developer to find out what happened; and if there is a problem, the residents could take action against the developer, not the City. In any case, the covenants should have no bearing on the City's decision on the lot split request. ,. u ( " v Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 8 " (J (Public Hearing: Lot Split - 16241 Makah Street, Continued) Commissioner Putnam understood the concerns of the residents; however, the request meets all the criteria of the ordinance and the lot owner also has rights under the ordinance. He is somewhat concerned about the access onto Seventh Avenue because it is a busy section of the road where cars travel at high speeds. If the lot was closer to the curve, he would be even more concerned. He felt county input is needed regarding that access. ~J MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Putnam, to forward the Resolution granting the lot split request of Carl Franzen to create two parcels pursuant to Ordinance No. 40 with the recommendation 1) That the applicant pay park dedication fees pursuant to Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07.10; 2) That the lot split is subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E); and add 3) To get written review from Anoka County for county road access and to have that written recommendation prior to the City Council meeting. There was a public hearing and there was some opposition. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Doucette understood the concerns of the residents, but at the same time she agrees with Commissioner Putnam, and that under the ordi'nance, as written, she cannot deny it. Commissioner Putnam was concerned with the covenant of the developer and urged the residents to review its language. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:35 p.m. VARIANCE - SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM STREET - 3940 SOUTH ENCHANTED DRIVE - DON JENSEN Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variances requested buy Don Jensen to allow for the construction of a garage addition on a single family residence on a lawfully existing nonconforming parcel. The construction will encroach 18.5 feet into the required sideyard setback from the street at 3940 South Enchanted Drive. Currently a garage does not exist on the property. In addition, the parcel does not meet the minimum district requirements for an R-1, Single Family Rural zoned parcel. Therefore, a variance is also needed from Ordinance No.8, Section 4.03, Non- Conforming Uses to allow the construction of the garage. The lot is very limited because of the pipeline easement and drainfield. The proposed location for the garage is the only place it can be placed on the lot. Staff is recommending approval. , ~J During the Commission discussion, it was noted the proposed location does not infringe on the existing pipeline easement, that typically there is noss~~t c~~ for variances, that the garage entrance is coming off 'Kt1. 8c~at t'h~ proposed size of the garage is fairly standard, that the house was built in 1971 which is the same year the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, that the lot size is much smaller than the R-1 zone and probably should have been zoned R-2 which is directly to the south, that there is a definite hardship due to the characteristics of the property, that it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to allow the garage to be constructed for the storage of personal items. ~ ) -~ F -\ \.J <) u (J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 9 (Variance-Sideyard Setback from Street-3940 S Enchanted Drive, Cont.) MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to recommend to the City Council approval of this Resolution approving the variances requested by Don Jensen to allow for the construction of a garage addition on a single family residence on a lawfully existing non-conformi~g parcel. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. VARIANCE - REAR YARD SETBACK - 996 140TH LANE NW - CHARLES ROWLEY Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Charles Rowley to allow for the construction and placement of a deck encroaching 8 feet into the 3D-foot rear yard setback at 996 140th Lane NW, Lot 15, Block 7, Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition. The deck would be located 22 feet from the rear property line. Only a 10-foot deck could be constructed without a variance. Mr. Rowley was unaware that he could not construct the deck as proposed at the time his home was built. A sliding glass door exists where the deck is to be located. The house is built at the setback, so it could not have been moved forward when it was built. Mr. Rowley has the option of going with a 10-foot deck or get a variance. Charles Rowlev - is proposing a 14 x 16-foot deck. Because of the elevation of the house, the stairway has to be in the front. He is on a cul-de-sac, and neither the people to the east nor west will be able to see the deck. Behind him is a pond area and the City park. He presented pictures of the area. The closest house to the rear is at ,. least 1,000 yards away because of the way the park and pond are situated, so the deck will not be close to anyone else's back yard. That is one of the main reasons he bought the lot. His house is completely done. His only other option is a 10-foot deck with stairs to the side. He would like to avoid that because it wouldn't leave much room for the picnic table, etc. He's asking for the variance to be able to make use of that back yard area. To the south is a bay window, and he plans to terrace the slope under it. Commissioner Doucette did not have an objection to this particular variance due to the fact that there is the hugh park and pond behind him and it won' t be on top of other property. Commissioner Putnam also stated if it weren't for that fact, he would be against it. He thought there are other options available, but he does agree with the variance in this instance. Commissioner Jovanovich agreed. Chairperson Squires normally was not in favor of solving a problem that is created by the applicant or builder; but this is a unique situation with the park, which makes the request much less noxious. MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Doucette, to recommend approval of the variance request of Charles Rowley to Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02 which requires a 3D-foot rear yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck encroaching 8 feet into the required rear yard setb~ck at 996 140th Lane NW, Lot 15, Block 7, Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. ( \ ,-j , "- l___J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 10 C~) DISCUSSION - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 53, AN ORDINANCE REGULATING DOGS - AMENDMENT RELATING TO DOG ENCLOSURES Mr. Carlberg explained the City Council asked the Commission to again review the placement or location of a dog enclosure and the setbacks of the enclosure from property lines. At the June 6, 1995, meeting, the idea of a 50-foot setback was brought up. He then compared the dog enclosure locations as proposed in Andover with what is allowed in the Cities of Blaine and Edina. Edina does not allow any side yard kennels, and they have to be 20 feet from the rear and side yards in the rear yard. The Commission is charged with what should be an appropriate location of a dog enclosure. He pointed out that any change would only apply to new dog enclosures and those existing ones to be founti a health hazard. f -'\ '_J During the Commission discussion, it was suggested that the ordinance would allow dog enclosures in the back yards, attached to a garage if desired, but not on the side of the garage. That would satisfy the concerns of dog enclosures in the side yards, which was the original concern that brought this about. Commissioner Doucette felt the 50-foot setback was too restrictive. She felt 40 feet from an adjacent structure is sufficient for the R-4 district. She did not want to eliminate them from the side yard either, especially in the larger ~ot areas in the rural district. Others understood the side yard issue for larger lots, and the suggestion was then made that perhaps not allowing dog enclosures in the side yard should be limited to the urban areas. Mr. Carlberg suggested Section 23, Item 2, Placement, read: A dog enclosure shall not be placed closer than 40 feet from an adjacent residential dwelling or principal structure and at least 10 feet from side and rear lot lines. No dog enclosure shall be placed in the front yard in all residential districts; and in R-4 Districts, no dog enclosure shall be placed in the side yard. The Commission generally recommended that change to the City Council, with the exception of Commissioner Doucette who still preferred the current language. A resident in the audience asked about the definition of a dog enclosure. Another expressed concern over the elimination of the dog enclosures from side yards, as he preferred to have them in the side yard to be able to see the front driveway, etc., for security reasons. Another asked why this isn't being handled by the Humane Society, rather than adding another agency. Also, the kennel cannot be placed in the middle of the yard with no trees. One has to consider the comfort of the dog that is outside. Someone suggested the City require that a permit be pulled to construct the dog enclosure, then handle the location on a case-by-case basis. Another gentleman opposed a permit, stating it is just another tax. Deal with the issue and go from there. :) Mr. Carlberg explained the ordinance definitions and requirements, that ~~ the fencing of the entire yard is not considered a dog enclosure. The Humane Society is concerned with the health and welfare of the animals; the City is concerned with nuisances that affect the people. The issuance of a license to construct a dog enclosure has never been i '\ ,-j . , , , I .J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeeting Minutes - June 27, 1995 Page 11 -:=) ,. (Discussion - Amend Ordinance No. 53 - Dog Enclosures, Continued) considered by the City, but it could be. Parameters would still have to be set regarding its location. Commissioners Putnam and Doucette suggested the Staff raise the issue of a permit with the City Council, though it is not part of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Putnam noted a problem might arise when people move out. What was fine for the existing neighbors might not be acceptable to the new owners. Care would have to be taken with the regulations and the issuance of permits. Marqaret DuPont - stated when someone moves from Blaine, they are required to take the dog kennel with them. That might solve the problem with people moving. Mr. Carlberg stated he will forward the proposed wording for the ordinance amendment to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02, DEFINITIONS - DEFINITION CLARIFYING FRONT LOT LINE 9:30 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained Staff tried to improve on the definition of front lot line outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. To resolve the problem of what setbacks will be required, the definition allows the owner to designate the front lot line providing one of the lot lines abutting a public street meets the minimum width requirement for the zoning district, and the setbacks shall be determined by the designation of that front lot line. The Commission felt the proposed language clarifies the setbacks that will be required. F ~ \....../ MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. 9:35 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Putnam, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote.9:35 p.m. Mr. Carlberg stated the setbacks from the street are the same on corner lots. This has no affect on the look of the area in the rural areas. MOTION by Putnamr Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward the amendment to Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02 definitions on lot line, front, to the City Council for approval. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. This will be placed on the July 18, 1995, City Council agenda. OTHER BUSINESS ,. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Council action taken on planning items at their June 20, 1995, meeting. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Putnam, to adjourn. Motion carried on r -, a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Luedtke, Peek) vote. The meeting was adjourned ,_J at 9:42 p.m. \~~~4ng Secretary