HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 23 1994
u
u ~ e)~3)q~
o
_,,~_~C'
"'.""""""':.., "'",':"
",'", ,,"'(].l..' ~
" [','I:
",'
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 23, 1994
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 23,
1994, 7:05 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present:
Bonnie Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Becky Pease
(arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Jerry Putnam
Maynard Ape1, Randy Peek
Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas
Code Enforcement Officer, Jeff Johnson
City Planning Director, David Carlberg
City Administrator, Richard Fursman
Others
Commissioners absent:
Also present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 9, 1994:
Page 5, fourth paragraph,
stated at this point..."
"Chairperson Squires..."
correct "Mr. Windschitl
fifth paragraph, correct
. '\
'-J
MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Dehn, approval as corrected. Motion
carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Pease, Peek) vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - CROWN POINTE EAST - SECTIONS 25 AND
26 - ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.
''-......
7:06 p.m. Mr. Fursman reported there has not been much change in this
item Slnce the August 9 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission is
requested to hold a public hearing, and the requirement is it will then
be heard by the City Council at their next meeting to meet the 60-day
requirement. The entire plat is currently zoned R-4, is in the MUSA,
and is proposed to be subdivided into 107 single family residential
homes. The Andover Review Committee is still of the opinion that the
developer has not included all of the contiguous property owned by him.
The City Attorney has backed up that opinion in an August 22, 1994,
letter, noting that by definition of owner, the City can look at the
combination of the corporation and the private individual. The Staff
feels the developer has met the requirements of the second and fourth
items listed in the agenda material, the grading, drainage and erosion
control plan and other corrections.
,.- "
, I
'-./
Mr. Fursman continued the question of variances on Lot 13, Block 1 and
on Lot I, Block 2 for depth of the lots still needs to be researched to
determine whether or not variances are needed. The other point, that
of an access between this plat and the proposed Crown Pointe plat,
remains an issue. Should there be an access across for emergency
reasons and for other safety considerations?
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 231 1994
Page 2
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown pointe East, Continued)
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing at
this time. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Pease, Peek)
vote. 7: 13 p.m.
Jerrv Windschitl, Ashford Development Corporation, Inc. - thought there
was going to be a sheet of chronological facts done for the two plats.
He created one and submitted it to the Commission, which he felt
supported his case that the two plats have been treated separately since
the beginning. The plats appeared at 14 public meetings of the City
starting in May, 1993. No where during that process was there a
suggestion or request that the two plats be combined. The only reason
he can think of for the request never being made was that there was a
policy to not require these types of plats to be combined. He also
handed the Commission a letter indicating the large number of plats over
the years that have been allowed to be platted without adjoining
property owned by the same developer, and he reviewed that list with the
Commission. He felt this illustrates that the policy of Andover for
many years has been to not require the adjacent property with the same
ownership to be platted.
o
Mr. Windschitl stated Item 6 of the agenda material, the variance for
Lot 1, Block 2, will not be needed because the lot complies with the
ordinance as written. He did request a variance as noted in Item 5 for
Lot 13, Block 1; but rather than a variance for 90 feet, he asked if it
could be for 85 feet instead. He thought they may be able to make the
lot work with 90 feet, but it is clearly workable at 85 feet. It is a
large lot, but there is not a lot of flexibility in making it work
because of the road and the wetland.
o
Mr. Windschitl stated the bridge issue noted in Item 3 is the first time
this has appeared on any agenda material. If there is a traffic issue,
it should have been addressed when the Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition
was before the City. At this point it doesn't make much sense to funnel
the traffic east-west through residential neighborhoods when most of
Andover's traffic is north-south. A bridge between the two plats has
never appeared in any MUSA discussion, any road committee suggestions
nor in any type of committee report on transportation hearings. The
cost of a bridge would be prohibitive, his engineer estimating it to be
$1.1 million. With the maximum number of lots in the proposed Crown
Point of 48 or 49, the cost per lot for the bridge would be over
$22,000. There is no economically feasible way that the plat could
support the construction of a bridge. The City had a similar concern
with the Meadows of Round Lake plat and attempted to construct a bridge
using MSA funds over some wetland, but they were not able to get
permission to do so. With the restrictions on getting wetland permits,
he felt that bridge may never be built. He thought the proposal of a
bridge may be well intended, or it may be a method of trying to stop the
plat. Mr. Winds chit 1 continued he has always brought the plats forward
separately, and he requested that Crown pointe East be approved this
evening as a separate plat.
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 3
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown pointe East, Continued)
Commissioner Dehn noted there was a concern with traffic patterns when
the sketch plan for this plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission.
She asked if there would be any funding available for a bridge. Mr.
Haas stated no. But there are no DNR protected wetlands within the
plat. Staff is not necessarily talking about a bridge. It could be a
series of culverts. The specific crossing was not discussed in detail,
just the traffic patterns and accessibility issues. Staff also looked
at the possibility of a crossing over the railroad tracks between the
proposed Crown pointe and Weybridge. In pursuing that with Burlington
Northern Railroad, the railroad responded they would not give permission
for a crossing.
o
The Commission questioned the Staff on the adjacent property issue. Mr.
Haas stated the ownership issue did not corne up at the sketch plan
stage; however, Staff does not do a lot of detail on the sketch plan.
When the preliminary plat comes in, the ordinance requires that all
adjacent parcels in the same ownership be platted. He has been the
Assistant City Engineer for eight years under the former City
Engineer/Administrator, Jim Schrantz. Mr. Schrantz made the call on
whether or not the adjacent parcels should be platted, and he went along
with it whether he disagreed or not. Chairperson Squires asked if Mr.
Windschitl was aware of the requirement to plat all contiguous property
under common ownership.
Mr. Windschitl - stated the issue of common ownership was never raised
in all of the meetings at the City. He was aware of what the City had
done the last 16 to 18 years where plats were allowed to be platted
without combining the common ownership next door. He was aware of what
had been done while this process was going on with Mr. Holasek, who owns
large amounts of land that were not included in the preliminary plats.
And this has been consistent. He knows of no plats in Andover where
this provision has been enforced. He tried researching the 1980 letter
from Mr. Hawkins on G. M. Investments Company, but he could not find a
plat. He doesn't know what the relationship was between G. M.
Investments and Jack Menkveld. But there has been a whole series of
very large plats that were allowed without enforcing this provision. He
did not specifically research the ordinance when presenting this plat
but relied on what he knew had been done in the past.
o
Mr. Windschitl stated he did not know this provision was in the
ordinance because Staff would have not allowed him to put both plats
through separately. He didn't recall any other developments that he did
personally where the adjacent property he owned was platted separately.
The parcel for Crown Pointe East is very large with a natural barrier
between it and Crown pointe to the west. The creek divides the two
parcels completely. Commissioner Dehn noted the recent plat of Timber
Meadows 2nd Addition had a natural boundary in it as well. Mr. Haas
believed the developer chose to bring those parcels as one plat, that it
was not a Staff recommendation. He again noted that the policy of Mr.
Schrantz was if the plat was in the MUSA, not all contiguous property
needed to be included; but that is not the way the ordinance reads.
o
o
/~
U
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 4
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown pointe East, Continued)
(Commissioner Pease arrived at this time, 7:40 p.m.)
Mr. Windschitl - stated he also has been talking to people at Burlington
Northern Railroad. Though they will not allow any additional crossings
of the track, they were receptive to discussing the construction of an
emergency road just east of the railroad tracks. It would not be for
general traffic, but for emergencies only, constructed of Class 5 gravel
for another egress if the City chooses. He understood that would solve
the access problem for a portion of the proposed Crown Pointe plat. Mr.
Fursman pointed out if there was an emergency on the tracks or with the
high-pressure line, that backup emergency road would be closer to the
catastrophe than the original road.
Discussion returned to the platting of all contiguous property issue.
Mr. Fursman acknowledged the requirement has not been enforced
consistently in the past, but to say it has never been enforced is a
gross exaggeration. It has been his direction to Staff that he is not
concerned with what has happened in the past. He is more concerned that
Staff is following the ordinances to the letter to avoid confusion in
the future. If there is a problem with the ordinance, it should be
corrected; but Staff should not be interpreting or enforcing it
arbitrarily.
o
o
Mr. Windschitl - felt it should be made clear that it is separate
ownership. Ashford Development Corporation, Inc., is a legal Minnesota
corporation that owns Crown Pointe East, with the control of the parcel
with the corporation. The interpretation being made is an attempt to
combine a corporation and an individual, which he did not feel is valid.
Using that interpretation, he questioned at what point would a
corporation or individual have ownership? If he owned one percent of
another parcel, must the parcels be combined? The ordinance doesn't
have rules for the control of ownership nor the percentage of ownership,
which he felt should be addressed. Mr. Fursman argued the point of
contention in the definition of ownership is the combining of a
corporation and an individual. The City Attorney has determined when
talking about adjacent parcels, if there is like ownership in any
combination, then that warrants the same ownership. That would be the
case in this instance. It seems clear from a common sense and a legal
point where the ownership lies. From a platting standpoint, both sides
of the creek are needed in order to have a full understanding of the
impact the development will have. If the City would allow corporations
to split off from private ownership on smaller pieces of property, it
would be circumventing the platting process.
Commissioner Dehn did not feel the creek was a substantial dividing line
in this instance because it is meandering and can change course over a
period of time. Further discussion noted that at the time of the
rezoning hearings, it was determined that the railroad tracks did divide
the Weybridge plat from the proposed Crown pointe plat because the
tracks are owned by Burlington Northern Railroad; therefore, the
contiguous ownership issue did not apply. Mr. Fursman noted unless the
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 5
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown pointe East, Continued)
two areas are done together, the potential for a crossing on the creek
would be eliminated because homes would be placed in the way. The
concern of a potential crossing was first mentioned at the December 7,
1993, Council meeting; so it was mentioned at the sketch plan stage.
The ordinance does not require sketch plans to show all contiguous
property, but it does require it of preliminary plats.
Mr. Windschitl - again argued the definition in the ordinance supported
his position. He personally has no interest in Crown Pointe East. To
require the plats to be combined would mean a a huge financial loss and
14 months of work, engineering, and fees. He felt this issue should
have been raised 14 months ago if the ordinance was going to be
enforced. The City has never stopped something mid-stream and forced
the developer to go back to square one. He again requested
consideration of the plat as presented. Chairperson Squires asked if
Mr. Winds chit 1 could simply join the two plats into one large one if it
was determined the creek crossing was warranted but not feasible at this
time.
Mr. Windschitl - stated no, he would not be allowed to do so. The
engineering and other calculations for storm water runoff, etc., would
',.~ have to be redone. He stated there would be a major loss of data if he
~ had to combine the two plats. Mr. Haas stated the requirements have to
be met whenever the properties are developed. He didn't think there
would be much engineering effect by combining the two plats as far as
sanitary sewer and storm water. Possibly the watermain may be affected.
Dave SzvkulskL 752 140th Lane NW - didn't think there was much
consideration taken into to merging the lot sizes. There are hugh lots
along 140th Lane, which will now have a lot of little lots backing up
onto them. That will also mean more traffic on their street, which was
a cul-de-sac for 23 years. He'd like to see an effort made to take the
traffic away from their residential area.
Mark Menth. 14122 prairie Road - stated the development will be going
behind his property. He was concerned with the water runoff which runs
from his land to that being developed, wondering if consideration was
given to where the water from his property will run. Mr. Haas stated
that was considered, and there will be no problem.
o
Mr. Menth - assumed some day his land will be developed. Was that future
development considered when platting this property. Mr. Haas stated yes.
Dave Erickson, 745 140th Lane NW - stated the lot next to him will be
used for storm water runoff for the street project. Will he be able to
find out about that for this development? He has a real concern with
how that will all come into play and the grading behind his house. Will
it stay the same or be higher or lower? He is worried about the grading
and ponding and whether it will flood his property. Mr. Haas stated all
of that is considered. The grade will change behind his lot.
Chairperson Squires suggested he may want to meet with Staff to discuss
the drainage concerns in greater detail.
o
o
'C)
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 6
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown Pointe East, Continued)
Mr. Erickson - stated there was a lot of opposition to the rezoning, but
it was rezoned because it met the requirements. If there is a problem
now, the developer should be required to follow the ordinance.
Mr. Szvkulski - was also concerned about the flooding. He is directly
across from the pond. He has discussed it with the engineer. If they
change the area behind and the pond can't handle it, he wants to make
sure he will not get flooded out. The Commission noted past success when
residents met with the City Engineers about the storm drainage issues.
o
Allan Chapman, 14212 Prairie Road NW - assumed the lot coming in off
Prairie Road will meet the minimum size requirements. The concern of
his neighbors is that it appears significantly smaller than the other
lots in the development. The neighbor directly to the south will be
looking at eight houses in his back yard and he would be looking at
about 14. He wants to be assured the lot sizes meet code. He will also
talk to the City Engineering about his concern with the alignment of the
roads that affect his property and what impact will they have on the
future of his land if he eventually subdivides? Perhaps he can ask
Staff to anticipate how they envision the future subdivision of his
property. His third comment was on the contiguous property issue. He
expressed some confusion over it; but if there is consideration for the
health and safety of the future residents, that is the overriding issue.
All other arguments aside, if it is a health and safety issue, he
recommended the decision be made on that basis.
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Peek) vote. 8:22 p.m.
The Commission first discussed the contiguous property issue.
Chairperson Squires suggested the decision has three parts: 1) Is the
property indeed contiguous, or is the creek a natural division of the
parcels? 2) Based on past application of the ordinance, is the City
going to continue to follow that practice or follow the ordinance as
written? 3) Under the ordinance, is Ashford Development Corporation
different from Mr. Windschitl individually?
o
Commissioner Putnam did not see the creek as a significant boundary to
divide the property, and so he felt the two areas are contiguous. He did
feel past practices are an important part of this debate. Mr.
Windschitl proceeded based on his knowledge of what has happened in the
past, not hearing anything to make him feel that it would be otherwise.
To impose the requirements of the ordinance after all this time is
unfair, and he is not in agreement with imposing it at this time. He
would suggest that Staff prepare a change to the section of the
ordinance that the contiguous property be included at the sketch plan
stage so this is not a problem in the future. Thirdly, he noted the
differing opinions on the ordinance definition of ownership and its
application to "sufficient legal proprietary interest" by Mr. Hawkins
and by Mr. Nash. The ordinance does not address what percentage of
ownership constitutes "sufficient legal proprietary interest".
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 7
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown Pointe East, Continued)
Commissioner Dehn agreed that the property is contiguous even though
there is a creek dividing it. On the point of past practices, she felt
there was some room for compromise. If the Staff is willing to allow
the developer to bring in the other preliminary plat separately and
paste them together and make it work, she would like to see the
ordinance upheld. Though past practices have been different, she felt
the City must put its best foot forward in this instance. On the issue
of ownership, she can only rely on the City Attorney's opinion that
suggests they are one entity. But she felt there is an opportunity to
compromise to resolve this problem and have a good development.
Commissioner Jovanovich agreed that the property of the two proposed
plats are contiguous. She also agreed the ordinances need to be
followed and that the two areas need to be considered together. She
also agreed with Mr. Hawkins' opinion on ownership. Commissioner Pease
also agreed the two proposed areas are contiguous. Regarding past
practices, she noted there will never be any change unless the City
takes a position and moves on.
o
Chairperson Squires also agreed the two plats are contiguous and are not
divided just because a small creek separates them. He is generally not
persuaded by what has happened in the past; but given the investment in
these two properties and given the language of the ordinance, which at
best is less than clear, he is inclined to let the two plats go through
separately. He liked the suggestion that the ordinance provision apply
to the sketch plan stage and that there be a change in the definition of
ownership to apply to instances like this. An individual and a
corporation controlled by the individual should have to plat all the
contiguous property.
Mr. Fursman suggested a caveat be added that the developer work with
Staff on the Crown pointe and Crown pointe East plats to at least
provide a section for a crossing into the other plat so it is available
for the future. That might mean the loss of two lots, but that would
address the health, safety and welfare concerns if a crossing is deemed
feasible in the future. He felt Staff and Mr. Windschitl could agree on
a logical point of where that crossing might be located. Without that
designation, it will never be possible to install a crossing. Mr. Haas
stated it would have to be dedicated right of way constructed to the
boundary of the property. If such a crossing is determined to be
unfeasible in the future, the right of way would be vacated and could
then be developed into lots. There would be no time limit on it.
Mr. Windschitl - stated he was not aware of the desire to construct a
right of way for a possible future crossing of the creek. It may have
some merit, and he would be willing to work with the Staff.
o
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Putnam, that we forward to the City Council
for approval of the preliminary plat for Crown pointe East with the
Items 1-6 discussed, concerns of the Andover Review Committee, and also
add on the caveat indicating that approximately two lots to be
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 8
(Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat - Crown Pointe East, Continued)
determined by Staff for a appropriate crossing into adjacent properties.
This determination is made after a public hearing and discussing three
important parts of this decision. 1) Contiguous properties were
discussed indicating that Crown pointe East and Crown Pointe have only
a physical barrier of the creek and not an ownership barrier; therefore,
are contiguous property. 2) Past practices of the City. It is the
opinion of the Commission members that perhaps we should indicate there
is an ordinance of this sort at the time of sketch plans rather than to
go through the whole process, in this case 14 months long, to corne up
toward this situation; therefore, giving a developer advanced warning as
to his requirements and his basic knowledge of the ordinance. 3) As
stated by the Chairperson, there are several interpretations of
ownership -- the City Attorney, Mr. Hawkins, dictating there is one
ownership, and the attorney for Ashford Development indicating there are
two ownerships. Those three items were discussed and concerns by the
people of the community. At the public hearing there was concerns,
primarily with the health, safety and welfare of the community
regarding the crossing into Crown Pointe. Also traffic patterns, and in
regard to grading and flooding concerns for adjacent property. There
was concern on future street right of way and proj ection of those
streets across unplatted property adjacent to the plat. Variance for
Lot 13, Block 1, from 100 to 85 feet instead of the 90 feet as mentioned
in the agenda material. Mr. Windschitl indicated a variance was not
needed on Lot 1, Block 2.
o
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Squires, Pease, Putnam; NO-Dehn, Jovanovich;
ABSENT-Apel, Peek. Motion carried. This will be heard by the City
Council on September 6, 1994. 8:53 p.m.
Mr. Fursman explained to the Commission his philosophy of Staff
enforcing the ordinances. He felt the Commission acted as it should in
interpreting and bringing that recommendation to the Council. Staff is
to enforce that ordinances, and any interpretation should be done by
this body and the Council.
The Commission recessed at 9:00; reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
DISCUSSION: SKETCH PLAN - ANDOVER CENTER SECOND ADDITION - SECTION 32 _
WILLIAM AND KAREN RADEMACHER
Mr. Haas reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Andover Center 2nd
Addition to move a lot line to accommodate an enlargement of the G-Wills
Liquor establishment. No new lot is being created. The south lot line
will be moved 44 feet to the south. All parking and traffic patterns
will be reviewed at the site plan review. Both parcels will continue to
meet the minimum width and depth requirements.
o
The only concern raised by the Commission was that of access onto the
county road. It was suggested the parking lot be improved such that
traffic is directed toward the stop lights rather than going south on
Round Lake from the parking lot, which is a safety hazard. Possibly that
entrance should only be right-in, right-out. Mr. Haas stated he will
discuss the concerns with Anoka County. There were no further comments.
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING: ADDITION OF FIELD HOUSE TO THE SCHOOL - 3037 BUNKER
LAKE BOULEVARD NW - MEADOW CREEK CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
9:12 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Amended Special Use Permit requested
by Meadow Creek Christian School to construct a 13,000 square-foot field
house onto the school at 3037 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. He reviewed the
criteria to be examined when reviewing Amended Special Use Permits,
noting Staff is recommending approval of the request with two
conditions. Staff received some phone calls following the mailing of
the public hearing notice, but the concerns were about what was to
happen to the parcel to the west. There were no concerns with the
construction of the field house. There are a number of Special Use
Permits on the property dating back to 1979.
Don Jacobson, representing the school, stated the construction will not
generate any new traffic. It is strictly a gym for the children who
already go to school there. It is not meant to increase the number of
children but only an expansion of the facility because they do not have
enough space.
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing.
Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Peek) vote. 9:20 p.m.
o
There was no public input.
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Peek) vote. 9:21 p.m.
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward the resolution
approving the Amended Special Use Permit indicating there was a public
hearing and there was no opposition. And to include the two conditions,
1) Subject to an annual review and site inspection by Staff. 2) Subject
to a one-year sunset clause. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel,
Peek) vote. This will be heard by the City Council on Sept. 6. 9:22 p.m.
DISCUSSION: AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO.8, ZONING ORDINANCE
REGULATION OF JUNK VEHICLES, PARKING AND EXTERIOR STORAGE
Mr. Johnson reviewed the recommended amendments to Ordinance 8
regulating exterior storage and junk vehicles to address problems and to
aid in the enforcement of the ordinance. The proposal has been reviewed
by the City Attorney. The following items were discussed:
o
Page 1, Item 8.01, A: The Commission questioned whether boats could be
stored outside on the side of the house. Mr. Johnson stated it would
have to be on a driveway surface five feet from the property line. No
unlicensed vehicle would be allowed to be stored outside. Vehicles that
are being restored are addressed in a proposed new ordinance for junk
vehicles and will be allowed on the premises for a period of 30 days if
someone is repairing them or they are not currently working. Mr.
Carlberg stated "driveway surface" is defined in Section 8.08 of the
ordinance, but he didn't think it allows crushed rock.
(J
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 10
(Discussion: Amendments Regulating Junk Vehicles, Parking, Exterior
Storage, Continued)
Page 2, Item 8.01, D: Mr. Carlberg explained this provision grants the
ability of the Code Enforcement Officer to enter onto private property.
Mr. Johnson noted Section C sets out the procedure for enforcement of
the ordinance using a warning system.
o
Section 8.08, 4(d): The Commission suggested removing the word "owners
of" to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision. Discussion
was then on (e) and the number of vehicles allowed to be parked outside
in R-3 and R-4 districts. Mr. Johnson noted the intent is that the
provision relate to cars belonging to the property owner, acknowledging
a clarification is needed in that section. The Commission questioned
the limitation. Mr. Johnson stated in researching other cities,
allowing four cars, up to six with a City permit, is quite generous,
since in all likelihood the owner will also be able to store two or
three cars in the garage. The Commission asked about the length of the
permit for the additional two vehicles and the cost. Mr. Carlberg
stated none of that criteria has been established yet. But in looking
at the size of an urban lot and the maximum size of a driveway, parking
four to six cars outside and not on the lawn fills up the driveway.
Mr. Johnson also stated RVs of more than 20 feet in length can be stored
in front or on the side of the house if it is on a driveway surface,
which he thought includes crushed rock. Section (b) under Section 8.08.
4, is simply repeating what is in Section 8.01.
Section 8.08, 4(h): Mr. Johnson stated this is a new provision that
will not allow passenger vehicles, boats, and recreational vehicles to
be parked on the front yard. Commissioner Dehn totally disagreed with
that provision. What about someone who wants to wash his car on the
front lawn? Does this tell the residents they cannot park a car on their
grass to sell it, that it must be on the driveway? Is the City
disallowing a lot of what the residents want to do with their property?
She wondered if restrictions are being written for all when the problem
is with only a few. Mayor McKelvey stated there is no way everyone can
park in his driveway when all the children come home. They must park on
the grass. He also asked why the length of 20 feet was picked for RVs
when they are generally sold at 24 and 26 feet in length. Why can't he
park a 26-foot vehicles in his back yard? Mr. Carlberg explained the
ordinance is to put some teeth into regulating the aesthetics of the
community. The 20-foot figure is in the existing ordinance. Possibly
it was included because such vehicles are usually longer. Commissioner
Dehn agreed there is a difference between parking such a vehicle in the
back yard in the R-l zones than in the R-4 areas, as they can easily
park them in the back of the rural areas without being offensive to the
neighbors. The Commission also noted the parking of RVs was an
explosive issue several months ago, stating the residents must be
informed of the proposed changes and a hearing held. Mr. Carlberg
stated this is simply a discussion item at this point. Public hearings
will be held once the ordinances get to a form that is agreeable to the
Commission.
o
o
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
Page 11
(Discussion: Amendments Regulating Junk Vehicles, Parking, Exterior
Storage, Continued)
Bill Hupp, Andover Boulevard - received a letter about a "junk" car that
someone deemed offensive. It was a car he was working on; and in
talking with the neighbors, they have no idea that these restrictions
are being put in place. He had a graduation party for his daughter, and
the police carne by and said they could not park on the street.
Everybody had to move their vehicles. The driveway was filled with four
to six cars and the rest had to move down the road. Now the City is
saying they cannot park on the grass. He also questioned granting the
authority of the Code Enforcement Officer to check through private
property. Will he be walking into everyone's basement to see if they
have a home business? At what point does it stop? Mr. Hupp felt that by
policing everyone's back yard, it is opening up a can of worms.
Everybody has some code violation if you look hard enough. He wondered
why these items can't just be resolved when there are complaints. He
also questioned why he cannot park his car on the grass on the corner of
his 40 acres to sell it. He pays taxes on 40 acres, and now the City is
limiting what he can do with it even further. Why should he have to
pave a surface on which to place that car on the corner of his property
just to sell it? Mr. Hupp suggested the residents be made aware that
U~ the City is tagging everyone, which he predicted will result in a lot of
angry residents.
Commissioner Dehn likened excessive restrictions to the Gestapo. Mr.
Carlberg felt the ordinances must be enforced. Mr. Hupp countered a lot
of people don't want to lose their personal freedom. By policing
everything, it is an invasion of privacy. He was repairing a car that
he planned to take up north when the City told him to move it.
Commissioner Dehn also noted that often it can take months to get parts
when trying to repair a vehicle. Discussion continued on Mr. Hupp's
particular situation with the car and his concerns with the City
regulating what he can put on his 40 acres of land. Mr. Carlberg asked
if a resident should have to complain in order to have the City enforce
an ordinance that has been adopted by the City. Mr. Hupp stated then
talk to the people to see what they want. How much do the people want
the City in their lives?
Commissioner Putnam felt some of the proposals are good, but some need
to be considered further, especially when it applies to the larger rural
lots. He suggested Staff look at what other cities with larger lots are
doing, that there needs to be some distinction. The Commission
generally agreed.
Q
Commissioner Jovanovich asked if there is an ordinance that people
cannot place vehicles for sale on their front yards. Mr. Johnson stated
no. The only thing they can enforce at this time is cars that are for
sale that are located on the boulevard. The Commission again noted the
need for public input, the need for some distinction between urban and
rural areas, and the need to be cautious when dealing with RVs. Also
review Sections (d) and (e) of Permitted Uses and Section (h) of
Prohibited Uses.
i-,
\.1
(-)
I.. ,
--
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 23, 1994
(J Page 12
.....,
(Discussion: Amendments Regulating Junk Vehicles, Parking, Exterior
Storage, Continued)
Mr. Johnson then gave a brief overview of the proposed ordinance to
regulate abandoned, wrecked, junked, partially dismantled, or
inoperative vehicles within the City. The ordinance will provide an
effective way to correct the problems. It would be applied city-wide.
Mr. Hupp asked if this would also apply to the junkyards, feeling they
too should be subject to the same regulations. The Commission noted
there is a separate ordinance regulating the junkyards which is
considerably more stringent and which does not apply to residents.
The Commission again summarized some of their concerns, directing Staff
to make some changes for further Commission discussion.
DISCUSSION: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 71, SHORELAND REGULATIONS
o
Mr. Carlberg explained the copy before the Commission is a rewrite of
Ordinance 71 from the model ordinance created by the DNR. . The ordinance
is to be adopted by September 1, and he has not been able to contact the
DNR to ask for an extension. Some items that must still be clarified
with the DNR are a classification of the Rum River (Page 10), whether
mining will require a Special Use Permit when it is not now required
(Pages 12-15), and whether the creek needs to be considered since that
is regulated by the Coon Creek watershed. This is the DNR model, and a
lot of it does not apply to Andover. If the DNR requires immediate
passage, the corrections will be made and forwarded to the City Council
as soon as possible.
Chairperson Squires stated from his experience, this is the same model
ordinance that has been adopted by cities and counties statewide. He
felt the "Special Use Permit" and "Conditional Use Permit" must conform
to the other city ordinances. Mr. Carlberg agreed, stating there still
needs to be a lot of work on the ordinance plus talking with the DNR on
the various concerns. There was no other Commission comment.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Carlberg updated the Commission of the Council action on the various
Commission items at the August 16, 1994, meeting.
MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn.
a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Peek) vote. The meeting was
p.m.
0, Res:;::~
~'a A. Peach, Recording Secretary
Motion carried on
adjourned at 10:37