Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 13, 1994 o ~~~ q 1~11 q~ C_J Cj'"" , '...-, '~- "':',;'1\ .L: CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on September 13, 1994, 8:01 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Bonnie Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam Maynard Apel, Becky Pease Code Enforcement Officer, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 23, 1994: Correct as written. '\ '...../ MOTION by Dehn, stated. Motion Pease) vote. Seconded by Jovanovich, to approve the Minutes as carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (Peek), 2-Absent (Apel, SKETCH PLAN - WOODLAND MEADOWS SECOND ADDITION - SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10 - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed sketch plan of Woodland Meadows 2nd Addition. The development is in an R-l Single Family Rural Zoning District and would consist of 16 lots. The Park Commission will be reviewing the sketch plan this Thursday, September 15. Bvron Westlund, Woodland Development - stated they do not own any other adjacent land. Woodland Development has a contingent purchase agreement on the property and will be developing approximately 60 acres of the 80- acre parcel. The owners will want to retain about 20 acres for their homesite. He did not think the road alignment to the south was critical because those abutting lots are all smaller parcels under different ownerships. Mr. Carlberg stated the pipeline runs through there, plus there is a large wetland area. The Andover Review Committee will review whether it is possible to bring a road to develop the back of the lots to the south of this parcel. " ') -...---'" Commissioner Peek wondered if the triangular lots would be classified as corner lots since there is frontage on both sides. Mr. Carlberg thought so. With no other Commission comments, Mr. Carlberg noted this will be reviewed by the City Council at their September 20, 1994, regular meeting. ~) u , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 2 ) PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - ELDORADO ESTATES - SECTION 7, JED AND PEGGY LARSON 8: 14 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed preliminary plat of Eldorado Estates. It is in the R-1 Single Family Rural District and will consist of five single family rural residential lots. A variance from Ordinance 10, Section 9.03G is required as the street exceeds the maximum length of 500 feet. The proposed length is 940 feet. The Park Commission is recommending cash in lieu of land. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:16 p.m. Marqaret Therenqer. speakinq for her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Leu - her parents' home will border to the east of the proposed road. They are concerned with the easement and with the drainage because it tends to drain into their back yard now. They would like it surveyed before the project is done. She plans on purchasing the home from her parents. Mr. Carlberg stated the drainage and easement issues will be handled by the Engineering Department. The property will be surveyed as a part of the platting process. The Commission suggested she contact the City's Engineering Department to express her concerns. , / Hazel Jenson, 4117 165th Avenue NW - noted right now Eldorado and 166th are their driveway. Will their address change once this is developed? She is in favor of the Larsons developing the property. Mr. Carlberg did not believe their address would change, but suggested she contact the Building Official who assigns addresses in the City. All of the newly created parcels will have Eldorado Street addresses. Ms. Jenson - explained the water runs down hill to a duck pond in the front of their property, sometimes washing out their driveway. She asked if that drainage will be diverted. Mr. Carlberg noted the water drainage and the affect on adjacent property will be reviewed. He suggested she call the City's Engineering Department and have them look at her property as a part of the drainage of the site. Jim Matthes, speakinq for his parents - asked if Eldorado will be placed on the current easement or will easement be taken from his folks' property. Will the road jog around or will the power lines be moved? Mr. Carlberg did not believe there was any condemnation of property as a part of the development. Everything is being handled on the site of the proposed development. He suggested Mr. Matthes speak to the City Engineering Department on that issue. \ Mr. Matthes - asked if there will be an assessment levied against them for the cost of the development. Their driveway comes out at the corner where Eldorado and 166th come together. With frontage on 166th, the construction of Eldorado is not a necessity for them. Mr. Carlberg did not know if there would be an assessment for Eldorado Street. He hoped to have that information available for the Council meeting. The developer can either construct the street himself or have it done as a City project. ( ) '--..- (~ '\ , ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat, Eldorado Estates, Continued) Jed Larson - had not yet decided which way he will have the street constructed. Chairperson Squires suggested those concerned with the issue of assessments should contact the City's Engineering Department. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Putnam, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:26 p.m. The Commission noted this project has been brought to them on several different occasions. They assumed the Engineering Department will address the drainage concerns, expressing concern that the Engineers look at that issue closely. Perhaps this can be used as a way of solving the historical problem of natural drainage to the east. With the small number of lots being developed, Commissioner Dehn was not concerned with increased traffic. She asked if there was concern with the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Carlberg stated the decision was made by the P&Z and Council at the sketch plan stage to end the street with a cul-de-sac. There are no future extensions planned beyond this point, though 166th may be developed at some point. Commissioner Dehn preferred the cul-de-sac rather than a deadend road with little potential for extension because of the Ag Preserve property around this development. \ / MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Dehn, that the Andover Planning and zoning Commission forward to the City Council with recommendation for approval the attached Resolution. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:33 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - REAL ESTATE SIGN - FOX WOODS - NORTHEAST CORNER OF ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW AND BLUEBIRD STREET NW - GORHAM BUILDERS, INC. 8:33 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Gorham Builders, Inc., to erect a real estate sign on Lot 23, Block 6, Fox Woods and reviewed the applicable ordinances. Staff is recommending approval subject to several conditions. As long as the sign is in place, which is limited to two years, no house will be built on Lot 23 because of the requirement that the sign be at least 130 feet from any residential structure. It will also impact Lot 22. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:40 p.m. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yesr 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:41 p.m. '. i / MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward to the City Council the Resolution as stated with these changes: Item No.2: The sign shall be located at least 130 feet from any residential structure (Lot 22 and Lot 23). Item No.7: The owner/application shall be responsible for sign maintenance. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 8:44 p.m. '\ , ) :) , \ ) \.J (J u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - KENNEL LICENSE - 160 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW - GLENDA LAWSON 8:44 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Glenda Lawson for a kennel license at 160 Andover Boulevard. He noted the, applicable ordinances and criteria to examine for Special Use Permits. He also noted the applicant's letter indicating it is technically not a kennel, as she cares for the dogs of other people in her home while they are on vacation or business trips. Ms. Lawson has been doing this for several years without a Permit. The ordinance allows up to three dogs; more thanr three dogs over six months old, including those she personally owns, requires a Permit in this district. Staff found this operation without a Permit and informed Ms. Lawson of this procedure. Mr. Carlberg reported Staff received a phone call from an adjacent resident:regarding the barking of dogs from this residence and objecting to the granting of the permit. U.L<:;l1UCl ,UaWOVll. .LVV ,,"uuuver Boulevard stated she owns one aog. Occasionally she will take in a stray dog, clean it up and have the necessary shots given by a vet, then find a good home for it by asking around or placing an ad in the paper. If someone is looking for a dog, she will give it free; otherwise she might charge $50. Basically she takes care of dogs for people while they go on vacation because they do not want them in a kennel. She averages two to six dogs at a time, but never goes over ten because that is all she can handle. She has a restaining fence where they can exercise. She tries to keep a low profile on weekends and evenings when the neighbors are home; but the dogs do bark. When they bark, she brings them into the house; but sometimes she doesn't hear them. She is getting better about that. She is there all of the time. She gets business via word of mouth and does not advertise. She will not care for the dogs at their own homes because it is too difficult to do. She has been doing this for four years and considers it babysitting, not a kennel. Sometimes she does not get paid; but with the cost of getting a Permit, she will have to charge a specific price. She also barters; it's not really like a business. The average stay for a dog is one week. The longest stay was two months, but that is rare. She does no training. Ms. Lawson stated there are bushes between her yard and the house to one side, plus many trees on the other side. Ms. Lawson stated she used to take the dogs to the creek, but has recently constructed a restraining fence where they can exercise and she can play with them. Now they cannot get to the neighbors' area. Carmen Molencamo. 140 Andover Boulevard NW - has been there since 1981. Ms. Lawson's lot was originally a part of their 20 acres. She and her husband showed dogs, so they are familiar with dogs and dog ownership. They are greatly disturbed by the dogs next door. They bark at night, especially on weekends. They didn't know Ms. Lawson's name so they lJ u Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 5 , ,) (Public Hearing: Kennel License, 160 Andover Blvd, Continued) never called her, but they attempted many times to call the police. Dogs have run into their yard and did their job there many times, though they notice there is a fence there now. They cannot go outside to work without the dogs barking. Until now Ms. Lawson walked the dogs to the creek, then called and called for them to come home. She is concerned with how secure the fence is, as the gate is lower than the fence so any large dog could get over it. She is concerned about not having separate facilities for males and females. She is also concerned with the spread of diseases and whether Ms. Lawson requires a shot record when dogs are boarded. If the license is given, she'd like to know what kind of inspections are made for sanitation and the control of diseases, parasites and heartworm which can be transferred from one dog to another. Ms. Molencamp again complained about the barking, noting the inconveniences they have endured as a result. , , Elena Johnson, 206 Andover Boulevard NW - found that Ms. Lawson has always taken care of the dogs. If there were all these problems, she asked why no one ever said anything. Their house is the closest, with their bedroom window 40 feet from the gate to the private area. They have never heard the dogs, thinking Ms. Lawson does a good job. She has two dogs of her own, and she felt that Ms. Lawson is getting blamed for the barking of the other dogs in the area. She was home for awhile during the day and Ms. Lawson's dogs are a bit noisier during the day. They are always home on weekends, and there has never been a problem. She would put her dogs in Ms. Lawson's care. This is not a commercial business. Ms. Lawson loves animals and does this out of her love for them. She leaves her windows open in the summer and would occasionally hear Ms. Lawson's dogs, but usually it would be other neighbors' dogs. Usually there are not many dogs there. She has spent thousands of dollars landscaping her yard the last few years, and Ms. Lawson's dogs have never been a problem. Ms. Johnson felt Ms. Lawson is being blamed for the other dogs in the area and should be granted a Permit. ) Lyle Johnson, 206 Andover Boulevard NW - understood why those to the east had a legitimate complaint for awhile; but with the installation of the fence, that has been alleviated. They also brought the problem with barking to Ms. Lawson's attention about a month ago, and that too has been improved and she has started to limit the number of dogs going outside at a time. The fencing is fairly rigid, and Ms. Lawson does not leave the dogs unattended in the yard. \ , , / Karen Swanson, 222 Andover Boulevard NW - stated on the four properties to the west there are seven dogs, and she has talked to all of those owners whenever there has been a barking problem. In defense of Ms. Lawson, she does not see the dogs because of the trees and the fence; bu t they do get out of hand every now and then. The last time she talked to Ms . Lawson was the weekend of July 4, but there are other dogs in the area causing problems as well. If the Permit is granted, she would like to see a check done every year to see that everything is going well. .. \ . ) "--~ u Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 6 J (Public Hearing: Kennel License, 160 Andover Blvd, Continued) JoAnn Kampa, 155 Andover Boulevard NW - called Ms. Lawson after getting the notice. They have been bothered by the noise quite a bit; she can only judge where it is coming from by the direction of the wind. She would have called Ms. Lawson sooner, but she didn't know her last name. She thought Ms. Lawson has a heart of gold and cares for animals very much; but the noise is a problem, especially on weekends or holidays when they are in the yard. Traffic is also a problem, with a lot of cars going in the driveway. The head lights come right into her kitchen. Chairperson Squires read a letter for the record from Sara Nesland, 137 Andover Boulevard NW, opposing the Permit because of the barking and whining from the dogs, the additional traffic in the area, the safety of the dogs and the sanitary conditions. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing at this time. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 9:19 p.m. Mr. Carlberg noted the unusual situation regarding lot size. Normally an R-1 district would have a minimum of 2 1/2 acres with 300 feet of lot / frontage. The lots in this area are three to four acres with only 100 to 200 feet of width across the front, which may be one of the factors of the complaints on noise. Kennel licenses are only allowed in the R- 1 district. Commissioner Dehn agreed the narrow frontage is causing the problem with noise. Even though the lot depth generates enough acreage, the proximity of the other houses is raising concerns with the neighbors. Commissioner Peek was also concerned with the number of dogs on the premises at one time and with the facilities. Mr. Carlberg stated that can be made a part of the Special Use Permit. The kennels are not inspected every year by the City unless they get calls. Commissioner Peek felt the facilities to board ten dogs is about the limit, and that may be compounding the problem. Commissioner Jovanovich was concerned with the health of the dogs, updated shots, diseases, flees, etc., and with the upkeep of the yard. Commissioner Putnam was not in favor of approving the Permit for this property because of the configuration of the lot and adjacent properties. The intent in allowing this use in an R-1 area was for the normally shaped lots. These lots would not meet today's standards. He suggested the ordinance regulation of not more than three dogs be applied and not try to operate a kennel type business there. He didn't think the lot is adequate from a good-neighbor standpoint nor for the safety and welfare of the dogs. \ \. ./ MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Peek, forward to the City Council a Resolution denying the Special Use Permit request of Glenda Lawson for a kennel license located at 160 Andover Boulevard NW. Going down the Resolution, WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request does not meet the criteria of Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 and 7.03; and WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission finds the purposed use will be detrimental to the \ ) '. ,-.J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 7 I (Public Hearing: Kennel License, 160 Andover Blvd, Continued) health, safety and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands for the following reasons: 1) The lot is a nonconforming lot with the width of only 100 feet affecting the proximity of nearby neighbors of the area involved; 2) The shape of the lot, even though it conforms with the ordinance as far as acreage is concerned, is long and narrow; 3) There is concern about the welfare of the dogs being housed there. Since it is nonconforming use, the opportunity to develop the property further to enhance it to maintain higher levels of dogs would be difficult to approve; 4) Potentially the suggested scale of the operation was excessive for the site given the physical considerations; 5) One of the concerns of the neighbors in the proximity was the noise levels and sanitation and safety of the dogs; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was opposition regarding said request; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the Special Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the Special Use Permit for a kennel license requested by Glenda Lawson to operate a kennel on said property. Delete conditions listed in prepared Resolution. DISCUSSION: . / Ms. Lawson - stated the Commission is basically talking about her life, as this is her survival. If this is not issued, at least give her some time to get out--at least six months or a year. If this has been such a problem for the last four years, why hasn't someone talked to her about it. Neighbors stated they did not know who she was. Chairperson Squires explained the Special Use Permit process, noting the City Council will be making the final decision. Mr. Carlberg stated normally the Council will allow a certain time frame in which to cease the operation, generally anywhere from 30 to 90 days. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. This will be heard by the City Council on October 4. 9:37 p.m. The Commission recessed at this time, 9:37; reconvened at 9:42 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 8.07, SIGNS , I 9:42 p.m. Mr. Carlberg asked the Commission to consider an amendment to Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, to allow advertisement signs by Special Use Permit when used in conjunction with fencing for recreational facilities that are not visible from a public right of way or residential property. The problem came about due to a recent proposal from Dick and Brad Povlitzki, who are constructing Pov's Sports Bar with two softball fields as a part of the operation. They are requesting that the outfield fences be allowed to display advertisement signs. The ordinance allows the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot to ,-.j \ \.J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 8 / (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, Signs Continued) be four square feet per front foot of building. Their building is 170 feet wide, which would allow a total of 680 square feet of advertisement sign space. They are asking for approximately 1600 square feet of advertisement sign space to cover the fencing. Brad Povlitzki - explained the proposed fencing and adverting. There would be two 20-foot high fences, the fencing around the fields, plus the 8-foot high fencing across his property. The ball fields are four feet lower than the front of the lot, plus there will be a privacy fence across the front of the lot with pine trees planted every 15 feet across the front. The advertisement signs will not be seen from the road. People will have to go inside of the building to get to the ball field or to even view it. Mr. Carlberg researched how White Bear Lake allowed the Village Inn to construct an outfield fence with adverting, but they were not quite sure how that was allowed since their ordinance doesn't allow it. Eagan just made an exception to their sign ordinance to allow the school district to erect an outfield fence with advertisement. The revenue generated from renting the sign space is used to maintain the ball field. / Mr. Povlitzki then showed a video of the outfield fences with advertisement signs of the Village Inn and the school district fields in Eagan. The main reason for the advertisement signs is for the gimmicks, that is to provide a target to hit the ball through to earn prizes. It provides incentives for people to play ball. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Putnam, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 10:03 p.m. Discussion was on the ramifications of allowing the advertisement signs. Mr. Carlberg stated the concern is the view from public right of ways and from residential property. This parcel is facing Bunker Lake Boulevard, and the fencing cannot be seen from there. with the screening, it is also believed the residential areas will not see it as well. Caution must be takenr however, to not allow someone to place an advertisement on a fence just to screen property. It must be limited to recreational facilities. There was no public input. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yesr 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 10:05 p.m. After some discussion, the Commission generally agreed to the wording of an amendment as stated by Chairperson Squires: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, which would allow advertisement signs by Special Use Permit when used in conjunction with fencing for recreational facilities that is not visible from a public right of way or adjacent residential property as viewed from ground level. , / Commissioner Peek noted the proof is borne by the developer that the advertisement signs are not visible. He also suggested the back side of the 20-foot high fence be visually acceptable in the event it can be seen from some residential areas. \, \. I \ '. ,) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 13, 1994 Page 9 j (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07, Signs Continued) Larrv Stenquist - wondered if this should just be limited to sports facilities. He felt it would make sense to allow the advertisement signs in the junkyard areas as a way of screening the areas to solve that entire visual problem. The Commission preferred to limit it to recreational facilities at this time. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward that recommendation to the City Council as stated by Chairperson Squires. There was a public hearing. There was no opposition expressed. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. 10:18 p.m. DISCUSSION: VARIANCE - REAR YARD SETBACK - 4401 158TH AVENUE NW - LARRY STENQUIST 1 / Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Larry Stenquist to allow for the construction of a 7' x 13' deck encroaching five feet into the required 50-foot setback from a major arterial on a single family residence that encroaches two feet into that setback. A variance was not granted when the house was built two feet into the setback, so it is nonconforming. Mr. Stenquist removed an existing deck from the house which had rotted away because it was improperly built, then came in for a building permit to construct a new one. That is when the encroachments were discovered. The hardship in this case is the fact that the house was built in 1976 before Mr. Stenquist owned it, as well as a deck, without a permit. There is a sliding glass door where the deck is being proposed. Larrv Stenquist - stated he will put a roof on the porch, but it not intended to be a three- or four-season porch. The Commission felt it would be more appropriate to call the addition a porch and asked that the Permit indicate the porch cannot be converted into living space. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Dehn, forwarding to the City Council the Resolution approving the variance request of Larry Stenquist as written, and add on to the end that this will not be adding on to the living space of the home. Also change "deck" to "porch" in paragraphs 1, 2, and 5. Motion carried on as-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. This will be heard by the City Council on October 4. DISCUSSION AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO.8, ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATION OF JUNK VEHICLES, PARKING AND EXTERIOR STORAGE , I Mr. Johnson reviewed the changes made by Staff to the proposed ordinance amendments for exterior storage, parking requirements and junk vehicles. The regulations on the parking of recreational vehicles will not change. Section 8.08, 4(d), should be changed to read: Vehicles posted "for sale" must be parked on the owner's driveway, not on the street. Sections (d) and (g) reference the higher density district. Section (g) should read: Under no circumstances may passenger vehicles, boats, and recreational vehicles be parked on the front yard unless on a driving '\ \ .I , '\ . ) ,.- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes r '\ Page 10 ) (Discussion: Amendments to Ordinance 8, Continued) surface (R-3 and R-4 districts only). No changes proposed ordinance regulating abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles within the City. were made to the junked, partially The Commission strongly advised that adequate notification to the residents be done for the pubic hearing on these changes. It was suggested some notification be placed in the next City newsletter, which comes out the first part of October, with the public hearing held after that. Mr. Carlberg stated notification will be placed on cable as well. A tentative public hearing date of October 11 was suggested, assuming the newsletter is delivered by then. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the actions of the City Council at their September 6, 1994, regular meeting on items forwarded to them by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Apel, Pease) vote. ! / The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~~~ Recording Secretary