Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 25, 1994 ~J o ,.", o o u ~ 1\ I elC1J-.j fA: CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - OCTOBER 25, 1994 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on October 25, 1994, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Bonnie Dehn, Bev Jovanovich, Randy Peek, Jerry Putnam Commissioner,absent:. Becky Pease ~_-Also prese.nt.:....:.:.~..~.__,~~..:..._,...c.i.ty..R~"'ni.n.g- Director, David Carlberg . City Administrator, Richard Fursman Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 11, 1994: Correct as written. MOTION by Dehn,' Seconded by Jovanovich, to approve the Minutes as stated. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-Absent (Pease) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - ADVERTISING SIGNS IN CONJUNCTION . WITH FENCING FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (BALL FIELDS), 1851 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW, POll'S SPORTS BAR, RICHARD AND BRAD POVLITZKI 7:01 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Dick and Brad Povlitzki to place advertisement signs on the fencing for two ball fields at Pov's Sports Bar. He reviewed the ordinance amendment recently approved by the City Council to allow this use and noted other applicable ordinances to granting Special Use Permits. The proposal is to place signage on the outfield walls that are 8-foot fences plus an 80-foot section that would be 20 feet high. The advertising signs are 4x8r 32-square-foot signs. . Mr. Carlberg also noted the issue of adjacent residential property as stated in the amendment. The legal limit of the Special Use Permit and for the liquor license is the southern portion of the property owned by the Povlitzkis'. The only adjacent residential property is five to six houses to the northwest, and the signage is not visible from those houses. There are two or three houses along Bunker Lake Boulevard that are some distance to the west that can see a portion of the facilities' fields. The City owns the large wetland that is betweenpov's Sports Bar and these residenc~s, which is zoned General Business. The trees are quite sparse to the west of the facility to screen from these residents. He drove to the cul-de-sac; and from ground level, one can see a portion of the fence. One can also see all of the development along Bunker Lake Boulevard to the south, which are the junkyards and other commercial properties. The question is interpretation. By definition the signage is not visible from adjacent property which abuts the parcel where this facility is located. \ , ) ---J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 25, 1994 Page 2 / (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Advertising Signs, Pov's Sports Bar, Continued) Commissioner Dehn realized the City owned the parcel between the houses and Pov's Sports Bar, but she interpreted the amendment as the adjacent or residential area in close proximity. At this point she had a concern with the signs being visible to adjacent residents. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Apel, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-Absent (Pease) vote. 7:10 p.m. . , ,Barb Duerr. 13753 partridae Street - stated she can see the fields and ,~""-"''''"ttre-,,~,.ery."'taJ:'''l ""f'~t1t"€!'~6i1.:.th'~..ftI:t'-S'ttre"rrr 'the back very well from her back yard. If he had left some of the trees in there, there wouldn't have been much of a problem; but they cleared all the trees and now there is a clear view from her back yard. Yes, they live next to the junkyards; but they knew those yards were there when they moved in. They didn't know they would have a big fence with advertising in their back yard when they built their home. She had no problem with businesses, but she had a problem with brightly colored or lighted advertising in her back yard until 1 o'clock in the morning. She didn't have a problem with advertising, but do~s it have to be to the top of those tall fences? She stated it is really bad from her back yard and she is very unhappy about the situation of people playing baIlout there until midnight with the lights and advertising. She also alleged there will be no more wildlife in that area once the business gets in there because this is a loud, colorful business for someone's back yard. Randall Haaen, 13763 partridae - stated from his back yard he can see both of the hugh fences. Almost all the trees are now gone; and with most of the .leaves. off the trees, those fences can be clearly seen. Before the fields were being developed he had a permit to construct a deck off his. bedroom because it was a beautiful area. He thought the advertising, loud noises and lights will destroy that. Just because they can see all the other eye sores across the street doesn't mean they should settle for any more. He felt this is going to be bad. Paul Lundahl, 2094 137th - can also see all of these things across the swamp, and he is really not looking forward to seeing the signs and lights next spring. In the spring the leaves will block it somewhat, but not enough. In the fall with all the leaves gone, they can see the facilities very plainly; and he doesn't feel like looking at this one bit. He had no idea there would be a softball field across the swamp. Also, because he lives'right off of Bunker Lake Boulevard, people coming out of the sports facility can easily turn to his back yard and maybe into the back of his h6use. He can drive to his back yard with his truck right now .from Bunker Lake Boulevard. What will happen if someone comes smashing into the back of his house? He's also not looking forward to all the bright lights and the noise echoing across the swamp because he has to. get to bed early and wake up early. Commissioner Apel felt some of these items should have been raised at the hearing for the Special Use Permit for 'the liquor license. At this time the interest is solely in the advertising signs. \~) ~ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 25, 1994 Page 3 / (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Advertising Signs, Pov'S Sports Bar, Continued) Mr. Carlberg noted the lighting would be standard for softball fields directed toward the fields. The advertising signs are on the fence itself . Mr. Lundahl - asked if something can be put up between the last row of trees and the rest of the. property so they don't have to look at that. It didn't matter to him whether his property is adjacent or not; he's not in favor of this' and doesn't want to have to look at it. Mr. Carlberg stated they could require additional planting of trees. The - question is -if- this is, visible. from- adjacent residential property. By definition, their property is not adjacent to this. Dick Povlitzki, Pov's Sports Bar - didn't know they were causing that much harm and couldn't believe the comments here. Other communities have this type of facility with peopie very close, and there are no problems. In this case the residents are 1500 feet away, so far that they couldn't even read the signs. He thought the lights for the ball fields have to be shut off at 11 o'clock at night. / Commissioner Dehn asked if other types of screening could be required. Since vegetative planting would take a long time to screen, would other types of fencing be appropriate. She thought the developer was asked to do his utmost abi~ity to save those trees. Mr. Carlberg questioned constructing a fence to, screen another fence. To requiring additional plantings of fast-growing trees may be a solution and could be a condition of this Permit. More trees were moved than originally thought because of trying to make things fit and the wetland regulations. Mr. Povlitzki - stated they were told what to do in the wetland area. They wanted to keep the trees; but there are fast-growing trees in that area which will screen the facility within two years. Commissioner Putnam stated since the ability to see the signs through the fall and winter is the problem, he asked if it is possible to cover the signs during the off-season as a temporary measure until the trees grow to screen it. Mr. Povlitzki - didn't think that was feasible. These residents can't read the signs from that distance. He thought that would be ridiculous. Commissioner Apel disagreed that these residents can be considered adjacent residential properties. If that is the case, the scenario could be applied to the residents in Hidden Creek to the south, which is the nearest residential area in that direction, as to whether or not they could view the signage from the highest hill. If the definition of adjacent is abutting property, than this issue is moot. Ms. Duevmever - is not arguing about the signs. Her problem is do the / signs have to be 20 feet high? If they are only six feet high, she won't even know they are there. She acknowledged she wouldn't be able to read the signs, but it is the bright colors that are not natural that are offensive. , ') '. / <J Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 25, 1994 Page 4 , I (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Advertising Signs, Pov's Sports Bar, Continued) ) Mr. Povlitzki - stated they have invested almost $2 million in this facilities and are trying to make a nice facility. No one can get to the fields without going through the bar area. He felt they did a good job putting this project together, and the advertising is an important part to making it work. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-Absent (Pease) vote. 7:34 p.m. "Chairperson 'Squires. felt -the f'irst'issue is reaching a consensus on the issue of adjacent residential property. If it is determined the residential properties are not adjacent, there is no issue. If they are adjacent, then perhaps the issues of screening, etc'r should be considered. There was a lengthy Commission debate on the issue. It was noted that the swamp between the facility and the residents in question is designated wetland, is owned by the City and probably would never be developed. There may be development to the north and northwest, but that is not City property. Several Commissioners argued the residences abut the City property, not the facility. Those residents that, by definition, do abut the property cannot see the signs, only the back of the fences. They also noted that when applying the word "adjacent" in other situations such as variances and setbacks, it applies to other properties that touch the one in question. In that strict interpretation, the residences in question are not adjacent to this facility. The other Commissioners then agreed. Commissioner Peek suggested if the Povlitzki's want to be good neighbors, they can plant additional trees to the west for screening. , Commissioner Peek noted the Council adjusted the amendment removing the requirement that the signs not be visible from a public right of way. He stated there will be some sections of the 20-foot high fence that will be visible from Bunker Lake Boulevard. He doesn' t support the action of the Council, and he wouldn't support the granting of this Permit without addressing that issue. This is a unique fencing because it is scaled. If the fencing surrounding the field was six or eight feet high, that would be one thing. But because some of the fencing is 20 feet high and will be visible from the right of way, he'd support some action that addressees that concern. Commissioner Apel stated the Commission is an advisory committee, and the City Council chose not to follow their' recommendation on that aspect. He did not think recommendations could be made as a part of the Permit simply to get around an ordinance. Chairperson Squires agreed that while the Commission may not agree with the Council'8 decision, they are faced with a task which is different than what they would have adopted. Commissioner Peek argued the ordinance doesn' t address the scale of fencing and that that can be addressed specifically for the Special Use Permit process. On any Permit, the City applies conditions based on the specific nature of the application. I ; \ J ,-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 25, 1994 Page 5 I (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit, Advertising Signs, Pov's Sports Bar, Continued) Discussion was then on requiring some screening on the west boundary of the facility, noting the third criteria for granting Special Use Permits, that is the effect on the values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area. Commissioner Dehn noted for wind breaking in agriculture they use a fast-growing popular in combination with conifers behind it. , , I MOTION by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Council the approval of a Special Use Permit request from Dick and - Brad 'Poviitzki' involved 'with the ball park to erect signs as permitted by the recent change in the Sign Ordinance. The public hearing was held. There were three neighbors who spoke against the signage as being intrusive on their property. Still recommend the approval of the Special Use Permit because it does not have any effect on the four criteria that we use for granting Special Use Permits. The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, including: the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community; the use will not cause serious traffic congestions or hazards; the use will not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Add no conditions, but ask that the people involved talk with the neighbors who are interested in doing something to make the signs less intrusive and maybe corne up with a reasonable solution such as putting up screening. Motion dies for lack of a Second. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Peek, using the majority of Commissioner Apel's motion except add a condition in the motion indicating screening, particularly on the west side to insure those residents in that area that it is now visible, that area of the cul-de-sac on Partridge Street, that some sort of' fast-growing vegetative screening be required, to be determined by Staff. . Restrict the signage to the fencing located at the outfield of the softball diamonds. Subject to an annual review. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dehn suggested to Mr. Povlitzki that he talk with the concerned residents, to keep the lines of communications open to resolve problems. Mr. Povlitzki agreed the signage would be on the outfield fences only and agreed to the restriction. Commissioner Peek asked if the maker of the motion would accept limiting the signage on the 20-foot sections of fencing to eliminate the sign visibility from Bunker Lake- Boulevard at that specific location. Commissioner Dehn would not accept that amendment. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-No (Peek)~ 1-Absent (Pease) vote. This will be placed on the .November 15 City Council agenda. 7:55 p.m. I OTHER BUSINESS Update on City Council actions - Mr. actions at their October 18 meeting on by the Planning Commission. Carlberg reviewed the Council several items forwarded to them , '- j '-) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 25, 1994 Page 6 (Other Business, Continued) November 8, 1994, P & Z Meeting - Mr. Carlberg noted that because of the General Election on November 8, the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will not begin until 8:01 p.m. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-Absent (Pease) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. .;' . ;-a. _. ",_, '" . ~~~~ Marcella A. Peach ' Recording Secretary