Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 8, 1992 - 2 o o o o o CA CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Bonnie Dehn on September 8, 1992, 7:48 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich, Becky Pease, Randy Peek Marc McMullen City Planner, David Carlberg Others. Commissioner absent: Also Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 25, 1992: Page 2, fourth paragraph, clarify that they thought it was a 75-foot setback based on the information given to them by the DNR. It was really a 50-foot setback. The DNR stated that there were so many alterations made to the shore line that they couldn't establish the ordinary high water mark. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Apel, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried on a 3-Yes (Apel, Dehn, Jovanovich), 3- Present (Jonak, Pease, Peek), 1-Absent (McMullen) vote. VARIANCE - CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY BUILDING CLOSER TO FRONT LOT LINE THAN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: 126 177TH AVENUE NW, JOHN O'NEIL Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of John O'Neil to allow for the construction and placement of an accessory structurer pole building, located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. The real issue is that Mr. O'Neil would like to build a pole building; but according to the Zoning Ordinance, the structure must be similar in design and exterior finish to the principal structure. John O'Neil, 126 177th Avenue - stated his lot fronts on Highway 58, but there is a very large grove of trees between his house and the road, so his house cannot be seen from the road. If the building were placed south of the house, he'd be looking at it from the picture windows in the house. Where it is proposed, it cannot be seen from '-~ \ o Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 8, 1992 Page 2 , .I (Variance - 126 177th Avenue NW/O'Neil, Continued) the road, it is most accessible from the driveway, the ground is level, and only one tree will need to be cut down. He argued there are many pole buildings in the area, and this one will not be seen from the road. He did not want the additional expense of an exterior finish when no one will see it, and the pole building siding is colored as well. This building would be maintenance free, and he showed a picture of it. Even if the property was split into 2 1/2- acre lots, the proposed location would be the best one. Commissioner Apel felt this situation illustrates the inability of being able to write regulations to fit all situations. Because of the area, he didn't feel it would be a problem with a pole building located where it is proposed. Commission discussion noted a road easement along the eastern border of Mr. O'Neil's property. Mr. O'Neil stated if Butternut were ever built, it probably would run up to Highway 58 and his address would be on Butternut. That is why he located the house the way he did. It is a secluded area. If the building were put south of the house, it would be seen from the road, plus more leveling would be needed and more trees would have to be cut. ,/ Chairperson Dehn felt there was a big difference when the ordinance is applied at 50 feet from the road or at 200 feet from the road as in this case. She is not as opposed to the variance in this instance. If it were located behind the house, no variance would be required. '\ MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Pease, that we forward this thing to the City Council and recommend approval of the variance due to the fact that the building in question meets the conditions established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, and there was no one here that said anything against his proposing of it. He gave us facts that would indicate from all of our visual placement standardsr this is the best place for it. I don't think we should attempt to make strict use of the ordinance in this instance when he's so far from 177th and Butternut, which has to be considered; and if it were, it still would be the best place visually. I see no reason for denying this. DISCUSSION: Chairperson Dehn was hesitant about approving a pole building in an area that will eventually be considered for development. Commissioner Apel argued from a visual standpoint, this is the best place. No one can see it. VOTE ON MOTION: ABSENT-McMullen. the Council with YES-Apel, Pease, Peek; NO-Dehn, Jonak, Jovanovich; Motion failed on a tie vote. The item will go to no recommendation on October 6, 1992. '\ ./ u , \ V Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 8, 1992 Page 3 \ ,-.-J SKETCH PLAN - TIMBER MEADOWS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Andover Review Committee's comments and recommendations on the sketch plan of Timber Meadows. The plat will consist of 25 lots with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. The ARC is recommending that both l68th Lane and l67th Lane run east-west from Tulip Street and Round Lake Boulevard to eliminate the variance on the Orchid Street NW cul-de-sac. Bvron Westlund, Woodland Development, 17644 Aztec Street - stated they were concerned about the number of variances that would be required if the streets went through. Also, the streets were designed to minimize the number of crossings off of Round Lake Boulevard, that being a safety issue. With l69th and l73rd already going through between Tulip and Round Lake Boulevard, it was felt that another through street would not be needed. He also noted the safety concerns of through streets, relating data gathered about the number of cars and high speed traveled along l69th and l73rd. They tried to minimize the safety issues and make the development safer for the residents. Also, in order to minimize the loss of trees, the roads were basically routed on existing farm trails. " After discussion, the Commission generally felt the safety issue ,...J should be considered but that at least one of the roads should be a through street between Tulip and Round Lake Boulevard, thinking that the best one may be l67th Lane because it is the furthest away from the existing through streets. Mr. Carlberg stated the sketch plan, along with the Commission's comments, will be forwarded to the City Council at their September 15, 1992, meeting. DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.21, FENCING ,~ The Commission discussed the proposal to amend the fencing portion of Ordinance No.8, noting the copies of ordinances from other cities on fencing. Commissioner Apel felt it is obvious that some types of fencing, such as barbwire and electric fencingr should not be allowed in the urban areas. Other than that, he did not feel a change was needed to the ordinance since there have been very few problems with fencing or that portion of the ordinance. The Commission agreed, also feeling that it is not necessary to indicate the material that is allowed for fencing since the state-of- the-art can change. It was felt that trying to regulate temporary or permanent fencing, colors, etc., would be totally arbitrary; therefore, no change should be made at this time. Mr. Carlberg was asked to draft an amendment to the ordinance to eliminate the use of barbwire and electric fencing in platted areas. () \ V Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 8, 1992 Page 4 " '-~) OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reported Staff has submitted the rural density issue to the Metropolitan Council and is waiting for a response from them. There being no further business, Chairperson Dehn declared the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1\~ ~~ Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary , , , / " )