HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 13, 1990
.~
\.J
C)
C)
o
o
''''1
0'
1'\"'1
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Rebecca Pease on Tuesday,
February 13, 1990 at the Andover City Hall Offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd.,
Andover, MN.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Pease, Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich, Randal Peek,
Gretchen Sabel, Don Spotts, Wayne Vistad
Others Present: Jay Blake
Approval of Minutes
The Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review and approve minutes of
the January 23, 1990 Planning and zoning Commission meeting.
Gretchen Sabel noted a spelling error on page seven.
commissioner Ferris made a MOTION to approve minutes as amended. Commissioner
Jovanovich seconded motion. All commissioners favored MOTION; minutes of 1/23/90
approved.
special Use Permit, Jim and Maggie Runke, 13476 NW Hanson Blvd.
The Andover Planning & Zoning Commission was asked to review the application
of James and Maggie Runke for an Amended Special Use Permit to expand the existing
repair garage at 13476 NW Hanson Blvd. The business, AndoverWheel and Frame,
is planning an addition onto the south side of the existing building. The
existing building contains a large shop and a small office. Plans for the
expansion are included in the packet to commission.
Existing business is located in an "I" Industrial District and the expansion
of the repair garage requires an Amended Special Use Permit, per Ordinance 8,
Sections 5.03 and 7.03.
Property owned by Mr. wagner is adjacent to Runke property. Mr. Wagner is considering
development at an R4 density with commercial along Hanson Blvd.
The City has the authority to grant an Amended Special Use Permit based on the
criteria of Section 5.03 of Ordinance 8.
City staff is of the opinion that requested plan will enhance property and improve
visability of business, thereby making better use of property. Staff does not
believe a negative impact on surrounding property will occur.
Staff has indicated traffic considerations within the parking lot will be addressed
during the commercial site plan application process handled at staff level.
cont . d. . .
Andover Planning and zon~._4 Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Two
(j
r ~ Staff does not believe that additional traffic generated due to expansion will
~ create a negative impact on Hanson Blvd.
Staff believes this plan will not reduce options for the possible expansion and
alignment requirements of Commercial Blvd.
Staff recommends approval of request with the following conditions imposed:
1) Building and site plans approved by the Andover Review Committee
prior to construction
2) Exterior storage of vehicles under repair be limited to the rear
storage area west of the proposed building
3) The Special Use Permit is to be reviewed after the first year to
ensure compliance with all City Ordinances.
Mr. Blake asked that commission forward their decision immediately to City Council
as applicants are waiting to order materials needed for the building. The City
Council next meets on February 20, 1990.
Property owners within 350 feet of site have been notified.
Commissioner Spotts asked if Runke's currently hold a Special Use Permit.
~J
Blake stated Runke's were grand fathered in and given a Special Use Permit when
property was zoned industrial. Therefore, request is for an Amended Special Use
Permit.
Peek noted that foundation is already in for expansion.
Blake explained Building Department issued footing permit. During process, it
was deemed an Amended Special Use Permit was necessary. Construction has been
halted.
Blake stated there is a 3 foot NSP easement on west side of property that is part
of a 150 foot north/south easement and a UPA easement on east side of property.
Morton Building designed site plan submitted with building application.
Peek asked if the parking areaplan meets City requirements.
Blake replied that staff will work with Runke's to ensure distance between stalls,
curbs and other considerations meet City requirements.
Sabel questioned if existing septic system is to be moved or removed.
Blake stated septic will not be changed.
Ferris asked if existing fence and storage area will be expanded.
r---"
<~
cont'd.. .
~
~)
'~-)
Andover Planning and zo~~~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Three
u
Blake stated approval can be authorized on staff level for additional improvements
once Amended Special Use Permit is granted.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M. There were no comments
from the general public.
Commissioner Ferris asked Mr. Runke if there are plans to extend the fence.
Mr. Runke stated he may extend the fence approximately 20 feet to the south of
the existing building.
MOTION made by Wayne Vistad to close the Public Hearing. Second to motion by
Ron Ferris. All commissioners favor MOTION: Public Hearing closed.
Commissioner Vis tad made a MOTION that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the AndoverCity Council approval of the Amended Special Use Permit
allowing the expansion of a repair garage in an Industrial District per Ordinance 8,
Sections 5.03 and 7.03 on property described as the east 268 feet of Lot 12, Watts
Garden Acres, Anoka County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
1) The building and site plans be approved by the Andover Review Committee
prior to construction.
2) The exterior storage of vehicles under repair be limited to the rear
storage area west of the proposed building.
3) The Amended Special Use Permit be reviewed after the first year to
ensure compliance with all City ordinances.
A Public Hearing was held and there was no objection.
The Commission finds that the request will not have a significant detrimental
effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, on
the comprehensive plan, on traffic congestion or on property values of the surrounding
land.
Second to motion by Commissioner Ferris.
Blake made recommendation that motion be forwarded to City Council for review at
the 2/20/90 meeting.
Peek noted it must be understood by the property owner that all permits and approvals
must be granted prior to construction.
Spotts recommended City Council be made aware that Special Use Permit is result
of grandfather clause and that this request is for an Amended Special Use
Permit.
All commissioners favored MOTION; motion passed.
Mr. Blake requested agenda item 6 be moved ahead of agenda item 5. This request
was met with approval.
cont'd.. .
:J
Q
o
Andover Planning and zonc=J Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Four
()
Lot Split, James and Pamela Deal, 161st and Makah Street
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review application of
James and Pamela Deal for two lots splits on Tracts "G" and "H" in Registered
Land Survey #72. The development was a Registered Land Survey done through metes
and bounds, therefore proposed parcels will require a variance to the minimum
area requirements of 2.5 acres. The Deal's are working with Woodland Development
on this project.
Existing two tracts are both 5+ acres in size including the road easement for
Makah Street NW. The development was completed by Raintree Realty in 1979 as a
metes and bounds lot split. As such, the tracts include the roadway easement
as part of their area requirements.
Current zoning on the property is R-l Single Family with minimum requirements
as follows:
Area
Lot Width
Lot Depth
2.5 acres
300 feet
150 feet
Trace "H" where the existing Deal house is located, would be split into Parcels
"A" and "B", each approximately 2.5 acres including roadway easement. Tract "G"
owned by the Deal's, would be split into Parcels "c" and "D". Parcels "B" and
"c" would have access from Makah Street and Parcels "A" and "D" would gain access
from Seventh Avenue.
A small part of the property is titled Tract "Y" (a city maintained historic
cemetery) The 1/2 acre site has an existing road easement that is not improved.
An older home, demolished and burned, sat on Parcel "A". Access to 7th Avenue for
both of these Parcels was gained from 7th Avenue on the proposed driveway easement.
D meets size requirement without Tract Y.
The request will create four, two and one half acre parcels from two, five acre
parcels.
City staff recommends approval of lot split request.
Commissioner Spotts questioned if approval including road easement would set a
precedent.
Blake stated this practice has been established within the community.
Spotts asked if approving variance for substandard lot would create a precedent.
Blake replied the city has granted several such variances, provided there are
no negative impacts.
Ferris stated Tract "Y" creates a definite hardship.
Blake estimated the widest point of triangle to be 10 feet.
There are no existing buildings on property.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M.
cont 'd. ..
Andover Planning and zoI~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Five
o
C)
Byron Westlund was present to represent Woodland Development.
Chairman Pease asked if there are restrictions against building near historical
cemetary.
Blake stated any building on Parcel "D" would have to meet setbacks from Parcel
"y" as it is another Parcel.
Blake stated it is responsibility of city to maintain cemetary.
Ferris stated it is his understanding this lot split is intended to be a family
lot split.
Mr. Westlund stated that Parcel "c" will remain in Jim and Pam Deal's possession.
Ferris noted there appears to be a drainage ditch and pond on Parcel "C". He
questioned if there is standing water.
Byron Westlund stated frozen water on site may be result of fire trucks draining
pumper on December 17, 1989.
Ferris asked if there is typically standing water on site.
Peggy Michaelson replied there is a culvert on Tract "Y".
Blake noted one property owner in area has expressed concern that the density
c=) will become too great.
Pease questioned the access onto Highway 7.
Blake answered that
Highway Department.
ways.
City has not received specific comment from the Anoka County
Additionally, Blake noted the City has allowed joint drive-
Peek suggested City seek written approval from County.
Blake stated County position is to limit, not prohibit, access onto Highway 7.
Ferris stated since City does need authorization from County to allow access onto
Highway 7, written approval does not need to be obtained.
Ms. Michaelson asked if this means any of the 5 acre lots can be split to 2 1/2
acres.
Blake replied that is a possibility as zoning requires minimum lot size of 2 1/2
acres.
Peek asked if County requires permit to access to County Road.
Vistad noted an existing access has been granted on easement.
o
westlund stated there is a driveway access already granted to the site of the
demolished farmhouse. There is also a driveway access granted to the existing
cont'd...
Andover Planning and zor---) Commission
February 13, 1990 Meetirl,,- inutes
Page six
o
easement for the cemetary. This driveway has not been constructed. Deal's request
r~ will eliminate one access.
V
The farmhouse was unoccupied approximately one year before it was razed.
Mr. Blake has looked over property and does not have concerns in regard to
topography.
Ferris asked the width of triangle between Parcels "B" and "c" and width of
triangle where it narrows approaching Tract "Y".
Blake figured approximate dimensions as 1 1/2 feet wide at bottom; 10 feet wide
at the top of Tract "Y"; and 13 - 14 feet wide at top of triangle.
Pease asked if cemetary is included in parcel. Blake replied cemetary is not
included in parcel.
Peek questioned if setbacks applied to "D" leave adequate building area.
Blake believes there is sufficient area to build.
Ferris asked Westlund if he would be willing to eliminate triangle.
Westlund agreed to consider elimination of triangle.
r:J
Blake stated his concern is that eliminating triangle would mean City can't utilize
property for maintenance of cemetary.
Westlund stated Parcel "A" would be built on soon but there are no immediate
plans to build on "B" and "C".
vistad suggested picking up northwest corner of Tract "Y" and taking it straight
to southeast corner of "B", eliminating triangle to keep everything even with
north side of cemetary. The inside of cemetary should allow room for maintenance.
Vistad would be willing to grant lot size variance to "D" if necessary; in order
for legal description to be "clean."
Peek noted the intent of original subdivision was not to have primary access off
the County Road. He stated county may eventually step in and deny access.
Spotts noted that to deny access would be denying growth to City.
Blake stated there are several different levels of County Roads including:
l)
2)
3)
those
major
four
that serve as access
thoroughfare with limited access points
lane County Roads with only commercial access
permitted
Peek questioned the City's position if all property owners in area would choose
to subdivide. Eventually he feels County would not permit additional access.
cont'd.. .
o
o
.~
o
Andover Planning and zo~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meetih~ Minutes
Page Seven
o
Westlund stated the County is the recommending committee and the City is the
enforcement.
Blake stated County has control over locating access on property.
Vistad feels denying access would deny property owners reasonable use of their
land.
Blake believes original intent of development was 2 1/2 acre lots. However,
development was eventually limited to 5 acre metes and bounds lot split subdivision.
This would be first time in this subdivision that homes will face 7th Avenue.
According to air photo taken in May of 1989, the following lots are built on:
Q, R, S, T, U and D, E, F. Lots J, K, Land B, W, X are not built on.
Vistad stated due to topography of land, L, K, D, E and F would not be suitable
for access. Joint access would be a possibility for J & I and also for H & G.
Therefore it is unlikely there will be multiple requests for access consideration.
Ferris noted 2 1/2 acre lots are not in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Spencer, owner of Lot V, asked if split occurs, would further splits require
rezoning.
Blake explained that according to currenty City policy, further splitting could
not occur unless city sewer and water was brought in. This would happen only
for environmental reasons or if area residents made request.
Spencer stated he doesn't feel increased density will have a negative visual effect
due to required setback from cemetary.
Ferris asked if Park Dedication will be required on lot split.
Blake replied that Woodland started process before the change in Lot Split
Ordinance.
Blake noted development behind this area is 1 acre lots. Other surrounding develop-
ments range from 1/4 acre to 2 1/2 acre to 5 acre lots.
Vistad made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Second to motion by Jovanovich.
All commissioners agreed to MOTION; Public Hearing closed at 8:45 P.M.
Ferris asked if rationale for lot split request is subject to review.
Blake answered there is no criteria in Ordinance for granting or denying lot split
based on the reason for request.
Ferris questioned if the increase in density would have a negative impact on the
property value of surrounding development.
Commissioner Vistad feels there will not be a negative effect in an area of 2 1/2
or greater acres.
cont'd...
o
C)
;:)
d Pl' d (~ ..
An over ann1ng an ZOl~ Comm1ss10n
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Eight
o
Ferris questioned if the speed limit of 55 MPH on County Road 7 may be too fast
for an access.
Blake quoted section of Ordinance 40 regarding variance "Council shall have the
power to vary or modify the application or any provision of this Ordinance upon
its determination in its absolute legislative discretion that such variance or
modification is consistent with the letter and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
or proposed amendment upon which this Ordinance is based, with the health,
safety and general welfare of the City of Andover."
Blake stated right of way is taken from property before description of property.
Commissioner vis tad made a MOTION that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the AndoverCity Council approval of the lot splits requested by James
and Pamela Deal on Tracts "G" and "H" of Registered Land Survey 72, and that based
on the review of the requirements of Ordinance 40, the proposal will not have a
detrimental effect on surrounding property values.
I recommend that on Parcel "C", the easterly line connect with southwest point of
Tract "Y" following the west side of "Y" and connecting the northwest point to
the southeast point of Tract "B". That is to eliminate triangle.
I recommend approval to vacate existing easement and find proposed easement will
find a safer access on 7th Avenue.
commission recommends approval of the variance to lot size requirement of 2 1/2
acres on Parcel "B" and "c" based on Section 4 of Ordinance 40. Also based on
fact that 2 l/2 acre minimum would be met if not for the road easement.
This is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community.
This shall also be subject to Park Dedication fees as needed.
A Public Hearing was held; there was mention by one party that had concern,
other parties at Public Hearing had mainly formative questions.
Second to motion by Jovanovich.
Commissioner Ferris stated his concerns with motion as follows:
1) Ferris believes surrounding property values could be affected
2) Ferris doesn't believe approval would be in best keeping with the safety
and well-being of community as far as bringing two dead stop driveways
onto Highway 7
3) Ferris doesn't believe split is in general keeping with the general
subdivision
cont 'd. . .
o
~J
~)
Andover Planning and zor,(--) Commission
February 13,1990 Meetingl~1nutes
Page Nine
()
Vistad reiterated denial of split will place undue hardship on landowner.
Blake stated that nothing is prohibiting Deal's from building a home facing
Highway 7 right now. Deal's can build on J & H and utilize joint driveway.
Sabel noted if triangle is removed, Lot "D" will be substandard. She suggested
making the triangle part of the easement.
Blake stated if easement is continued on west side of Tract "Y" up to property
line on "C", it can be included as part of the description of the easement as part
of access. Motion could be made subject to submitted drawing, if recommendation
is to change property line so it lines up with Tract "Y".
Vistad asked if the cemetary would create uniqueness to Tract "D" for a variance.
Vistad believes there will be fewer title problems if line is carried from corner
of "yn to corner of liB".
Vis tad would further amend motion to include Parcel "D" in variance due to hardship
created by location of Tract "Y".
Spotts recommends area be surveyed, if so designated by City Council.
Ferris stated he could not agree to motion until calculations are made to
determine if moving line will cause "c" and "D" to require a variance. If motion
does not include moving line, request as submitted is accurate in establishing
that variance is required for "C".
Vistad modified his MOTION to recommend that triangle created on "D" by splitting
west of Tract "Y" be described as easement for maintenance purposes to the proposed
driveway, as drawn on plat. This modification will eliminate paragraphs 2 and 3
of original motion.
/
Peek noted for the record that lot split form request indicated setbacks that were
not included. The submission was, therefore, incomplete.
Ferris asked if traffic will be backing onto Highway 7.
Blake stated he is unsure what authority city has to enforce this issue.
Commissioners were polled on MOTION as MADE and MODIFIED by Commissioner Vistad.
Following is vote and comment(s) by commission:
Sabel YES
vis tad YES
Peek YES
Jovanovich YES
Spotts YES
Pease YES, with concerns to traffic situation
Ferris YES, with additional comment for the record: Belief is every land-
owner has the right to do what they want with their land. For this reason vote is
for motion. These issues remain a concern:
1) precedent of lot split requests may start with unsold pieces of property
to north and south
cont 'd. . .
~
:J
Q
Andover Planning and zor;-; Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting-clinutes
Page Ten
o
2) believes a safety hazard is definitely being created with access onto 7
3) approval of variance is not due to topography of land
MOTION passed; will be presented to City Council on 3/06/90.
Rezoning: Woodland Creek and Woodland Terrace Commercial Lots
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to review and approve the rezoning
of the following property from R-4 (Planned Unit Development) to NB Neighborhood
Business:
Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland Creek, Anoka County, MN
Lot 1, Block 1, Woodland Terrace, Anoka County, MN
The rezoning request was initiated by the City Staff.
During the 1980s, the City of Andover utilized the PUD section of Ordinance 8
to allow greater flexibility for developers of land with or without unique land
features. Both Woodland Terrace and Woodland Creek were approved as PUDs by the
City Council.
The resolutions approving the PUD/Subdivision were not clear on the mixed uses
and their locations within the development. Also, the City zoning map does not
delineate between normal R-4 and R-4 (PUD). This might present some confusion to
a prospective home buyer within these Woodland developments.
From records obtained during the approval process, it is clear that it was the intent
of the City to have these properties developed similar to other Neighborhood
Business properties.
All related zoning requirements are met by the two parcels, no variances would
be needed. Included in the packet to commissioners is a listing of Permitted,
Accessory and Special Uses for the Neighborhood Business District.
Blake noted that car washes are not permitted as a Neighborhood Business, nor are
drive-in businesses or businesses with a drive-thru window.
v
Notice was sent to property owners within 350 feet of both properties. Several
call were received by City Staff, however, there were no major objections to
proposal.
Spotts noted that Woodland Terrace was left open with concept of possibly extending
Neighborhood Business. However, he does not believe there was ever indication
of Neighborhood Business at Woodland Creek.
Blake answered that owners of Round Barn purchased shopping center lot and are
currently working on a development plan for that property. property is a clear
extension of commercial use all the way through district across from Assembly of
God Church. Blake feels intent was for Neighborhood Business or light commercial
use.
cont'd...
Q
o
o
Andover Planning and zon~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Eleven
o
Blake stated access will be from service road on south side or off Marigold on
north side.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 9:35 P.M.
Ferris questioned if request has Council support.
Blake replied he has not specifically approached Council with request.
vis tad stated Woodland Creek was maintained as a Neighborhood Business to be a
buffer. Woodland Terrace was to be an extension of the businesses to the west
and serve as a buffer. By zoning to Neighborhood Business, potential problems
can be eliminated.
Blake noted it is his belief these properties were intended to be Neighborhood
Business, although they do not appear on City zoning maps as such.
Vis tad stated previous minutes would support intent.
Spotts made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing.
Second to motion by Vistad. All commissioners favor motion; Public Hearing
closed at 9:40 P.M.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ferris that the Planning and zoning Commission recommend
to the Andover City Council approval of a rezoning of Lot I, Block 8, Woodland
Creek and Lot I, Block I, Woodland Terrace to Neighborhood Business from R4.
It is clear from review by staff of minutes of both of these PUD's that original
intent was to classify these as Neighborhood Business. It is felt in the best
interest of community to so designate them within the City zoning structure. A
Public Hearing was held and there was no negative comment to this zoning classi-
fication from the Public Hearing. This is to be passed to City Council for
their 3/06/90 meeting.
/
Second to MOTION by Wayne Vistad. All commissioners favor motion; motion passed.
Home Occupations, Ordinance 8, Discussion
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review the information
regarding the regulating of Home Occupations.
The City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the
current city regulations on in-home occupations. This is a direct result of
the request of Michael Kelner on prairie Road.
Jay Blake conducted a survey of 12 communities around the Twin Cities metro
area. Information is summarized on a chart presented to commission. Following
issues are included in the survey: population estimate, MUSA information,
requirements for home occupations, accessory buildings, rural vs. urban
regulations, size limitations, retail sales, SUP, parking, employee restrictions,
signs, alterations, exterior storage, and hours of operation.
cont'd...
Andover Planning and zo~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Twelve
o
r~ Blake noted that community size is a factor to consider when studying survey.
~
Blake stated the need for clear direction from City Council on the Horne Occupation
Ordinance.
Ferris suggested providing City Council with a general concensus of Planning and
zoning recommendation for Ordinance.
Ferris supports Section 9 of Minnetrista Ordinance 127, (I) Vested Rights which
states "No Conditional Use Permits shall confer upon any person or to the benefit
of any property any vested right to that use, but the use shall remain subject to
such regulations or conditions of that permit as the City and other regulatory
authorities shall find necessary from time to time in the public interest."
Blake stated he does not feel Ordinance should allow outside storage.
Ferris recommends a minimum lot size of three acres for Home Occupation, Rural.
Ferris also recommends strict limitations as to type of business permitted and
requirement of SUP.
Spotts noted that certain businesses, such as beauty salons, are heavily regulated
on state level. Spotts questioned where line would be drawn on what type of
business would require SUP.
Ferris suggested SUP be required for those businesses operating out of an accessory
structure.
o
Blake questioned how large the home occupation should be allowed under Ordinance.
He stated the City loses tax money when a business pays taxes at a homestead
rate rather than commercial or industrial.
vistad recommended restricting accessory building to 800 square feet and not allowing
outside storage. This recommendation does not require a SUP.
Sabel suggested writing an Ordinance that would permit City to require SUP in
certain circumstances.
Blake stated Ordinance can be written in a manner that would allow City Council to
use discretion when issuing a SUP.
Pease noted this would allow City Council to impose different, additional restrictions,
if appropriate.
Ferris requested draft be reviewed by Planning and Zoning Commission before it is
presented to City Council.
Vistad reiterated his position that draft require mandatory inside storage of
vehicles, materials and equipment.
Ferris recommends businesses with outside storage require SUP.
o
cont'd...
~
C)
<J
d 1. d r, ..
An over P ann~ng an ZOl ) Comm~ss~on
February 13, 1990 Meetin~Minutes
Page Thirteen
o
Blake would like to tighten up Ordinance for Home Occupation, Urban.
Boulevard Encroachment Ordinance Discussion
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review information and
draft ordinance regulating the placement of obstructions in the boulevard.
The draft ordinance is based on a similar code in the City of Coon Rapids. The
Public Works and Planning Department believe that a clear policy/regulations should
be detailed for the City. A copy of draft has been forwarded to Frank Stone,
Public Works Supervisor, for his review.
The Public Works Department has had damage to equipment (snowplow blades) due to
boulders/decorative rock placed in the boulevard.
Blake stated an Ordinance will address and clarify what can and cannot be done in
a boulevard.
Vis tad stated that many people view a setback as public property. Ordinance should
spell out that city easement is not for public use.
Blake may consult with City Attorney on language for Ordinance.
Draft Ordinance 62 Amendment
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review the draft Ordinance
62 (Hunting and Discharge of Firearms Ordinance)
Blake explained the state does not provide a definition for bow and arrow, nor did
the Ordinances of other cities provide definition.
Ferris suggested Ordinance No. 62, Section 1 define Bows and Arrows as follows:
for the purpose of this ordinance to mean all types of bows and arrows used for
target and hunting purposes.
Section 11, Regulations will include:
A) All discharge of firearms shall be limited to the following: shotguns,
Pellet gun, BB gun, and bow and arrow.
Existing A will become B, B will become C, etc.
Jovanovich stated her concern with allowing the discharge of firearms in Andover.
Blake will request Anoka County Sheriff attend 3/05/90 meeting of the Planning
and zoning Commission to address this Ordinance.
There was discussion regarding distance within residence allowable for discharge
of firearms. (Section 2A) Jovanovich favors 1500 feet. However, Blake read motion
from previous minutes and motion does not include 1500 foot distance. Ordinance
will remain at 500 feet.
Blake will redraft Ordinance and submit to Anoka County Sheriff's office for input.
The hunting map will clearly indicate prohibited and restricted hunting areas.
cont'd...
o
8
o
Andover Planning and zo~ Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Fourteen
o
Other Business
A survey of communities in Anoka County new home construction was presented to
commission. Andover ranked second to Coon Rapids in the number of new homes built.
The Home and Business Alarm Ordinance will be returned to the Planning and Zoning
Commission with recommendation from City Council to eliminate registration. City
Council noted concerns regarding administrative costs and inconvenience to residents.
City Council suggests Ordinance geared to business rather than homeowner.
MOTION to adjourn made by Gretchen Sabel. Second to motion by Jovanovich. All
commissioners favored motion; meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa HOgan