Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 10, 1990 o <J C) o o ~: CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING--MINUTES April 10, 1990 The regular bi-monthly meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Rebecca Pease on April 10, 1990 at 7:32 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich, Randal Peek, Don Spotts and Wayne Vistad Also Present: Jay Blake, City Planner; d'Arcy Bosell, City Zoning Administrator; and Todd Haas, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes for the March 13, 1990 meeting. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to approve the minutes for the March 13, 1990 meeting. Carried unanimously. Minutes for the March 27, 1990 meeting. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to approve the minutes for the March 27, 1990 meeting. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE 62--DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS Blake stated this item is in response to concerns expressed by some residents and school officials of the Andover Elementary School. Due to changing development patterns along Hanson Boulevard and increases in new homes, the Commission examined the possibility of revising Ordinance 62. Blake reviewed with the Commission a map showing the current boundary lines that divide the City into areas labeled "Prohibited" and "Allowed". He also reviewed a proposed map which would extend the "Prohibited" area to include the Athletic Field Complex, the City Hall and the Andover School areas. It also changes the heading from "Allowed" to "Restricted". Finally, Blake reviewed a map of the City with properties of less than ten acres and prohibited areas shaded in yellow. The proposed changes to the ordinance are as follows: Section I, (d)--add the words "as regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 97B." ~J u , \ I , / PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -2- Section I, (e)--Add the word "BB" Section II, (l)--Replace the word cannot with the words "does not". Section II, (2)--Replace the word cannot with the words "does not". Section II, Add (5)--"The discharge of a rifle or handgun shall not be allowed within the City of Andover." Section II, (c)--eliminate the words "except at authorized ranges. Blake stated that the State of Minnesota Statutes clearly regulate bow hunting and that DNR officials feel that a range of 500 feet from a residence is a proper recommendation. The language regarding ranges was eliminated since Andover no longer has a practice range within the City. Ferris and Peek suggested that the wording for Section II, (5) include the words "using a solid projectile" so that people could use their twenty-twos with shot. \ I ,/ Chairperson Pease then opened the meeting for public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Sophie Kozlowski, 1021 Crosstown Boulevard owns 72 acres and wanted to be sure that her friends and family would still be able to hunt on her land. Blake assured her that the proposed changes in the ordinance would not affect her. Ryan Krull, 880 - 140th Lane N.W., states that he and his friends use rifles to shoot fox, squirrels, and birds. He expressed concern that the proposed changes in the ordinance would affect his ability to do this. Keith Jensen, 14705 Palm St. N.W., stated he is looking at the proposed changes as a homeowner who has been pelted with shotgun debris in his own yard. He is in favor of the changes but questioned why the line not be drawn to include the area where hunting would be prohibited that abuts the line. Blake stated the reason was that the line was drawn using well-known roads and landmarks to make enforcement easier for the sheriff's deputies. , , ! , / () ------ , .\ U , \ '- ./ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -3- Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Blvd., stated he could understand what Blake was saying regarding Section II, (5) but it seems to him that target shooting with rifles should be okay. He also stated his wife would like to see the "Prohibited" area encompass Prairie Road. Peek asked if this meant he was or was not in favor of the proposed changes. Holasek said that he was in favor of the changes and would support the banning of rifles, since somebody's got to give. Bob Dillon, 4995 - 159th Avenue N.W., stated they have a history of things happened in their area of 54 acres, including field parties and uncontrolled target shooters from Anoka. He did not feel the 500 foot restriction from homes was enough. He stated that he has an old box of ammo which states 1,000 ft. as the safe distance. Blake stated that the Department of Natural Resources recommends that 500 feet is appropriate. '\ ,J Dillon also stated that he supports the ban on rifles and handguns and would like to see it include varmit rifles. He felt that Andover may be erring on the sid~ of privlege rather than safety. He also stated he would like to see buffers added to your boundaries. Reuben Erickson, 15486 University Extension, stated that he is a bow hunter and questioned the distance for arrow projectiles. He feels that the bow hunting restrictions should be set out separate from the rifle restrictions. He stated that ten acres to target shoot with a bow and arrow doesn't seem realistic. Vistad is a bow hunter and discussed the different types of arrows and their distances. Spotts stated that the rifle and bow and arrow shooting have always been defined together. Erickson said that doesn't mean it's a good law. Bosell stated that the City has received complaints about arrows going through the backstop and into people's yards. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Jovanovich to close the Public Hearing. Carried unanimously. . , '-) The Commission discussed the map with the yellow shadings. Bosell stated this map would be for informational purposes only, otherwise it would have to be changed constantly if it were made a part of the ordinance. The other map with , . \ \_J '0 '\ .J PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -4- the line giving the "Prohibited" and "Restricted" areas will be part of the ordinance and must be attached to any copies of the ordinance given out, or the ordinance cannot be enforced. Bosell will review the ordinance with the Sheriff's Deputy to make sure the language is enforceable for their purposes. Blake will make sure the map with the yellow shadings is completely accurate before it goes to the City Council. MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek, I would recommend that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council approval of a modified Ordinance No. 62, which makes the following changes to the existing ordinance: Section I, (d) which adds the words "as regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 97B; Under Section I (e) that it adds BB guns; Under Section II, (b), numbers (1) and (2) that it changes the word cannot to does not; ) that it adds the following terminology (5) under part (b) of Section II--"The discharge of a rifle or handgun utilizing solid projectiles shall not be allowed within the City of Andover."; and Under Section II, (c), the wording "except at authorized ranges" be eliminated; that a Public Hearing was held on April 10, 1990, and that there were six respondents, of which there was one respondent that was in objection to the regulation of the solid~projectilesj that there were several that supported it from a public safety issue, on the solid projectiles; thatcthere was some concern on the utilization of bows and arrows being included in this ordinance; that attached to the ordinance would be a copy of the map which would show the expanded prohibited areas; .----. that in addition to this as a public service and for the purpose of enforcement, there will be an additional map which will show all areas to which the discharge of handguns and hunting is now allowed. -../ o u \ , ) PLANNING & ZONING CO~1ISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -5- After discussion of the motion, Ferris moved to modify and Peek considered the following modification to the motion: Under Section II, (bl 3 and 4 replace the word "allowed" area to "restricted". The second was held, and the vote stayed at Ferris, Jovanovich, Peek, Spotts and Pease-~yes;_.Vistad~~no. The Commission discussed the signs posted regarding hunting within the City, particularly the ones worded "No hunting south of here". MOTION by Peek and seconded by Spotts, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Andover recommend to the City Council to be reviewed at the same time that the Council reviews the proposed changes to Ordinance No. 62, a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission that we remove the signs about the City that say "No hunting south of here" and that we look at placing at the entrance to Anodver signs which would say words to the effect of "Discharge of firearms and bows and arrows are restricted in the City of Andover". \ ~J Discussion of the motion included Peek suggesting that staff do a study of the total sign package for the City. Blake stated there are approximately 6 signs now at the entrance signs of the City and expressed concern that people could read that many signs. Blake will have the staff draft some potential language. Motion carried unanimously. ED FIELDS & SONS LOT SPLIT REQUEST, contd. 158XX Uplander STREET N.W. Bosell reviewed with the Commission this request which was first considered at the December 12, 1989 meeting and continued until this date. The request is to split off from a 28.61 acre parcel a parcle lwhich is 2.5 acres in size, including the road easement. The property is in the Agricultural Preserve Overlay District which restricts development to a density of not less than 1 for 40. The request meets the criteria of Ordinance 57 as it pertains to the Agricultural Preserve Ordinance, but Ordinances 8, 10 and 40 must also be considered. , ) (~ o PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 F '\ Page -6- , ) Bosell states that the request as it is presented does not meet the criteria as set out in that the lot area is 2.24 acres when the easement is subtracted out, and Ordinance No.8 requires 2.5 acres. Also, the proposed lot does not meet the frontage requirements of 300 feet for a platted lot, as set out in Ordinances No.8 and No. 10. In addition, this lot split would land-lock one of the lots for the time being. Bosell and Blake met with Fields and explored some of the options available, including a metes and bounds lot split or completing the lot split with the stipulations that the parcel be redone so that the area requirement of 2.5 acres is met and the road be constructed to the southern edge of the proposed lot to meet the 300 foot frontage requirement. Fields has indicated his willingness to escrow for the construction of the road, but that it be built at a later date. He has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the_;r-~gu.est as originally presented. ) MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Planning and Zoning Commission of Andover recommend to the City Council approval of a lot split for 158XX Uplander St. N.W. in granting one variance of the frontage of 300 feet and allowing entrance to come in off of the existing cul-de-sac on Uplander. In looking at this request the Planning and Zoning Commission has looked at Ordinance 57 on Agricultural Preserve, Ordinance 40 on lot split, Ordinance 10 on platted lots, Section 16.02, and Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, on the size requirement. The lot split would be subject to park dedication fees as set forth in Ordinance 10. Also, a sunset clause that there must be reasonable progress on this lot split within 12 months. After discussion, the vote was zero--yesi six--no, with reason by Vistad, Ferris and Pease. ,J Vistad stated that according to Ordinance 8, Section 5.04 a hardship was not shown. There was more than adequate land to provide the needed acreage. To grant the variance would be to extend the cul-de-sac beyond recommended footage and extending that problem and would be land-locking the other 2.5 acre parcel to the south of it. It would be in violation of the required 300 feet frontage for lots. It would be very unfair to other residents who may have applied for lot splits if the Commission does not abide by ordinances in all cases if hardships cannot be defined. , \ I.--.J , , \ V PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -7- \ / Ferris stated the variance in the motion was the elimination of the 300 foot frontage. I am opposed to that for a number of reasons: 1) without the 300 foot frontage or easement set aside for that frontage it will totally land-lock the parcel shown on the map as No.4. That would be poor planning and a mistake on the City's part to further land-lock a parcel of land that only has one remaining access point. 2) there is no hardship. 3) a metes and bound split is possible with five acres without any hindrance. The owner does not wish to do that, and furthermore, the owner does not wish to entertain any lot split whatsoever that would cause proper frontage. Peek stated he had nothing additional to say, other than he agreed with the reasons given. Also, he stated that the motion did not include extension of the cul-de-sac and was not a reason for denial. Pease stated her reasons agreed with everyone else in that a hardship was not demonstrated because there were other alternatives available and the land-locked lot. ORDINANCE NO.8, PARKING/CURBING REQUIREMENTS \ , ) The next item discussed by the Commission was curb requirements in non-residential areas. Staff did a survey with the cities of Coon Rapids and Blaine_and presented the Commission with another draft of a proposed ordinance. Haas reviewed this draft with the Commission and stated that the City needs some specific language as far as materials used for curbing. Blake and Haas will prepare a new draft of this proposed ordinance to include specific set of standards on curbing and verbage on parking lot islands for traffic control. This will be ready for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review at April 24th meeting. ORDINANCE NO.8, HOME OCCUPATIONS Blake reviewed a redraft of the proposed ordinance with the Commission. It was decided to reword the verbage in Section D, entitled "Vested Rights". Also, under number 8 Ic) it will be reworded that the home occupation portion of an outside storage area shall not exceed 800 square feet. ~- ) This ordinance will be redrafted with these changes and scheduled for a Public Hearing at the April 24, 1990 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. " / , , J \ , ; ') '-J \ / PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES--April 10, 1990 Page -8- OTHER BUSINESS Blake reviewed the March Building Report. New housing starts are just slightly ahead of last year. MOTION to adjourn. There being no further business, upon motion by Spotts and seconded by Ferris it was unanimously agreed to adjourn the meeting at 11:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C~.~~t~ Recording Secretary J