Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 11, 1990 o o ~) _'~'C-"" !ji (.t ~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning CommissIon was called to order by CommissIon Chairperson Rebecca Pease on September 11, 1990,8:04 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MInnesota. Commissioners present: CommissIoner absent: Also present: Coleman, Jonak, Jovanovich, Peek and Vlstad Ferris CIty Planner, David Carlberg; CIty ZonIng Administrator, d'Arcy Bosell; and others APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Coleman, approval of the MInutes of August 23, 1990. Motion carried unanImously. o MOTION by Vlstad, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval of Minutes from August 30, 1990. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-Present (Coleman), and 1-Absent (Ferris) PUBLIC HEARING/METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request for an Amended Special Use Permit by the MetropolItan MosquIto Control DIstrIct to construct an additIon to the exIsting main office, the construction of two vehIcle storage buIldIngs, and the Installation of a fuel pumpIng station at 1260 NW Bunker Lake Boulevard. He outlIned the points to consider and noted the Staff's recommendatIon to approve the request subject to three conditions with regard to handIcapped parkIng, removal of existing II legal storage buIldIng and significant progress in construction of the buildings wIthin 12 months of the issuance of the permit. Mr. Carlberg also reviewed a copy of the site plan noting the setback from the road is well beyond 40 feet. The ARC Committee has not revIewed the proposal. In the past, the Commission's recommendations have been contIngent upon the review and approval by the ARC. ::) Richard Gauger, Consultant Engineer for the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, Robert Sjogren, Director of the MMCD, and Wayne Hilbert, architect for the project, were present. Mr. Gauger assured the Commission that they meet all the buildIng codes and other requirements of the municipal and state agencies. The property is now operated as a district headquarters for the MMCD housing their office and vehicles. The storage building facility that is to be removed was moved to that property, but he didn't know how that was done without permits. He had recommended that that bUilding be removed anyway, so they have no problem with the Staff's recommendation. u o Q Regula. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Septembe. 11, 1990 Page 2 (Public Hea.ing/Met.opolitan Mosquito Cont.ol Dist.ict, Continued) M.. Gauge. explained they a.e t.ying to upg.ade all of thei. facilities, and this Amended Special Use Pe.mlt will house the equipment they have fo. fighting mosquitos successfully. The fuel station will be to fuel thel. vehicles on site. It will be a double walled, below g.ound tank of 3,000 gallons and will meet EPA standards, Including the monitoring requirements. The hea.ing was then opened to public testimony. John Bills. 14367 Prairie Road - was conce.ned about the storage and disposal of chemicals at the facility. Mr. Gauger explained this Is not a storage facility. He noted the facility will be enclosed with a chain link fence and, In addition, wil I have a secu.ity system. They would do only light maintenance on the vehicles, as most of It Is contracted out. Mr. Hilbert explained they use environmentally safe pesticides, and he reviewed the th.ee types of materials used, all of which a.e not long-lasting materials. The only vehicle that would have more than five gallons on it is the one used to service the helicopter. But that material is regulated by the EPA and Department of Ag.iculture. ~ MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Coleman, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Amended Special Use Permit request by the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District for property located at 1260 NW Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover, Minnesota, as pertinent to Ordinance 8, Section 7.03 allowing the construction. The proposal is to build a 60x18-foot addition to the north side o. f.ont of the existing office se.vice facility and two 65x70-foot vehicle sto.age buildings on the south po.tion of .ea. area of the p.operty. A fuel pump station will be also located on the porperty east of the existing office se.vlce facility. .) This is subject to the Andove. Review Committee's .eview and app.oval and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District should comply with their recommendations. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. It will not create serious traffic conjestion or hazards. It will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values. It is In harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held and there were a couple questions that appeared to be answered accordingly. u () ,-- ~ o Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 3 <Public Hearing/Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, Continued) Additional requirements to this is the parking area is to meet the requirements established in Ordinance 8, Section 8.08 and State regulations for handicapped parking; that existing storage facility illegally built is to be removed within 30 days of completion of the new storage buildings; the proposed construction must have significant progress made in the first 12 months after approval of the Amended Special Use Permit or it will be null and void; subject to an annual review. DISCUSSION: Mr. Gauger explained they are not necessarily adding personnel or vehicles to the site. This will allow them to park all their vehicles inside a building, though there may be a slight increase if the demand in the area warrants it. This is a relatively sma I I headquarters site for them. Motion carried unanimously. The item will be before the City Council at its October 2 meeting. ~J PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: ORDINANCE NO. 23 REGULATING THE RAISING AND KEEPING OF EQUINES <HORSES) Ms. Bosel I reviewed the changes made to the proposed ordinance as agreed to at the August 30 meeting and summarized the Attorney's position on several questions as outlined in the Agenda material. She then noted the amended passed by the City Council at their September 6 special meeting clarifying the intent of the 100-foot setback to be from a well or habitable portion of the dwelling on the lot in questions. She explained that after looking at that further, the Staff recommendation is to add that the shelter be at least 90 feet from the abutting property lines to ensure a separation of 100 feet from any neighboring habitable dwelling. The reason for the 90-foot setback is so the adjoining parcels would not be encumbered in any way. Theoretically a house on an adjoining lot could be placed at the 10-foot sideyard setback, but would be unable to do so and meet the 100-foot separation requirement if the horse shelter were placed 50 feet from the lot line. The hearing was then opened for public testimony. ,') John Bills. 14367 Prairie Road. Chairman of the Eauestrian Council - stated his biggest concern is the 90-foot setback requirement from abutting property lines. He felt it had nothing to do with the protection of the horses, which is the reason a shelter is required, nor with the locations of the septic and well systems. It is not the shelter itself that should be so severely restricted. They will be looking to manure management, etc., to prevent contamination. Mr. Bills felt it is an unnecessary restriction of the land use, that it ~ ~-) ) u u Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 4 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 23, Horses) penalIzes the people with horses. Many of the lots are long and narrow, and this could severely restrict the placement of the shelter or even not allow It al I together. He saId he doesn/t have a problem wIth the 100-foot setback from the house. But he saw no reason to change the 50-foot setback from abuttIng property lInes that Is now requIred sInce there has not been a problem with It sInce the ordinance was adopted In 1974. Ms. Bosell stated she would lIke to see those exIstIng nonconforming uses be documented wIth a sketch plan so in the event the shelter is destroyed by more than 50 percent, it can be rebuIlt In the same spot even though It is nonconformIng. If it is not documented and the shelter Is damaged by more than 50 percent, It would have to be positioned to meet the setback requirements. Perry Medin. 16440 Ward Lake Drive - asked if a garage and dog kennel can be built 10 feet from his property line. Ms. Bosell stated yes. Ms. MedIn felt there are the same problems of smell, flies, etc., with dog kennels, yet horses are being singled out here. She felt it is a matter of favorIng those who buIld big houses and pay more taxes than those large property owners with horses. Carol Almeida. 249 Constance Boulevard - hoped a compromIse could be reached between the 50 and 90 feet, noting the 90-foot restriction creates a problem for many lots that are long and narrow. She would have no place to place the barn on her property with that requirement. The CommIssIoners explaIned the variance procedure would then come into play. It was felt variances would be granted for hardships if it can be shown that the barn wIll be a dIstance of 100 feet from any neighboring habitable structures. The ordInance also requIres sketch plans for horse shelters on less than 5-acre parcels, so the EquestrIan Council can work wIth them on the best placement affecting the least Impact on surroundIng properties. Ernest Trettel. 1412 Andover Boulevard. member of the EquestrIan CouncIl - dIsagreed wIth the change from 50 to 90 feet, but also thought it should not apply to the rear lot lIne because exIsting rear yard setback requIrements already al low for that. Ms. Bosell noted the scenario where the back of one lot abutts the side of another, and the 50-foot setback from the rear could then end up wIth only a 60-foot separatIon between the shelter and the habitable structure. Renae Brodeen. 2879 161st Avenue - asked if those who meet the existing 50-foot requirement would have to move theIr barns if the 90-foot requirement Is adopted. She too did not feel it is fair that additional restrictions are placed on the horse owners, when many times they were there first. Ms. Bosell explained they would be considered an existing non-conforming use and would be allowed, but agaIn noting the problem of rebuilding if it is destroyed by more than 50 percent unless a sketch plan is on file. u () Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 , ') Page 5 \.-.-./ (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 23, Horses) Mr. Trettel - said again the person with the property is being penalized for having horses because now they will only be able to place the horse shelter 90 feet from the lot line, yet somebody who builds a house can come within 10 feet of the property line. He felt it is discriminating against a sector of the public. Ms. Medin - asked that it be stated to the Council that the equestrian community feels one way and the Commission feels another so they know it is an issue. Because of the feeling of the equestrian community that the Commission is opposed to them, they also worry about getting variances. She thought it would be very difficult to get a variance to place a horse shelter closer to the lot line. Because she is concerned about the variance issue, she said she may have to change her mind about staying in Andover. Ms. Medin stated they provide a service to the community and thought the City should be concerned about forcing them out. Chairpeson Pease didn't feel they were against the questrian community; but their function is to address those items in the ordinance and to protect all residents, those with horses, and existing and future residents. ~) Mr. Bills - felt an ordinance should be written to minimize the number of variances that would be needed. If there is already an occupied building on the adjacent lot, they should be al lowed to build the horse shelter closer than the 90-foot setback provided it is still 100 feet from that residence. Commissioner Vistad felt it is better to leave it at 90 feet and grant variances where it can be shown that the 100-foot separation can be obtained. Ms. Almeida - has lived in Andover since 1975 and stated Andover does listen to variance requests and has supported the horse people. But she also feels they are making the ordinance more difficult than it has to be. A lot of thought has been put into the ordinance, and she felt many of the problems could be solved simply by a site plan and working with the property owner as to what is the best thing to do. She didn't think there will be the problem that the Staff and Commissioners are talking about. Mr. Bills - again stated the position of the Equestrian Council that the ordinance as written is good, preferring the existing 50-foot setback to the proposed 90 feet. He too felt the site plan will handle the problems, with the Council having the right to deny or approve it. He pointed out the 90-foot setback is not what the Council approved; it is a staff recommendation. :.) At this point, Commissioner Pease noted a definite difference of opinion of the Planning Commission and Staff and the Equestrian Council. It was agreed that both points of view would be sent to the Council for their consideration. u u ., , ) Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 6 <Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 23, Horses) Mr. Bills - then addressed the issue of requiring Special Use Permits for for boarding horses as suggested in Ms. Bosell's memo. He noted the requirements as set out in the ordinance for dog kennels are not as strict as they are in the horse ordinance. The items that would be controlled by a SUP such as manure management, control of leaching, humane treatment, etc., are already covered by the ordinance. The Commissioners noted a SUP deals more with when it becomes a business such as boarding horses. Then parking and other items can be addressed. Ms. Almeida - asked what if she had 30 horses of her own, or what about circumstances where there are 30 horses being boarded that are owned by 2 people, etc. She didn't see that boarding horses is the kind of business that parking needs to be addressed. Ms. Medin - also noted that when boarding horses, not al I the owners come at the same time and often they do not stay very long. She too did not see a problem with parking. Ms. Bosell asked the difference between a horse boarding operation and F \ a riding stable, as the ordinance already requires an SUP for riding '-) stables. Ms. Almeida - explained riding stables are public facilities with employees, lessons, trails, high traffic, etc. There are very few riding stables left because of the high cost of liability insurance. She boards 15 horses and has never had an employee. Mr. Trettel - stated a riding stable could ride a horse four times a day and create four times the traffic. When boarding horses, the owner comes out for one or two hours on an occasional basis, then leaves. Ms. Medin - stated in some cases there may be a trainer that comes in to train the horses or someone boarding a horse might iike to take lessons, but it is not even close to a riding stable. Mr. Bills - didn't know of anyone in Andover who has a riding stable or stud farm. Commissioner Jonak asked how many horses Mr. Trettel could board. Mr. Trettel - stated up to 120. Commissioner Jonak was concerned about the potential problems from a large boarding operation, expressing some frustration over the lack of manure management for those riding along the roads. Mr. Trettel - stated he has no provision for cleanup along the roads, other than "Mother Nature." But he does clean the front and sides of his property each weekend. He estimated 95 percent of his boarders never leave his property and 90 percent of them never take their horses outside of the barn. , ) Ms. Brodeen - also noted there is also the concern of the riders when kids throw rocks, ride fourwheelers, shoot firecrackers, etc. The Commission took no action on a SUP for boarding facilities. u , ~ u : ~ ~J Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 7 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 23, Horses) Discussion was then on a suggestion from Commissioner Vistad that the site plan requirement be expanded to include all horse operations, not just those under five acres. In that way he felt those concerns about boarding facilities can be addressed by the Equestrian Council in that manner rather than with a SUP. The Commissioners also noted that for their protection, all horse owners wll I want to submit a site plan within one year to be In compliance with the ordinance, especially If the horse shelter is nonconforming. MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: Mr. BIl Is - asked about dropping the provision to require three offenses before declaring the violation a misdemeanor. Ms. Bosell and the Commissioners explained It is to the advantage of the Equestrian Council to have the ability to declare a misdemeanor for the first offense If it Is severe enough. They felt it gives that Council more latitude and flexibility. The procedure would be the Equestrian Council would receive the complaint, investigate it, and then advise the City Council of the appropriate action. The Equestrian Council then agreed to that proposal as written. ~.~ Mr. Trettel - was frustated over the many changes in the draft ordinance this evening when they were told last time there would be only "legal definitions" changed. Ms. Bosell reviewed those changes as outlined in the Agenda material which were from the Attorney's opinion and Council action at last Thursday's special meeting. Discussion was then on the retroactivity clause, Section XIV. Ms. Bosel I again clarified that everyone would have to submit a site plan within one year of the adoption of the ordinance to document everything on site. Then those existing shelters that don't meet the ordinance requirements would be declared as legally existing nonconforming uses. Section IX, Section A: as stated to only plots operations to give more Medin - didn't want to Boulevard - stated the Council, and the items the ordinance. That is It was again debated whether this should apply of less than five acres or to all horse authority to the Equestrian Council. Ms. see a change. Don Eveland. 14772 Crosstown site plan is reviewed by the Equestrian to be addressed are already incorporated into why he did not see the need for permits. Mr. Bills - asked about the wording of accessory building versus an agra building. Ms. Bosell stated that determination is made by the Building Official; however, agra buildings usually have a much lower building permit fee. She thought al I horse shelters are considered agra buildings. ) u u ~~~ Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MInutes - September 11, 1990 Page 8 (Public Hearing Continued: OrdInance No. 23, Horses) Sue Rooker. 14911 Prairie Road - was upset because she didn't feel she paId a lower buildIng permIt fee, questIonIng Just what Is beIng done. Ms. Bosell suggested she brIng the Item to the BuildIng Department, as she does not deal wIth those matters. It was poInted out that there was no dIfference between a vIolatIon on a lot of less than fIve acres or on one of more than fIve acres; therefore the permittIng process for over five acres Is not necessary. The CommIssion made no change to SectIon IX, A. Motion to close the publIc hearing carried unanImously. ~ ) MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Peek, move this on to the City CouncIl amended in two ways: 1) In Section IV, C., that after the word "closer" in the fourth line, drop the 90-foot requirement, and insert 50 feet In its place. 2) SectIon XIV, Retroactivity, inserting language that would exclude exIstIng structures, "Any person, firm or corporatIon who Is maIntaInIng or keepIng equInes wIthIn the CIty of Andover on the effectIve date of thIs ordInance shall be required to meet all the crIterIa set out hereIn wIthIn one year excepting permanent structures." DISCUSSION: The CommIssIoners dIscussed that portIon of the motIon relating to Subsections Band C In SectIon IV and the Intent of those provIsIons. Ms. Bosell clarifIed SubsectIon C applIes only to the habitable portIon of the dwel lIng on the lot In questIon. Subsection B Is to apply to any occupied residence not relatIng to the locatIon of the well. It was agreed to leave SubsectIons Band C as Is, though there was stIlI opposItIon to the 50-foot setback. The Commissioners also discussed the change to the retroactIvity clause. Everyone on lots of less than five acres are already covered because they will have to obtain permits; but anyone who would have a nonconformIng use at the adoption of thIs ordInance should be mandated to take care of the problem and submIt a sketch plan and make the City aware of their exIsting nonconforming use. Ms. Bosell suggested the Equestrian Council actively urge people to comply for their own protectIon. Commisioner Coleman then AMENDED HIS MOTION to drop the changes to the RetroactIvity Clause. Second Stands. ,-J Discussion was on Section X, SubsectIon C and SectIon XI, SubsectIon C, and the procedure for permIts, varIances, etc. It was agreed the intent Is that the Items should first go through the Equestrian Council, then the PlannIng CommIssion when necessary, and finally to the Council. / "I '...J u ,.-\ '.j/ Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 9 (Public Hearing Continued: Ordinance No. 23, Horses) Commissioner Coleman then AMENDED HIS MOTION in Section XI, C., to add a sentence after the words "...appear to answer questions put forth." Add: "Applications requiring recommendations from both bodies shall go to the Equestrian Council first." Second stands. The Commissioner discussed the procedure of getting information and recommendations from the Equestrian Council. They thought receiving the Minutes of the Equestrian Council would be sufficient. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Coleman, Jonak, Pease, Peek, Vistad; NO-Jovanovich; ABSENT-Ferris. Motion carried. Commissioner Jovanovich stated she voted no because she preferred the 90-foot setback in Section IV. ,) Commissioner Vistad commented he too believed Section IV should be 90 feet to abutting property lines to allow for future properties that will be developed and to eliminate a lot of problems. Under Section IX, Subsection A, he believed the reference to plots of less than five acres should be deleted. He felt that would give better control when dealing with the issue of boarding horses on the larger parcels. He also felt the Equestrian Council would have more impact when a permit is involved for everyone, not just for those on less than five-acre lots. Chairperson Pease felt there needs to be more discussion with the City Council on the 90-foot issue. She was also concerned with the boarding of horses, thinking the item of requiring a SUP also needs to be discussed on the City Council level. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Coleman, recommending to the City Council by the Andover P & Z relative to Section IV, Shelter Requirements, Item C, that in lieu of the stated 50-foot setback from the abutting property line that we recommend changing that to a 90-foot setback to guard against unreasonable use of adjacent undeveloped property, and the 90-foot setback was arrived at assuming that the adjacent undeveloped property with respect to the minimum of a 10-foot setback by ordinance for a total of a 100-foot setback from any occupied residence. Motion carried unanimously. It was also agreed the Council should be asked to consider a SUP process for the boarding of horses or look at requiring permits for all horse operations. ,) The item will go to the City Council on October 2 as moved with other comments for their consideration. The Commission recessed at 11:06; reconvened at 11:20 p.m. ( ') '- ' (J ." o Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 11, 1990 Page 10 ORDINNACE NO. 79 DISCUSSION - TRANSIENT MERCHANT'S LICENSE AND ORDINANCE NO.8. SECTION 7.03 Due to the late hour, Ms. Bosell recommended continuing the item to the next meeting. She also noted the proposed definition of Temporary Retail Food and Establishment which was presented to the Commissioners this evening. There was a short discussion on a permitting process versus the requirement of a Special Use Permit, the advantages and disadvantages of each. Ms. Bosel I also reviewed the intent of the Special Use Permit issued to the Downtown Center and the activities which are conducted there because of that permit. The Commissioners questioned whether outdoor car sales are al I lowed under that permit or any other activity that takes up a third of the parking lot. Ms. Bosell agreed to provide copies of that SUP for the Commissioners to review. It was also noted, however, that there have been no complaints about the Downtown Center SUP; and any complaints can be taken care of during the annual review. MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Jonah, to table Items 5 and 6 to the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ~l Ms. Bosell informed the Commissioners that the next meeting is September 25, and a Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting will be held on September 27. MOTION by Coleman to adjourn. Chairperson Pease declared the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~f\~CL~L ~a~lla A. Peach Recording Secretary . "\ '.-)