HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 11, 1989
r-'\
U
o
r~
'--/
o
o
,0~
r\,
CITY of ANDOVER
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
July 11, 1989
The regularly scheduled Andover Planning & Zoning Commission meeting was
called to order by Chairman Rebecca Pease at 7:35 P.M. Tuesday, July 11, 1989
at th~Andover City Hall offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd, Andover, MN.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Rebecca Pease, Bill Bernard, Ron Ferris.
Bev Jovanovich, Gretchen Sabel, Don Spotts
Wayne Vis tad
Others Present: Jay Blake, d'Arcy Bosell
Chairman Pease began the meeting with an outline of agenda items to be
discussed.
Variance, Dixon, 2817 142nd Lane
Ordinance 8/23 Amendments
Preliminary Plat, Kirby Estates
Special Use Permit, HAM Radio Towers, Ron Ferris
Variance, Dickenson, 163rd and Makah Street NW
Approval of minutes from the June 13, 1989 meeting was deferred as commissioners
did not have adequate time to review.
Ron Ferris made a MOTION to approve June 27, 1989 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting minutes. Second by Don Spotts. MOTION passed.
cont 'd...
()
~)
CJ
Andover Planning and zor~ Commission
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Two
o
Variance, Dixon, 2817 l42nd Lane
d'Arcy Bosell presented a request to the Planning Commission to consider the
variance request of Evelyn and Pat Dixon to construct an entryway onto their
existing home which would encroach seven feet into the required front yard setback.
The reason for the request is to provide for easier access because Mr. Dixon is
permanently disabled due to a back and leg injury and they anticipate that he will
need to use either a walker or wheelchair for mobility in the future. Further,
the entryway is designed with a seat to allow for someone to sit and rest before
attempting the stairs, to sit and remove shoes, etc. It in effect creates a foyer
as opposed to an entryway where the door swings open and you have limited mobility
before using the stairs.
Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, sets the setback dimensions for an R-3 District
at thirty-five feet. Section 5.04 of the same ordinance sets out the variance
criteria and states in part that "where there are practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships in any way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions
of this Ordinance, an appeal may be made and a variance granted."
It may very well be that the "practical difficulty" is the inability of Mr. Dixon
to access his house given his handicapping condition.
One should also consider that in 1971 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, there
was no consideration made whatsoever for those who were physically handicapped
as far as accessibility to anything. Fortunately, that lack of consideration is
being corrected (and has a long way to go) and given the circumstance of the
applicant, may constitute an "undue hardship" pursuant to our Ordinance.
A point of discussion might center around what other
to accomodate this need for handicap accessibility.
one would think that some changes would also be made
accomodate a wheelchair or walker.
changes are going to be made
The house is a split level and
to the interior stairs to
A visual inspection of the property revealed that all of the homes along l42nd
Lane are setback the same (i.e., 35 feet) and that this encroachment into the
front yard setback would be very apparent.
The Commission must consider this request pursuant to Section 5.04 and make it's
recommendation to the City Council based on that criteria. The request is not
based on topography or condition of the property but instead, on the plight of the
property owner in that he is disabled and may be denied reasonable use of his
property as his disability becomes more intense. The request is not in conflict
with the Zoning Ordinance nor is it in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Also, when structure was placed on the lot, the front yard setback was not set
by City Council Ordinance. That Ordinance became effective after structure was
erected.
Ms. Bosell noted the proposed design of the entryway is an attractive design,
and will be finished with siding to match existing structure. Ms. Bosell
recommends the Planning Commission make recommendation to the City Council for
approval of this variance request
cont 'd. . .
Pl' d' () .
annkng an Zonkng Comm~uSkon
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Three
o
~~ Wayne Vistad stated that Section 5, Subsection 5.04, Variances and Appeals reads
.~ hardships or difficulties must have to do with characteristics of the land, and
not the property owner.
d'Arcy Bosell stated that 5.04 also reads that where there are practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships in any way, an appeal may be made.
Mr. Ferris does not feel that granting this variance will in any way set a precedence
for similar requests.
d'Arcy Bosell added that all houses along 142nd Lane are not exactly set back at
thirty five feet.
Chairman Pease asked if there are any other city ordinances pertaining to handicap
accessibility. d'Arcy Bosell stated there are not. Chairman Pease questioned
if neighborhood opinion has been voiced. d'Arcy Bosell said there has been no input
either for or against, and that variance request has been published.
Mrs. Dixon was present to speak with commissioners. Chairman Pease asked Mrs. Dixon
if there is a possibility addition be built on side of home. Mrs. Dixon states
that would not be possible as garage is to one side of home and bedrooms are to
other side. The home is a center split design. Wayne Vistad asked if access could
be improved by putting addition on back of home. Mrs. Dixon said that was not
possible because home is a split level with hill in back, and to get to back of
house you must descend hill.
---"
'-/ Don Spotts asked Mrs. Dixon if she was aware of any neighborhood opposition.
Mrs. Dixon replied she has obtained a signature sheet from neighbors stating they
are not opposed.
Mr. Ferris stated the city needs another Ordinance to address issues pertaining
to the handicapped.
Mr. Vistad asked if the purpose of the Ordinance is to insure a uniform lay of the
homes. d'Arcy Bosell replied the purpose of the front yard setback is to eliminate
encroachment into a front yard to maintain a front yard preserve. It does not mean
that house must be set at thirty five feet; homes in that particular area can be
set within 50 feet of rear yard.
MOTION made by Ron ,perris that Andover Planning and Zoning Cammissionmake
recommendation to Andover City Council to approve variance~equest of Evelyn and
pat Dixon, 2817 NW ~42nd Lane to constTuct an entryway onto their existing home
that would encroach seven feet into the required front yard setnack. TneTequest
is pursuant to Section 5.04 and the recommendation is 11lade to the City Council
based on that criteria. Request is not :Cased on the topograpnyorcondition of
property but instead on the plight of the property owner in that ne is disabled
and may be denied reasonable use of his property' as his disability becomes more
intense. The request is not in conflict with Zoning Ordinance nor is it in conflict
with comprehensive plan. In addition, there are no known objections from the
neighborhood and there is no reason to believe this would have a negative impact
on the value of the property.
:]
Motion was opposed by commissioner Vistad. All other commissioners voted in favor
of motion. MOTION passed and will be submitted to the City Council at their
cont'd.. .
Planning and Zoning Comi~ion
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Four
o
C)
August 1, 1989 meeting.
d'Arcy Bosell advised Mrs. Dixon to attend the 8/01/89 City Council meeting.
Ordinance 8 and 23
d'Arcy Bosell presented the following issue raised as the result of a complaint
received at city Hall in regard to the raising of four mules on a property within
the City of Andover which is zoned R-4 and is .99 acres in size but with access
to another parcel which is 7.7 acres of land, available for grazing, etc.
Ordinance No.8, Section 7.01, Permitted Uses, Residential Districts, R-2,
R-3 and R-4, has therein urban agricultural uses. On face value, that presents
no real problem because the definition of urban agricultural use is so innocent
at first blush. The last sentence of that definition, however, causes real
consternation..."It shall include the raising...pleasure-recreation animals".
Section 3.02 of Ordinance No. 8 defines pleasure-recreational animals as "animals
not normally kept in a residence such as horses, ponies, foals, donkeys, burrows,
mules or other". Herein lies the dilemma...
Ordinance No. 8 allows for the raising of donkeys, burrows, mules and others in
all residential districts, irregardless of the size of the property, or the zoning
thereon, because urban agricultural uses are permitted.
o
Ordinance No. 23 which regulates the keeping of horses, foals and ponies provides
that the minimum lot size on which to raise these critters is two and one half
acres. The Ordinance does not, however, include donkeys, ~ules, burrows and others.
So...on a City-size lot (11,400 s.f.) you can raise donkeys, burrows, mules or
others and you have no restriction as to area, corral space, shelter requirements,
number of animals, etc.
d'Arcy spoke with Bill Hawkins about this and he agrees the city cannot exclude
donkeys, burrows, mules or others from any district regardless of size as the
Ordinance presently stands.
The following recommendation is presented with the approval of Bill Hawkins:
Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02 should be amended as follows -
Agricultural Use, Urban - delete the language in the last sentence "and
pleasure-recreation animals."
This then would allow for uses such as growing crops, etc. and the ra~s~ng of
domestic animals (i.e., cats, dogs and similar animals) but would not allow donkeys,
burrows, mules and others.
Ordinance No. 23 should be amended to include "Equines" both in the title and the
text. By state statute, the definition of Equine includes mules and burrows.
This would then require that the raising of mules and burrows would need to meet
the minimum lot size of two and one-half acres, the same as horses, ponies and
foals. They would also need to meet the corral space requirements, setbacks and
number of animals.
~
To amend Ordinance No. 8 requires a public hearing and that Notice has not been
published. To amend Ordinance No. 23 requires no public hearing but I think it
would be in the best interest of the City to include that Ordinance in the Notice
so that those persons who are interested in horses, donkeys, mules, ect. will have
cont'd.. .
o
~J
~)
o
o
Planning and zoning commission
July II, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Five
an opportunity to be heard and their information considered.
If you are in agreement with the recommended changes, a public hearing should be
so scheduled at the next available date and you proceed accordingly.
Ron Ferris asked if the comments made to city staff were complaints or inquiries.
d'Arcy said the remarks were inquiries.
Ron Ferris stated that Ordinance 23 should be rewritten in it's entirity, as it makes
reference throughout to the city as Grow Township. d'Arcy explained that when
Andover became a statuary city it was understood that when an Ordinance refers to
Grow Township, it means City of Andover. Cosmetic changes are made in Ordinances
as they are updated.
d'Arcy stated the Horseman's Council is in existance, although they have not met
since Ordinance 23 was written. Chairman of the Council is Paul Gangler.
Commissioner Vistad suggests Ordinance be rewritten to more clearly convey that
minimum two and one-half acre lot is required for horses, and that for each additional
one-half acre another horse is allowed. He feels current Ordinance could be
misinterpreted to allow more than one horse on two and one-half acre lot.
d'Arcy explained that restrictive clauses within the Ordinance require 800 feet of
corral space per animal, 100 square feet of shelter per animal, and that the
corral space must be fifty feet from the occupied residence including the property
on which the horses are kept, and it must be ten feet from the occupied residential
property line. Corral can only be in the rear yard. In theory you can have more
than one horse on a two and one-half acre lot. In practicality, this would not be
feasible due to grazing space, corral space etc.
Wayne Vistad asked if research has occurred regarding other areas of feasibility
pertaining to allowing more than one horse per two and one-half acre lot.
d'Arcy Bosell stated if the Planning and Zoning Commission so directs, staff would
research that question in preparation of background material for a public hearing.
Gretchen Sabel questioned whether llamas and goats would fall under pleasure-
recreation or exotic animals. d'Arcy stated that issue would be defined if change
is made in Ordinance.
Ron Ferris questioned how change in Ordinance would effect owner who keeps mules
on property in city of Andover. d'Arcy Bosell said owner would no longer be allowed
to keep mules.
Don Spotts asked if we could contact surrounding communities to see how they have
handled like situations. He has concerns as to the definition of "pleasure-
recreation" and "exotic" animals.
Commissioners agreed to add discussion of Ordinance 8 and 23 to agenda for
July 25, 1989 meeting.
Preliminary Plat, Kirby Estates
Request for the review and approval of the preliminary plat, grading and erosion
cont 'd...
Planning
July 11,
Page Six
d. r~.
an Zon~ng comrr~~on
1989 Meeting Minutes
o
o
control plan per Ordinance 8 and 10 as requested by Wayne and Kay Olson, owners and
developers of the property was presented by Jay Blake as follows:
The Andover Review Committee (ARC) has reviewed the preliminary plat, grading and
drainage plan. Their comments are as follows per Ordinance 10.
General Comments
The proposed preliminary plat is currently zoned R-4, Single Family Urban,
minimum size lot of 11,400 square feet.
The proposed subdivision consists of six single family lots and one outlot.
The outlot will be purchased by the City of Andover and used as a regional
pond.
The developers have petitioned to the City of Andover for improvements to
the property for municipal sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain and
streets.
The following comments are per the preliminary plat checklist (Ordinance 10):
8.01 IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
a. Proposed name is Kirby Estates
d. Scale is 1" = 60'
g. The preliminary plat was prepared by Lot Surveys Company, Inc. Grading
and drainage plan was prepared by Ken Gust.
u
8.02 EXISTING CONDITIONS
b. Total acreage is 5.98 acres.
c. The existing zoning within 300 feet of the proposed plat has been shown.
f. Location of all existing telephone, gas, electric, and other underground
facilities are shown on preliminary plat per requirement of Ordinance 10.
g. The boundary lines within 100 feet of the plat have been shown along
with the names of the property owner.
j. A soil boring report has been received. The borings received do not
appear adequate for the City for reviewing purposes. Staff has discussed
this with the developers and has recommended additional 2 to 3 borings
with the borings penetrating at least a minimum of 20 feet.
8.03 DESIGN FEATURES
a. The proposed right-of-way as indicated is 60 feet. The proposed name
of Hummingbird Street NW is per City grade.
g. The setbacks for each lot are shown and are indicated properly as
required per Ordinance 8.
h. The proposed method of disposing of surface water has been shown on the
plat.
8.04 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
o
a. The proposed density is 2.85 lots per acre.
f. Flood plain management is the Coon Creek Watershed District.
g. Street lighting is required and the installation costs will be paid for
by the developers.
i. Total road mileage proposed is 0.05 miles.
cont'd...
o
.r -"
<J
'0
Planning and Zoning comn~ion
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Seven
o
9.02 STREET PLAN
a. The street right-of-way and typical section have been shown properly.
b. The proposed extension of Hummingbird Street has been shown to serve
properties to the north for possible future development.
c. No direct access from lots in Kirby Estates will be allowed onto 133rd
Avenue NW.
9.03 STREETS
a. The proposed right of way of Hummingbird Street NW is shown as 60 feet.
g. A temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed at the north end of Hummingbird
Street NW.
m. Driveway access shall be located 60 feet or more from an intersection.
9.04 EASEMENTS
b. A drainage easement is required to follow the 100 year flood elevation
of 885 which has been established by BRW, Inc. on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of
Block 2.
9.06 LOTS
e. The developer is responsible to obtain all necessary permits from the
Watershed Organization, DNR, Corps of Engineers and any other agency that
may be interested in the site.
9,.07 PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, OPEN SPACE
Park dedication as determined by Park and Recreation Commission.
OTHER COMMENTS:
Variance for Lot 1 Block 1 as thid does not meet the lot depth minimum
of 130 feet. See Section 6.02 of Ordinance 8.
Andover Review Committee recommends approval of the preliminary plat.
Don spotts asked if Hummingbird Street currently exists on the south in Coon Rapids.
Jay Blake replied that the street is currently under construction.
Ron Ferris asked who owned property to the west. Jay Blake stated property to the
west is owned by two parties who have single family homes. Ferris confirmed it
would not be possible to move lot line to the west to eliminate need for variance.
Don Spotts asked if Hummingbird will eventually continue north. Jay Blake answered
that there is some interest in development to the north.
Wayne Vistad asked if this was approved by the Coon Creek Watershed Board. Blake
answered that as part of the overall plan for the Coon Rapids/Andover area, approval
was made by the Coon Creek Watershed board for the sytle and general size of this
wetland area. Coon Rapids is asking for additional ponding on the west side of
property in lowland. Because of size limitations there will be this additional
ponding on the Smith property.
cont'd.. .
U
P1anninR and Zoning Commission
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Eight
u
~~)
Commissioner Vis tad asked if Andover Park and Recreation Board recommendations
have been made. Mr. Blake did not know at this time.
Mr. Ferris asked if the soil borings had to be corrected on preliminary
plat. Mr. Blake replied that a correction plan will be determined once city
engineering department receives the final soil report.
Mr. Vis tad asked if this plat needs to go to the Anoka County Highway
Department. Mr. Blake answered that development does not front on a county
highway; it fronts on a MSA street and therefore the council acts as the
reviewing agent as the transportation planning board. In compliance with
city policy there are no homes fronting the MSA street.
There being no further questions from board, Chairman Pease opened the
public hearing.
CJ
Hurbert Smith, 13309 Jay Street stated plan is to cut down trees in order to
develop pond. He met with Todd Haas while pond was being staked out. Todd
assured him only a "little bit" of land was needed for the pond. As it
appears, amount of land to be used for pond is 153 x 155. This land includes
ash and maple trees Mr. Smith has planted, plus an asparagus patch he has
worked for eight years to develop. Mr. Smith states when he objected, city
agreed it had gone too far and suggested moving line 20 feet to save trees.
The 20 foot move to the east would affect Mr. Smith's neighbor, Mr. Olson.
Also, Mr. Smith has been told his driveway will be taken, so a different drive
will need to be installed. He does not object to development. but he
wants to know exactly how his land will be affected.
Ken Gust, engineer for the developer, explained there is about an equal
amount of land in Andover and Coon Rapids that comprises general area of
development. The main trunkline going out is going to be along 133rd. The
easements in Maxwell Estates plus Outlot A will not provide adequate storage
so Mr. Smith's lowland will be used. It is Mr. Gust's understanding that
the 20 feet of land will not be taken for ownership, but will be an easement.
Jay Blake stated that the specifics of Mr. Smith's land are still at issue.
Mr. ViBtad states he has real concerns with selling lots that will possibly
have flooding in the back 20 - 30 feet.
Mr. Blake noted that building restrictions won't allow permanent structures
built on easement.
Mr. Vistad questions easements on a subsized lot. Gretchen Sabel stated that
an easement doesn't mean that area can't be used as a yard.
Mr. Vis tad asked if soil borings will have such significant effect that
approval on plat should be pended until results can be studied.
Mr. Blake replied that plat will be corrected before final approval.
':~
cont'd...
Planning and Zoning Co~sion
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Nine
u
;]
Mrs. Mardaus, 13350 Hanson Blvd., states she and her husband own ten acres
north of Kirby Estates. Speaking for herself and Mrs. Hunt (property owner
to the west of Kirby Estates) she expressed their approval of development.
Don Spotts made a MOTION to close public hearing. Second by Ron Ferris. All
commissioners vote in favor.
Don Spotts stated his concern with sending a preliminary plat to City Council
when Mr. Olson and the city still have a potential conflict. Mr. Blake suggested
two options:
Table until agreement is reached,
Forward plat to City Council with approval contingent on successful
negotiations between Mr. Smith and City.
Mr. Gust believes there will be a period of time before ponding will be
developed and that could be an area for negotiation.
()
Mr. Ferris states he feels there are many issues to be resolved before plat
is forwarded to City Council. However, Mr. Smith has requested that approval
be made and project not be delayed. Therefore. MOTION made by Ron Ferris that
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council
approval of the preliminary plat of Kirby Estates. legal description being
lot 9 except the west 500 feet, Watts Garden Acres of Section 34. Township 32.
Range 24. Anoka County, Minnesota; that a variance be granted for lot 1. block 1
as this does not meet the lot depth minimum of 130 feet. and it is five feet
short of the required side lot; however in evaluating the plat there appears
to be no other way to complete the plat without a variance; that a Public Hearing
was held and only concern voiced at the public hearing was drainage onto the
property owned by Hurbert Smith and L.A. Smith, located to the west of the
plat; and that a condition of this recommendation be that ponding issue be
resolved in time of final plat and approval of City Council. Second to motion
by Don Spotts. MOTION passed.
Commissioner Ferris joined the public while Jay Blake presented the Special Use
Permit application for construction of one 75 foot HAM radio tower on property
owned by Mr. Ferris and four 200 foot HAM radio towers on property owned
by Robert Schroer on University Avenue.
Ordinance 8. Section 7.03 requires that any antennae over 35 feet must obtain
a Special Use Permit. Also, Section 4.06 states that height limitations shall
not apply to transmission towers of commercial and private radio broad-
casting stations. Therefore. the height of the towers cannot be restricted by
the City. although the type of license that the applicant has. does restrict
the height to 200 feet.
Mr. Ferris is a HAM radio operator licensed to transmit from a tower up to
200 feet in height. The applicant currently has two towers approximately
45 feet tall on his property at 14940 University Avenue and is proposing to
construct five additional towers - one on his property and four on property
owned by Robert Schroer.
'.~
Jay Mabey of the American Radio Relay League informed Mr. Blake that a
cont 'd. . .
(-~
Planning and Zoning Col._ssion
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Ten
u
~
Federal Regulation called PRB1 controlling HAM radio towers supercedes local
control of amateur radio operations. Basically. it states that the local
government must be reasonable and not place excessive restrictions on the
operation.
The City has the authority to review Special Use Permit applications based on
the proposed effect on the health. safety, morals and general welfare of the
occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions
including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. and the effect on
property values and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect
of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is requesting that a 75 foot tower on his property be allowed.
The height would be enough to clear the existing tree line. The 75 foot tower
would not have a significant impact on the surrounding properties.
Staff is concerned over the placement of the four towers on the 40 acres owned
by Mr. Schroer. The four towers on the Schroer property are proposed to be
approximately 200 feet from each other and 200 feet from the property lines.
No structures would be within the fall area of the towers. Also. the towers
are constructed in ten foot sections. The design is such that the sections
would break apart if the tower were to fall.
'~)
After inspecting the property, staff learned that the area is relatively
low compared to surrounding property. The tower sites are not located in
wetlands.
Staff believes that either reducing the number of towers would decrease the
negative impact on the surrounding properties.
The proposal will have no significant negative impact on traffic or parking
conditions in the area.
Staff believes that the number of towers on the Schroer property would
have a negative impact on scenic views in the area. Reducing the size or number
or towers would reduce the significance of the impact.
The Ferris property is relatively high ground and a 75 foot tower should not
cause a negative impact on the scenic views, as it would be only slightly
visible from surrounding properties.
The proposal will not have a significant impact on the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of the
Special Use Permit, as requested by Ron Ferris for the construction of a 75
foot HAM radio tower on property described as: the West 273 feet of the South
546 feet of the East 433 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 24. Township 32. Range 24. Anoka County, Minnesota. The Commission may
also recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request for four 200 foot
cont 'd...
,. '\
',J
:~)
~~
',.J
Planning and Zoning ec/" )sSion
July 11, 1989 Meeting hmutes
Page Eleven
u
HAM radio towers on property described as: the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 24, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County. Minnesota (except the
North 300 feet of the East 750 feet as measured along the North and East lines
of said parcel.)
The City may wish to impose conditions for the structure. including. but not
limited to the following:
The proposed tower on the Ferris property shall be limited to 75 feet
in height and will be set back at least 75 feet from the property lines.
The proposed towers on the Schroer property shall be limited to 200 feet
in height and will be set back at least 200 feet from any property line.
The towers will be constructed in sections no greater than 10 feet
long and the planned fall zones will be outlined by and be kept on file
in the City of Andover building department.
Construction of the proposed towers shall commence within two years.
Failure to significantly begin the construction shall result in the
Special Use Permit becoming null and void.
The Special Use Permit shall be reviewed annually to ensure compliance
with all appropriate City Ordinances.
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial of the Special
Use Permit. as requested by Ron Ferris.
The Commission may recommend approval of fewer towers and/or smaller towers
on either property, with any or all of the conditions outlined above.
The Commission may table the proposal.
The City Planning Staff recommends approval with conditions imposed.
Mr. Blake asked commissioners to direct questions to Mr. Ferris.
Mr. Bill Bernard asked if towers are tied together electrically. Mr. Ferris
answered that towers will be remote control from location. Electrical voltage
will be 12 - 24 volts. Wires will be underground.
Mr. Ferris states the lower ten feet of tower are protected so they cannot be
climbed. He also states the entire 75 acres tower would be erected on is unused.
Mr. Vistad questioned the hazard guide wires could pose to snowmobilers.
Mr. Ferris explained that he paints the guide wire and ties aircraft ribbon to
wires.
Chairman Pease asked if this project would be done in stages or all at once.
Mr. Ferris replied he first plans to erect tower in his back yard and then
begin on other towers. Also. application states construction must commence within
two years and he would like to have all bases in within that time.
cont'd...
Planning and Zoning Cor'ssion
July 11. 1989 Meeting ~_utes
Page Twelve
u
~-)
Mr. Ferris would like to amend application to read that towers will be
''up to 200 feet."
Chairman Pease opened public hearing.
Reuben Erickson. 15486 University Avenue NW. states he owns 80 acres to
the north of land to be used for towers. He states he has no objections to
proposed towers.
George Engstrom. 15510 University Avenue states he has no objections to proposed
tower.
Doug Baum. 15633 University Avenue NW states he has no objections to proposed
tower.
Dick Jeffers. 498 Andover Blvd. Ham Lake stated his appreciation for the
work Ron Ferris does with his HAM operation and the good will Ron extends
worldwide from Andover. He encouraged commissioners to approve application.
MOTION was made to close public hearing.
Q
MOTION by Wayne Vistad to recommend the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend to the Andover City Council approval of the special use permit requested
by Ron Ferris for the construction of a 75 foot HAM Radio Tower on the
described property as the West 273 feet of the South 546 feet of the East 433
feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. Township 32. Range
24. Anoka County. Minnesota.
The commission also recommends approval of construction of four HAM radio
towers up to 200 feet on described property as the South 1/2 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 24. Townohip 32. Range 24. Anoka County. Minnesota (except the
North 300 feet of the East 750 feet as measured along the North and East lines
of said parcel.) Ron Ferris made a request that two of the 200 foot towers be
only 135 feet and two would be 200 feet. but according to Ordinance we cannot
limit to 135 feet. The following conditions are to be imposed:
The towers will be constructed in sections no greater than 10 feet long
and the planned fall zones will be outlined by and be kept on file
in the City of Andover building department.
Construction of the proposed towers shall commence within two years.
Failure to significantly begin the construction shall result in the
Special Use Permit becoming null and void.
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council examine guide line issues.
Public hearing was held and no opposition voiced. Proposed tower is in harmony
with general purpose and intent of Zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. It
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values; it will not
cause traffic conjestions or hazards; it will not be detrimental to the
health. safety or general welfare of the community. Second was made to MOTION.
all commissioners voted in favor. Approval for application will be forwarded
(_~) to City Council at their August 1. 1989 meeting.
Mr. Ferris rejoined commission for discussion of Dickenson Variance request.
cont'd...
(,
Planning and Zoning Co.Jssion
July II, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Thirteen
u
1 Variance, Dickenson
, J Jay Blake made the following presention: The Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission is asked to review the request of Robert and Renee Dickenson for a
variance to Section 4.05 of Ordinance 8 that prohibits the storage of a
commercial vehicle weighing more than 12.000 pounds in an accessory building.
The applicant desires to store his semi-tractor in a pole building on this
property.
The Andover Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.05 outlines requirements for storing
commercial vehicles in accessory buildings. It specifically states that an
accessory building may be used for the storage of one commercial vehicle not
to exceed 12,000 pounds gross weight. This provision was part of the original
Ordinance adopted in 1970 and was intended to prevent the collection of semi-
tractors in Residential Districts.
The applicant is planning on building a new home on the property on Makah
Street and also constructing a pole building to store his semi-tractor
(approximately 15,000+ pounds). In conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Dickenson
and their realtor, the Planning Department has noted the specific restriction
on storage in accessory buildings. The applicant has, nevertheless, requested
that this variance be considered.
:~
This request is for a ''Use Variance" and is not a legal request. Variances
should be based on dimensional items such as setbacks and lot widths. not on
uses of the property. The Zoning Ordinance establishes Permitted Uses,
Accessory Uses and Special Uses. This request falls outside the uses allowed
by Andover's Zoning Ordinance.
The only way this request could be granted would be for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to change the Zoning Ordinance to allow
this use.
It should also be noted that the city staff has spent a great amount of
time in the last six months trying to remove stored semi-tractors from
residential areas. This request, if granted, could be considered an arbitrary
action and would create a potential for many lawsuits against the City.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the request using the
following criteria:
Does the strict interpretation of the Ordinance cause practical
difficulties to the property owners?
Is the hardship caused by the unique physical features of the land,
including shape or condition of the parcel?
Will the variance be detrimental to the public welfare?
Is the variance necessary to allow the property owner the reasonable use
of his property?
~ ) Based on the above criteria, City Staff recommends denial of request.
..J
cont 'd...
(--\
Planning and Zoning CO........-ss1on
July 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Fourteen
f '.
\J
~~
Wayne Vistad asked how long a person can have a semi-tractor on property
before it is considered storage. Jay Blake answered that question has been
presented to city attorney but has not yet been determined in writing. Blake
warned against determining what is considered storage as it would be very
difficult to enforce regulation.
Mr. Vistad asked if semi-tractor is home on a daily basis. Mrs. Dickenson
states her husband is on the road up to 200 days a year.
Mr. Ferris asked what weight restrictions are on roads leading to Makah Street.
Mr. Blake answered thnt is not a major concern when discussing the storage
of the tractor only.
Mr. Ferris stated he regrets this ordinance will come in the way of
Mrs. Dickenson's house plans, but in granting this variance, commission
would be going against very Ordinance they are to uphold.
Mrs. Dickenson asked if it was
together anywhere in Andover.
zoned residential area.
possible to build a storage shop and home
Mr. Blake replied it is not possible in a
Don Spotts noted that in 1970 when Ordinance was passed it was restricted to
trucks less than 12.000 pounds. Mr. Spotts states that trucks are built larger/
heavier now.
':J
Mr. Blake said a variance can't be granted, but Ordinance can be brought to
City Council for consideration of change.
Mr. Vistad asked it it would be to the applicant's advantage to check with
City Council, to see if they would make an Ordinance amendment.
Chairman Pease recommended we contact other communities to see how they have
handled similar situations.
After discussion regarding time frame with Mrs. Dickenson, Mr. Vistad made a
MOTION to recommend Andover Planning and Zoning CCmmission recommend to Andover
City Council denial of a request by Robert and Renee Dickenson to allow
the storage of a commercial vehicle greater than 12.000 pounds gross weight on
property described as: Tract L Registered Land Survey 672 in Section 18.
Township 32. Range 24, Moka County, Minnesota. Commission finds proposal
does not meet requirements set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance No.8.
Section 5.04. Commission finds applicant failed to show hardship due to unique
shape or topography of the parcel. and the landowner will not be denied
reasonable use of the property. I would like to also recommend that when
City Council looks at this request. they review Ordinance weight restriction
of 12,000 pounds. Ordinance is 18 years old and truck weights have increased
since Ordinance was passed. Commission also advises City Council that
Ordinance should be changed rather than variance approved, to avoid
arbitrariness. Second to MOTION by Ron Ferris. All commissioners voted in
favor of motion. MOTION passed.
~)
MOTION by Ron Ferris to adjourn. Second by Bill Bernard. Meeting adjourned
at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Hogan