Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 22, 1989 o o o o o ',',0~ \"1'\'; CITY of ANDOVER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order on Tuesday, August 22, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Rebecca Pease at the Andover City Hall offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd., Andover, MN. Commissioners Present: Chairman Rebecca Pease, Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich, Gretchen Sabel, Don Spotts, Wayne Vistad Others Present: Jay Blake, d'Arcy Bosell Approval of Minutes The first agenda item was approval of Planning and Zoning Commission August 8 meeting minutes. MOTION was made by Don Spotts to approve minutes. Second to motion by Ron Ferris. All commissioners favored motion. MOTION passed. Variance, Heidelberger, 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard The same request was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year. The Planning Commission recommended approval with stipulations that the front of the property remain "junk free". The City Council reversed the recommendation and denied the request. During recent court appearances the City Attorney and legal counsel for the Heidelbergers have agreed to allow the Heidelberger's an opportunity to re-submit the request and ask for reconsideration by the City Council. The results of this variance request will be brought to court in September. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the request of Rick and Marion Heidelberger for a variance to allow the completion of a non-conforming garage currently under construction. The proposed variance is for property at 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard, adjacent to Mom's Auto Salvage. The structure was initially started more than fifteen years ago and the applicant proposes to complete the building. The Andover City Zoning Ordinance #8, Section 4.03 (Non-conforming Uses and Structures), Subsections A and B, Section 4.05, Subsection F and Section 9 - Building without permits are the applicable ordinances. The request of Rick and Marion Heidelberger is to allow the completion/expansion of a non-conforming structure in an Industrial District. Two major items must be addressed: 1) Non-conformity - The property has two uses located on it. On the north- western portion of the land is the residential structure and associated garages and accessory buildings. Additionally, Mom's Auto Salvage is also located on the same property. Because it is a residential structure in an Industrial District, the use of the property is considered non- conforming. cont'd.. . And Pl' d( ') . .. over ann~ng an ~n~ng Comm~ss~on August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Two ( ~, , 1 V ,--J Section 4.03, Subsection A of the Zoning Ordinance states, "Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this ordinance may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing on such date hereinafter specified." The expansion of the house or accessory structures would be considered an expansion of the non-conforming use. Section 4.03, Subsection B states that no structural alteration shall be made to the non-conforming structure. Mr. Heidelberger proposes the non-conforming use of the property will exist. structural alterations. to complete the garage, thereby intensifying the property and adding to the length of time Additionally, the Ordinance strictly prohibits 2) Garage Location - The current garage is located 85 feet from the property line, four feet closer to the property line than the principle structure. Section 4.05, Subsection F states, "No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principle structure, unless it matches the style of the residential structure. Mr. Heidelberger has stated that he will make arrangements with appropriate architects and engineers to build a structure that meets all of the building code requirements. The City has the authority to require that the building be moved or removed. C) Also, the property has several other accessory buildings in a state of disrepair. Ordinance #8 allows the City to grant a variance to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if the strict interpretation of the Ordinance will cause undue hardship to the property owner. Planning and Zoning Commission should review the request using the following criteria: 1) Does the strict interpretation of the Ordinance cause practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships to the property owners? The proposal does not meet this criteria. The hardship defined by the application is the improper location of the garage built too close to the front property line and that the garage has been there for many years. The mere location of the building does not constitute a hardship. As it currently stands, the garage is an illegal structure, built without a building permit for either the shell of the building or the roof added to the structure. The Building Department has not allowed other structures without building permits to be erected within the City. Therefore, no hardship exists. 2) Is the hardship caused by the unique physical features of the land, including shape or condition of parcel? ~ This criteria is not met by the proposal. The current location of the garage cannot be considered a "hardship caused by the unique features of the land". Since the property owners choose to not follow the building procedures of the City of Andover, he located it improperly and created his own hardship. cont'd.. . (-) Andover Planning and'~Jning Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Three CJ :_) 3) Will the variance be detrimental to the public welfare? The mere completion of a garage would not have a detrimental effect on the public welfare, however, allowing a non-conforming use to expand and prolonging the use in the industrial district would not be beneficial to the public welfare. The property is within the Andover Tax Increment Financing District. The City plans to work with land owners, and developers to re-develop the entire district. The expansion of the non-conforming use is not in line with the redevelopment plans of the City. 4) Is the variance necessary to allow the property owner the reasonable use of the property? The existence of a completed garage on the property has not precluded the property owner reasonable use of the property to date. The question then becomes, does the requirement to have the structure moved or removed cause the owner an unnecessary hardship? The costs of removing a building should not be a criteria for granting a variance. As a non-conforming use in an Industrial District, the ordinance allows residential uses in Industrial districts, yet no expansion or increase in intensity should be allowed. '\ V The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial of the variance requested by Rick and Marion Heidelberger to complete construction of a non- conforming accessory structure, the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of the variance, or the Commission may table the item. Recommendation by Jay Blake on behalf of City staff is to deny variance request. Commissioner Vis tad asked if there have been any changes to property since variance request was last presented to commission. Mr. Blake stated no changes have occurred to property. Mr. Ferris asked if original garage structure was built before Ordinance #8 was written. ~rr. Blake states garage was built approximately fifteen years ago and Ordinance #8 was written in 1970-7l. Ron Ferris stated that Paragraph C reads in part "nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the placing of the structure in a safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector". Mr. Ferris would interpret this to mean it is the homeowners responsibility to make repairs necessary to comply with safety inspection. Mr. Blake stated it is the recently completed addition that does not meet safety requirements. ~) Mr. Heidelberger said he does not believe the City Building Inspector has the cont'd.. . ~J () Andover Planning and~ning Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Four , ') '-' credentials to determine the safety of the roof addition. Mr. Heidelberger states the presiding judge agreed that a structural engineer should make determination. Chairman Pease clarified the major issue is expansion of a non-conforming building. Mr. Blake warned that in granting a variance to Mr. Heidelberger to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure, the Planning and zoning Commission may be bound to grant similar variance requests. Mr. Ferris states the commission is bound to abide by the Ordinance. Commissioner Sabel questioned the reason the judge made the recommendation Mr. Heidelberger resubmit his variance request to Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Blake replied this recommendation was based not the reasonableness of allowing structure to remain. allows for an attempt to settle out of court. on the Ordinance, but on Also, this recommendation Mr. Heidelberger added that the City will lose real estate taxes if building is torn down. Commissioner Spotts noted that City Council minutes cite five major violations relating to structure. City Council has determined they will not permit variance request unless Ordinance #8 is changed. Wayne vis tad made a MOTION that Andover Planning and zoning Commission recommend to Andover City Council disapproval of the variance requested by Richard and Marion Heidelberger for a variance to allow completion of a non-conforming structure located at 2052 Bunker Lake Blvd., legally described as the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, MN. The commission finds the proposed code does not meet the requirements set forth in the City Ordinance #8, Section 5.04. Commission finds the applicant failed to show hardship due to the unique physical features of the land or topography of the parcel, nor will he be precluded reasonable use of the property. Whereas the accessory structure was initially started without proper building permits more than fifteen years ago by the previous landowner; whereas the accessory structure was placed four feet in front of the existing principle structure approximately 86 feet from the property line; whereas the roof was added to the structure within the past two years without prior building permits and approved plans; whereas the property is part of the City Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment District and the expansion of a non-conforming use would not be in keeping with the development plans in the district. Second to motion by Bev Jovanovich. Ron Ferris asked that motion be ammended to include the statement "Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Andover City Council that Resolution 93-89 not be modified". Wayne vis tad and Bev Jovanovich agreed to ammendment. Chairman Pease polled commissioners; all favor motion. MOTION passed. ~ Chairman Pease informed Richard and Marion Heidelberger that recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission will be presented to City Council on September 5. Decision to approve or deny will be made by City Council. cont'd.. . '\ '--) C) u f' Andover Planning and~ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Five ,) ~, Lynwood Estates, Sketch Plan Todd Haas made a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission to request reviewal of the sketch plans for Lynwood Estates as requested by Lynn Mardaus and Gloria Hunt, developers and owners of the property. The AndoverReview Committee (ARC) has reviewed the sketch plans and their comments are as follow: General Comments - The proposed sketch plan is located in an R-4 Single Family Urban Zoning District with a minimum lot size of 11,400 square feet. In reviewing the two sketch plans, the ARC has comments and/or concerns regarding each. Sketch Plan 1 This sketch plan was the first plan submitted to the City by developers. The sketch plan is similar to the one the ARC had presented during the review of Kirby Estates based on the existing zoning of the property and adjacent properties. During the review of Sketch 1 the ARC has the following comments: 1) Lot 10, Block 1 and Lot 6, Block 2 would require a variance as the average lot depth is less than the minimum allowed which is 130 feet. 2) Lot 13, Block 1 - the existing garage encroaches within the 10 foot setback line. This is not allowed per Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. 3) Lot 14, Block 1 and Lot 10, Block 2 - the square footage of each lot is less than the minimum allowed of 11,400 feet. 4) Ibis Court NW shall be renamed to Ibis Street NW. 5) Lots 1-8, Block 1 will require clear cutting and removing (excavating) 4 to 6 feet of material. This excess material will be used to fill lots on the south side of the proposed l33rd Lane NW. Sketch Plan 2 This sketch plan was submitted recently as an alternate to Sketch Plan 1. The plan would help resolve the problem to allow for reasonable use of the existing topography. This plan also indicates the possibility of creating commercial between the power easement and Hanson Boulevard. The complication that exists with this plan is that it encroaches north into a property currently zoned Industrial. The Andover Review Committee will be working on developing a plan for the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34. A rough grading plan, lot layout, street alignments, etc., will be reviewed during this process for their input. Small properties like these may be difficult to develop if the City does not have a reasonable development plan for the developers to follow. cont'd.. . Andover Planning andu~~ning Commission August 22, 1989 Meet Minutes Page Six o ,r"\ "'J Mr. Blake stated that city staff andCity Council is concerned about the piecemeal development of this entire area. Staff and consultants will put together a "concept" plan for the entire area and present this plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ron Ferris asked why sketch plan was brought to Planning and Zoning Commission before overall concept. Mr. Haas replied it is his responsibility to make presentation to Planning and Zoning Commission once developer has submitted sketch plan. Lynn Mardaus, 13350 Hanson Blvd., said she is developing her property due to assessments. She states she will make every attempt to work out a reasonable development plan. She asks commission for their feedback to the plans submitted for review. Gretchen Sabel asked where the home is located on Wagner property. Mardaus replied that Wagner plans to have home dozed. Mardaus pointed out that Kirby Estates was developed without an overall concept for entire area. Commissioner Vistad noted that parcel to north is zoned commercial. Mardaus stated that owner of said parcel has expressed interest in having said parcel rezoned. o Pease asked what is time frame for development. Haas answered that developer would like to be ready for spring construction. Blake states that concept plan for entire area can be done in a short time. Rezoning will be necessary; and will be done in conjunction with concept plan. Vis tad reiterated he must see an overall concept plan before he can make recom- mendation on sketch plan. Ron Ferris asked how many acres will be involved in overall concept. Mr. Blake answered there are approximately 80 acres to the south of the proposed Commercial Boulevard. Mr. Ferris asked if property layout will include proposed Commercial Boulevard. Mr. Blake said it will. Mr. Spotts asked when the south end of Watts Garden was rezoned to R4. d'Arcy Bosell said rezoning was done 3 - 4 years ago. Mr. Spotts asked if city is considering rezoning along Hanson north of Bunker. Mr. Blake replied that general business could be considered. Mr. Spotts cautioned against "hop scotch" rezoning. He feels commission must look to the future when making rezoning decisions. C) cont'd... ~) o 8 Andover Planning and~ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Seven o Lynn Mardaus asked if parcel can be split for zoning. Mr. Blake replied that parcel can be split. Gretchen Sabel asked if park consideration will be reflected in overall concept. Mr. Blake stated Park Board is requesting a tot lot for Lynwood, and that park consideration will be reflected in concept. MOTION made by Wayne Vis tad to extend Lynwood Estates, Sketch Plan discussion to next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow for more information and consideration. Second to motion by Ron Ferris. Ken Gust, engineer for Lynn Mardaus, asked to be included in meeting where overall concept plan is discussed. Jay Blake stated he will inform Gust of meeting time and place. All commissioners favor motion to table decision on Lynwood Estates Sketch plan. MOTION passed. Landfill Setbacks, Discussion The Andover Planning and Zoning commission was asked to review the attached letters from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota pollution Control Agency regarding the possibility of development restrictions around the WOE landvill site. The City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to make recommendations on possible landfill setback requirements. Mr. Jay Blake has contacted the MPCA regarding this issue and met with Ken Haberman and Myrna Hallbeck of MPCA to further discuss issues. Mr. Blake states the issues are so large they should be discussed over several meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Myrna Hallbeck will be present at the September 12, 1989 meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission to answer questions. Mayor Elling reviewed the recommendations from HUD and MPCA regarding the need for Andover to regulate the design feature of development around the WOE site. The original request was that no structure would be allowed within 1,000 feet of the toe of the landfill. That has been negotiated to within 200 feet of the toe of the landfill, including accessory structures. A major concern is that as a landfill ages to ten to twelve years the methane gas level peaks. FHA and PCA hold the position that the methane gas leak amount remains unknown. Mayor Elling states a current plan is to cover top of landfill with four feet of dirt and a membrane cover consistinp, of sand, dirt, plaster and p,rass, The membrane cover would be vented. This method has been used in California. Mr. Elling noted that building restrictions will not be required to the north of landfill because the creek provides a natural barrier. Mr. Vistad expressed his concern that a 200 foot restriction may not be adequate, contld... Andover Planning an~~>ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meetlng Minutes Page Eight o (:J Mr. Ferris asked when the landfill will peak out at 12 years. Mayor Elling replied the landfill is over 12 years old. Mr. Vis tad asked if the landfill has a sand base around the total area. May Elling stated the majority, but not the total 8rea, is sand base. Mr. Ferris asked if an option would be to surround the landfill with a channel of water, since water is said to be a natural barrier. Mr. Vis tad feels the parties who created the landfill have a responsibility to purchase the restricted land. In effect the responsible parties would assume the consequences of the landfill they have created. Mr. Vis tad asked how city can assure that potential buyers are aware of possible methane gas leaks. He feels city must have some means to control situation. Mr. Vis tad questioned the difference in safety from a 1000 foot restriction to a 200 foot restriction. Mr. Blake asked what would happen if city took no action on this issue. Mayor Elling believes FHA would take action. Gretchen Sabel inquired if backfill is from harming surrounding environment. to be working in California. a sound solution to keeping methane Mayor Elling replied method seems Mr. Vistad stressed commission should be more concerned about residents ~ safety than their method of financing home purchase. Mr. Ferris asked when clean-up plan will be executed. that additional people are being named as responsible it appears cap could be on by first of year and total a year and a half. May Elling stated parties. At this time project complete in If responsible parties do not submit plan by 9/18/89 the Pollution Control Agency will order clean-up and levy responsible parties. PCA has the authority to impose a levy at twice the actual cost of clean-up. Therefore it is the best interest of said responsible parties to meet the 9/18/89 deadline for plan submittal. Ferris questioned if building restrictions can be imposed within 200 - 500 feet of landfill. Mayor Elling answered the best way to address restrictions is to issue orders to the City Building Department. Mr. Vistad asked if it would be prudent to place a moratorium on building within a to-be-determined number of feet of landfill until more is known about methane levels. Mr. Tony Emmerich, developer of Hills of Bunker Lake, states that restrictions will devalue property. .r, ,,-/' cont'd... o o u Andover Planning and~ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Nine o Gretchen Sabel stated it is the city's responsibility to see that homes are safe. Pease noted city must consider public safety versus profit. She stated commission must explore issues and alternatives. Gerald Windschitl, developer of Kensington Estates, stated he has hired two attornies to research methane issue. To date they have been unable to find methane issue on plated or proposed to be plated properties, There is a scientific method, that is not terribly expensive, used to determine methane migration, }Ir, Vis tad said if there is a sound method to determine migration it is the responsibility of the landowner to provide feasibility studies. Mr, Vindschitl feels the Planning and Zoning Commission is trying to impose restrictions without solid evidence. Mr. Vistad suggested developers raise the issue of devalued property with those who created landfill. Mr. Windschitl asked commission to gather more information before recommending building restrictions. Mr, Blake stated he contacted four communities that are or have recently faced landfill issues. These communities include Cedar Falls, IA; Seattle, WA; Cedar Rapids, IA; and Hopkins, MN. In each case the contact person was not available. Mr. Ferris asked if there are other Minnesota communities that could be contacted. Mr. Blake will check further. Mr. Vis tad asked if there are componants other than methane gas in landfill that are potential health hazards. Ms. Sabel states commission must learn results of monitor. Mr. Ferris asked developers what their concerns are with methane gas monitors. The developers said such a monitor will devalue property and hurt sales. Ferris asked if they felt the same way about gravel foundations. Developers agreed that imposed gravel foundations will negatively affect development. Mr. Ferris noted that pul1icity on this issue will cause developers further damage. Mr. Vistad reiterated that city has an obligation to make residents aware of potential problems. Mayor Elling states he wants to find a middle of road approach that will inform residents and not hurt developers. cont'd... Andover Planning and~lning commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Ten () :=) Ron Ferris asked if the City Attorney could present a position paper on this issue including a definition of "reasonable cause". Mr. Ferris also noted that the interest FHA has in issue is to protect any mortgages. The FHA is not expert in environmental issues. The MPCA is expert in this area and they have not committed to problem. Mr. Vistad stated that to take no action on this issue is unacceptable to him. Gretchen Sabel made a MOTION to continue discussion at next regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning andZoning Commission. Second to motion by Bev Jovanovich. Don Spotts asked that position paper prepared by City Attorney be available at that meeting, Storage of Commercial Vehicles in R-l Districts The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to discuss the possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow Commercial vehicles to be stored in Residential Districts. The Planning and Zoning Commission and theCity Council reviewed a variance request for Robert and fenee Dickenson that discussed a possible allowance for the storage of a Semi-tractor in a pole building in the R-l Single Family District. The Council directed staff to research and discuss with the Planning Commission a possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that ~ould allow for this use. They suggested that the amendment may be most appropriate in the rural areas ~ of the City. A survey of communities reveals that a wide range of regulations exist that control the storage/parking of semi-tractors and commercial vehicles. The following chart outlines restrictions placed on commercial vehicles. City Champlin Restrictions Truck/Bus parking not allowed in any residential district outside an accessory structure, except in rural (greater than 5 acres) area where vehicle is adequately screened. Truck maximum weight is 4.5 tons or 9,000 pounds. Coon Rapids Allows 1 commercial vehicle up to 9,000 pounds, 1 semi-tractor (no trailer) or lone ton step van in any residential district. No non-people moving vehicles (construction equipment allowed in residential district. SUP is available, but rarely granted. Ham Lake Truck Tractors, garbage trucks, semi-trailers are allowed in residential districts, but must be totally screened from all adjoining properties. ,:.) con t t d . . . '~~ ~ ~-) Andover Planning and' ).ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eleven o City ~ Ramsey Restrictions S~i-tractors and trailers are allowed in accessory buildings in rural areas if they were there prior to 1978. No more than 1 commercial vehicle per lot in any residential district. Andover One truck up to 10,000 pounds of capacity may be parked at each dwelling. No commercial vehicles in excess of 12.000 pounds stored in accessory building. No vehicle in excess of 10.000 pounds gross capacity can be parked in a residential district. Staff recommends that the limit be one commercial vehicle per dwelling unit in all residential districts. Staff recommends the City require that the vehicle be completely sc~eened from adjoining properties. Staff recommends that 1 semi tractor (no trailer) be allowed to be stored in an accessory building on parcels greater than 5 acres outside of the urban service area. Currently the City allows up to 10,000 pounds capacity to be parked on residential districts and up to 12.000 pounds weight inside an accessory building. Don Spotts vehicles. tractors. asked how Ordinance distinguishes between commercial and recreational He states there are RV's that are longer and weigh more than semi- d'Arcy Bosell noted that motor homes are legally required to be stored in rear yard. not front yard. Dick Bassing. 546 158th Avenue NW. asked commission to define "rural". Mr. Blake stated that concern is to separate urban versus rural lots. The defination of rural is 1 2 1/2 acre parcel (minimum) outside the urban service area. Gary Smith. 3635 145th Avenue, asked how "commercial vehicle" and "truck" are defined. Mr. Blake asnwered that state licensing requirments define "truck" as vehicle in excess of 9.000 pounds and "car" as vehicle less than 9.000 pounds. The Andover Ordinance defines truck as vehicle in eEcess of 10,000 pounds, d'Arcy Bosell read from State Statute 169.01 "truck" means every motor vehicle designed, used or maintained primarily for transportation of equipment. not people. d'Arcy Bosell stated that complaints received concern vans with lettering or advertising. Vistad asked if a van is considered commercial when it has lettering. d'Arcy Bosell believes that is perception held by community. cont'd.. . o u () Andover Planning andC~1ing Commission August 22, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Twelve o Mr. Elling states the problem in definations occurs with the smaller vehicles, i.e., vans, RV's etc. Don Spotts said the issue of screening is a concern. Mr. Smith stated he may send vehicles home with his employees. Not all employees can provide screeining as required in Ordinance. If it is illegal for person to park such vehicle at their Andover residence, Mr. Smith would be forced to not hire Andover residents. Mr. Ferris stated that intent of commission is not to make Ordinance more restrictive, but to make it more enforceable. He noted that taken in context, the screening requirement refers to semi-tractors, Mr, Blake stated there are two broad issues: 1) Storage of semi-tractors 2) Definitions that delineate between commercial and recreation vehicles, business and personal use of vehicles, advertising Wayne Vistad asked d'Arcy Bosell for her input on wording to make revised Ordinance enforceable. Pease stated Ordinance must be easily understood in order for citizens to comply. Jay Blake said he will present draft of revised Ordinance to Planning and Zoning Commission at the 9/12/89 meeting. The draft will include roadway size, setbacks, screening, etc, A public hearing will be scheduled for 9/26/89. Ordinance 8/23 Amendments d'Arcy Bosell made inquiries of several cities as to what they allow or require for the keeping of horses, et al. Attached to minutes is a memo to commission from Ms. Bosell summarizing applicable regulations from neighboring communities. Communities include Blaine, Champlin, Oak Grove, Ramsey, Coon Rapids, East Bethel, Ham Lake and St. Francis. Ms, Bosell pointed out that currently Ham Lake and Andover are the only communities (in attached summary) that deal with area of shelter and area of corral. Most communities have a Horseman's Council. The council serves to assist the city in issues dealing with horses. Most communities require a permit to keep horses. The horse permit fee in Andover currently is $3.00. Gretchen Sabel asked if City receives many complaints about horses. Bosell answered that the city does receive complaints and the major complaint is that the animal does not have shelter. Ron Ferris asked if pigs aren't the major source of complaints. d'Arcy Bosell stated that pigs are not considered to be a pleasure/recreational animal. cont'd... CJ C) ~J Andover Planning and{~'~ing Commission August 22. 1989 Meet_)Minutes Pa~e Thirteen --, : l \ ' --./ Ron Ferris asked Ms. Bosell her opinion of the proposed Ramsey Ordinance. Ms. Bosell replied the impoundment process is more detailed than Andover's. She favors the site plan and use of Horseman's Council. Wayne Vistad favors the wordage of proposed Ramsey Ordinance as it is very explicit on number of horses. d'Arcy Bosell will find out what action was taken on the proposed Ramsey Ordinance at their 8/22/89 City Council meeting. Chairman Pease asked if City has a handout regardin~ explanation of Ordinance. Gretchen Sabel stated explanation should be printed on back of permit. Ron Ferris asked if city can rely on Horseman's Council. d'Arcy Bosell replied that currently Horseman's Council is inactive but in her opinion council could and should be resurrected. Chairman Pease asked Ms. Bosell to draft an Ordinance amendment. Ms. Bosell asked for direction from commission in form of phone calls letting her know their opinions on issues addressed in Ordinance of other communities. Commission a~reed draft Ordinance should be reviewed at the 9/12/89 meeting before a public hearing is scheduled. Mr. Blake suggested a member of the Andover Horseman's Council be asked to attend 9/12/89 meeting. Other Business Mayor Elling asked Andover Planning and Zoning Commission if they have addressed the issue of burglar alarms. Elling states area deputy frequently responds to "false alarms". Gretchen Sabel stated a solution to cut down on false alarms is to charge fee for deputy response, Mr. Blake reports the Vapors Steam Bath will shut down 12/31/89. Mr. Ferris made a MOTION to adjourn. Second to motion by Wayne Vistad. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Theresa Hogan