HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 12, 1989
C)
o
r"\
V
o
o
"",.,. -"'." .,-. . "-'~':?'
rA'
{r\
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1989
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Rebecca Pease on Tuesday, December
12, 1989 at the Andover City Hall Offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd., Andover, MN.
commissioners Present: Chairman Pease, Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich, Randall Peek,
Gretchen Sabel, Don Spotts, Wayne Vistad
Others Present: Jay Blake, d'Arcy Bosell
Approval of Minutes
The Andover Planning and Zoning commission was requested to review minutes of
their November 28, 1989 meeting. MOTION made by Bev Jovanovich to approve
minutes. Second to motion by Gretchen Sabel. All Commissioners but Ron Ferris
voted in favor of motion. Mr. Ferris was not present at 11/28/89 meeting;
therefore he abstained from vote.
Lot Split Public Hearing, Edward Fields & Sons, Inc.
Request for lot split was presented by d'Arcy Bosell.
Request is to split off from a 28.61 acre parcel a parcel which is 2.5 acres
in size (including a road easement.)
Property is zoned R-l and is in the Agricultural Preserve Overlay District
which restricts development to a density of not less than 1:40.
Ordinances 40, 10 and 8 relate to this request.
The reason for the request for the lot split is to allow for creation of a
lot for building purpose and to recoup the assessment for street improvement
against said lot.
Lot split request is subject to Park Dedication fee.
Detailed information regarding request is outlined in 12/12/89 Request for
Planning Commission Action memo.
Commissioner Ferris questioned why easement is not taken down to southern end
of lot.
Bosell replied it is unlikely lot could be used for residential.
Two variances would be necessary if request is granted as proposed. Lot area
does not meet criteria of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. Frontage requirements of
Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 and Ordinance 10, Section 16.02 are not met.
cont'd.. .
o
8
o
Andover Planning andr-''(ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Me~~_~g Minutes
Page Two
o
If request is approved as requested, Bosell recommended city vacate edges of
existing cuI de sac.
Bosell outlined five options for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider:
1) A metes and bounds lot split be requested which requires five acres
in area and 300 feet of width
2) Allow for lot split to be completed with these conditions:
Dimensions and legal description of parcel be redone so that
2.5 acre area requirement is met
Road be constructed to southern edge of proposed lot to meet
300 foot frontage requirement. A cuI de sac or temporary turn-
around would need to be resolved.
3) Consider granting a variance including specific provisions from which
the variance is granted
4) Table this matter
5) Deny lot split request
Proposed lot split is adjacent to an area to the north that is zoned R-3 and
restricted to lots being buildable on every other lot.
Mr. Fields preference, as stated to Bosell on 12/12/89, is to construct private
street and have two and one half acre lot. A metes and bounds lot split is
not acceptable to Mr. Fields.
Assessments to Mr. Fields for improvements on Uplander were $2700.00.
Ms. Bosell stated it is preferred to cluster density in an Agricultural Preserve
as long as in compliance with 1:40.
Mr. Ferris asked Blake if he recommends against running easement to southern
edge of lot line.
Mr. Blake recommends easement extend at least 300 feet down, but final distance
should be determined by Mr. Field's plan, if parcels to south are buildable.
It was determined that
natural gas easement.
easement.
when calculating acreage, area is not taken out for
Restrictions prohibit placing permanent structures on
Ferris questioned if proposal is for easement or actual road construction to
extend 300 feet down southern edge of lot.
Bosell stated actual construction of road is proposed.
Blake noted an option would be to split off two and one-half acres and allow
access from cuI de sac. This option would require a variance.
cont'd...
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning C0mmission
December 12, 1989 Me~\g Minutes
Page Three
o
Vistad stated a variance is allowed for a hardship. In this case there is no
hardship because there is ample land.
Ferris asked if (in regard to lot being split out) potential for expansion to
east is as feasible as expansion to south.
Bosell replied expansion to east would be feasible.
Bosell stated land can be under separate ownership to meet 1:40 requirement.
The eight year covenant is an agreement between city and landowner that for
a minimum of eight years there will be no development. The eight year clock
begins with landowner request for decertification.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
Terry Boe, 15924 Uplander inquired if cost of cuI de sac will be assessed to
landowners.
Bosell replied cost will be borne privately.
Boe asked if street will be a through street.
Ferris re;lied there are not immediate plans for a through street. He believes
city should take easement for possible future construction of road.
Boe stated his opposition to developing road to become a through street.
Mr. Fields stated it is not right to assess a landowner for improvements that
are of no benefit to said landowner. Assessment to Mr. Fields for road improvement
was costly. Mr. Fields wants to create a lot for his granddaughter. Mr. Fields
is very opposed to a cuI de sac opening to his farm land.
Commissioner Vis tad stated two options that comply with Ordinance:
1) Create street for two and one-half acre lot
2) Metes and bounds lot split (five acres)
Blake explained that due to change in interpretation of Ordinance, the two and
one-half acre lot is a legally existing, non-conforming parcel.
Mr. Ferris asked Mr. Fields what option he prefers.
Fields would prefer a two and one-half acre lot, private street, with no cuI
de sac opening to farm land.
Bosell noted a private street is not allowed.
Fields stated a city street is not acceptable to him nor is metes and bounds
lot split.
cont'd...
8
o
r ,
~
Andover Planning and~ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Mee~~~g Minutes
Page Four
o
Mr. Blake explained that the fire department makes recommendations on cuI de sac
length based on urban streets. City ordinance does not distinguish between urban
and rural streets.
Commissioner Ferris noted that situation is a Catch 22 in that if cuI de sac is
extended a variance has been granted, without a variance request. If cuI de sac
is not extended, variance has likewise been granted.
Blake explained that in past, hardship justifying variance of cuI de sac has
been that non conforming cuI de sac prior to existing Ordinance is brought up
to Ordinance.
Sabel suggested a five acres metes and bounds lot split extending over to Swallow
Street be divided into two, two and one-half acre parcels. Parcel on east
would be along Swallow Street which is an existing road with 300 feet right of way.
Blake replied that parcel to west would not have adequate frontage and would
still require a variance.
Vistad believes that in fairness to other residents who may apply for lot split,
commission must abide by Ordinance in all cases and not grant variance when
hardship cannot be defined according to Ordinance.
Ferris noted that this request brings to light the problem that Ordinances do
not play together in every case.
Blake acknowledged problem and explained that efforts by city are being made
to improve and clarify Ordinances.
Ferris doesn't believe it is sensible to extend street at this time because
it will force emergency vehicles further down cuI de sac. Ferris stated Planning
and Zoning recommendation will have to include variance, because street limit
has already been exceeded.
Bosell said the real concern is not the length of the cuI de sac but the
accessibility.
Pease suggested Planning andZoning Commission make recommendation based strictly
on interpretation or Ordinance; while providing detailed narrative of discussion
in minutes for City Council perusal.
vis tad asked Fields which of the options discussed for a Planning and zoning
recommendation he prefers.
Mr. Fields stated he does not want a public street running into his farm.
Mr. Ferris suggested the possibility that lot split be done taking two and one-
half acres to east of Swallow. Variance would not be necessary and road is
already there.
Mr. Fields will consider this possibility.
cont'd...
o
u
Q
Andover Planning and,7Qning Commission
Decemb7r 12, 1989 Me~1g Minutes
Page F~ve
o
Ferris reminded Mr. Fields to bear in mind the restrictions caused by gas
easement.
Vis tad also stated that parcel will be subject to assessments if/when Swallow
upgraded.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ferris to continue Public Hearing and table agenda
item until 1/09/90 or until such time Mr. Fields requests discussion be continued.
Item to be tabled to allow Mr. Fields time to consider two and one-half acre
parcel to the east of requested parcel as an alternative site.
Second to motion by Wayne Vistad. All commissioners favor motion; MOTION passed.
Meeting recessed from 8:55 - 9:00 P.M.
Public Hearing Commercial vehicles R-l Districts Ordinance 8 Amendment
The Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to discuss Ordinance 8 amendment
regulating the storage of commercial vehicles in residential districts.
A Public Hearing was scheduled and published for this meeting.
Request was presented by Mr. Jay Blake.
At previous meetings, ordinances from neighboring communities were reviewed.
Section 3 Definitions are taken from state statutes.
Current Ordinance allows three different gross weights for commercial vehicles
in three different sections. Proposed amendment uses gross weight of 12,000
pounds throughout Ordinance.
Proposal allows for storage of one semi tractor on three or more acres. Acreage
limitation was chosen to coincide with pole barn requirements. Restrictions
include the parking of semi trailers nor shall it include the operation of a
truch transfer station.
A change in parking requirement for RV's is included in amendment. Side yard
parking will be allowed as long as vehicle is 10 feet from property line.
Improvements in wording of Ordinance are part of amendment.
Bev Jovanovich questioned Section 8.01. A problem could occur if RV is owner's
only mode of transportation.
Blake replied that an RV could be excluded if the only mode of transportation.
Ferris noted amended Section 8.01 does not include a length limitation. He
feels a limitation to zoning should be included.
Vistad asked if there have been complaints against RV's parked in residential
areas.
cont'd...
Andover Planning andr-'1ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Me~~.~g Minutes
Page Six
o
Blake recalled only one instance where there was a complaint. However, he stated
~ the city has taken a position of active enforcement of Ordinance.
Peek suggested changing the length limitation to 25 feet.
Blake said length determination problems seem to occur with boats on trailers.
Vistad questioned three acre limitation versus two and one-half acres for
storage of truck-tractor.
Blake replied that most two and one-half acre lot developments have restrictive
covenant prohibiting pole barns that would overrule Ordinance.
Ferris believes a two and one-half acre lot may be too small for storage of
truck tractor. He reminded commission original debate was between two and one-
half acres and five acres. Ferris stated the trend of City Council has been
to limit utilization of two and one-half acre lots.
Pease feels storage of truck tractors may not be appropriate in the city's more
populated two and one-half acre developments.
Blake noted that the R-2 districts and two and two and one-half acre lots
intermingled with one-half acre lots. Bringing the limitation to three acres
will keep truck tractors out of more populated areas.
o
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 9:25 P.M.
MOTION made by Ferris and seconded by Vistad to close
commissioners favor MOTION: Public Hearing closed.
There was no public comment.
Public Hearing. All
Vistad suggested limiting storage of truck-tractors to R-l since R-2 lots differ
in size from one-half to two and one-half or more acres.
Blake feels the larger acreages in R-2 could support storage of truck tractors.
Peek favors increasing rather than dropping lentth limitation of RV.
Ferris recommends eliminating tongue from measured length of trailer.
Spotts noted the trend is toward larger RV's and public has not come forward
with complaints.
Peek recommended increasing the side yard set back to 15 feet.
Vistad believes a RV parked in the back yard of a small lot will create an
eyesore.
Vistad requested a poll of commissioners regarding 8.01 amendment (elimination
of length limitation of RV's, boats, unoccupied trailers) as written. Vistad
and Jovanovich favor amendment. Peek, Pease, Ferris, Sabel and Spotts do not
favor elimination of length. Sabel requested continued discussion of 8.01
amendment.
o
cont'd...
Andover Planning and~~ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Me~g Minutes
Page Seven
o
o
MOTION made by Ferris that the Andover Planning
to the AndoverCity Council approval of proposed
3.02, 4.05 and 8.08 as submitted by city staff.
and held and there was no input either negative
and Zoning commission recommend
changes to Ordinance 8, Sections
A Public Hearing was published
or positive.
Second to motion by Don Spotts. All commissioners favor motion; motion passed.
Blake stated that City Council must
60 days of close of Public Hearing.
1/16/89.
make decision on proposed amendments within
Recommendation will go to City Council
Alarm Ordinance Public Hearing
The Planning and Zoning Commission was requested to review the draft Alarm
Ordinance. A Public Hearing was scheduled.
Request presented by Jay Blake.
Section 1 of draft ordinance defines alarm business, alarm system, alarm user,
false alarm and calendar year.
Section 2 of draft ordinance addresses alarm users permit.
Section 3 defines the determination of the occurance of a false alarm, with
exceptions noted.
Section 4 outlines alarm user instructions.
:~ Section 5 explains Confidentiality Statistics.
Blake explained the fee/fine systems used by Plymouth and Coon Rapids.
The city of Plymouth charges a fee which differs from a fine in that only fees
can be certified to taxes for collection. Plymouth has set a flat fee for false
alarm. City sends alarm owner request for payment of fee. If payment is not
received, city attempts collection through small claims court or through certifi~
cation of taxes.
Coon Rapids is using an escalating fine system. Currently Coon Rapids is
looking at revising their system.
Pease noted a flat fee may be less of an administrative hassle.
Blake stated intent is not to profit but to cover administrative costs.
It was determined that amendments to draft ordinance will not require a
Public Hearing.
Sabel recommended Section 2 be titled "Alarm Users Registration Required."
Vistad recommended Section 2, Item C read "All existing systems shall be subject
to the provisions of this ordinance and shall be registered without fee within
six months of enactment of this ordinance."
CJ
cont'd.. .
o
u
o
Andover Planning and~ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Mee~i:hg Minutes
Page Eight
o
Sabel recommended the following change to Section 2, Item C: the last sentence
will read "The city may inspect any installed alarm system."
Ferris stated Alarm Ordinance may be expensive to administer.
Pease wants option to review and adjust fee.
Vistad noted the violators of ordinance will pay for administrative costs.
Blake noted that draft does not have section dealing with willful violation.
Chairman Pease opened Public Hearing at 10:15 P.M.
Esther Olson, Nightengale Street stated security systems have deterred crime
in city of Andover. She is of the opinion that security system owners will
not come forward to register system.
Ferris stated that alarm registration cannot be forced. There will be a number
of alarm owners who choose to ignore ordinance.
Terry Bush, 17751 Uplander asked what would happen if alarm went off twice
within 15 minutes. Would that be considered one or two false alarms?
Sabel replied that as currently drafted, situation as described would be
considered two false alarms. There is an appeal process described in Section 3.
Bush questioned how testing of alarm system could be handled.
Sabel suggested a call to the auto-dial or pOlice department to forewarn that
system will be tested.
Bush requested and was provided with a copy of the draft Alarm Ordinance.
Commissioner Sabel made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Second to motion
by Vev Jovanovich. All commissioners favor MOTION; Public Hearing closed.
Vistad stated the city must make registration of alarm system important to
alarm owner.
Sabel suggested fOllowing methods to contact alarm system owners:
1) send letters using current list of false alarm calls
2) use public media
3) structure registration program within a grace period
Ferris requested Section 3, Sentence 2 be changed to read "If the City Clerk
determines that the alarm was caused by conditions beyond the control of the
alarm user, or the alarm user has not had adequate time to repair the system,
the alarm will not be counted as a false alarm at that address."
Ferris does not want failure to register to be a misdemeanor.
cont ' d. . .
o
~~
o
Andover Planning andr'~~ing Commission
December 12, 1989 Me"-"'lg Minutes
Page Nine
o
Pease believes registration should not appear as a punitive measure.
Sabel recommended Section 2, Item H include a form notice be left at site of
false alarm notifying owner of police response, time and date.
Sabel recommended Section 2, Item A read "The City of Andover shall require
registration of all alarm systems."
Existing Item A shall be renamed B, Bill will become C, etc.
Sabel suggested "registration" be used consistantly throughout ordinance
instead of interchanging "permit."
A suggested penalty for failure to register would be no allowance for false
alarm(s) under grace period. If alarm system is registered, Section 2, Item D
will apply.
A registration card could be attached to City Newsletter. Over the phone
registration is another option.
Peek requested city staff project administrative costs for ordinance.
Ferris stated sheriffs department estimated $30.00 per false alarm. Cost of
a registered letter plus administrative costs would be added in. Fee should be
a break even figure.
Ferris made a MOTION to table discussion to 1/09/89 meeting for recommendation
of city staff for registration fee and estimate of break even fine and redraft
of proposal.
Second to MOTION by Vistad. All commissioners favor motion; item tabled.
Blake will send copy of redraft to city attorney for legal opinion.
Other Business
Gretchen Sabel recommended the following be added to Resolution of Andover
Planning and Zoning Commission stating position on potential setback requirements
around Waste Disposal Site:
WHEREAS, the Andover Planning and Zoning commission is concerned that
methane migration may adversly affect the public health, safety and welfare
and property values, and that the geographic extent of that effect may not
accurately be predicted,
The previously scheduled meeting for 12/26/89 will be cancelled.
MOTION made by Ron Ferris to adjourn. Second to MOTION by Don Spotts. All
commissioners favor motion, meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa Hogan
()
C\
U
/ '\
\d
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -89
A RESOLUTION STATING THE POSITION OF THE ANDOVER PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION ON THE POTENTIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AROUND
THE WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING LANDFILL SITE IN THE CITY OF
ANDOVER, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City Council requested that the Andover
Planning and zoning Commission review information on methane gas
migration at the WDE landfill site and make recommendations on
possible setback requirements around the landfill, and
WHEREAS, the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission has
reviewed preliminary information on the WDE landfill site, and
. ~EREAS, the information on methane gas migration at the
site~ considered to be inconclusive and incomplete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission does not believe that adequate information
on methane gas migration exists for the WDE site. and that until
additional information is obtained, no setback recommendation will
be forwarded.
Adopted by the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission this 12th
day of December, 1989.
C.ITY OF ANDOVER
\
\
Rebecca Pease, Chairperson
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
."j
'~~ )u t\f3C- ..0 ~'^~ -+kCA.~
M.~~"u 'itCJ -lk t "We 1\t<>.l.Jl1, ~ ,~d.
,tt^~ V~) CVV\Cl '-t~AA 4k 2fr;C<.~kt'L JJf-~
J.~V) vn, (\Of ~~ k-t F' dd)
~ vV'\.-Ig",---h',-
~tA -1
i <-fkl1-=tz.
:J
\:::::-
:J
. )
'J
o
r,
U
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -89
A RESOLUTION STATING THE POSITION OF THE ANDOVER PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION ON THE POTENTIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AROUND
THE WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING LANDFILL SITE IN THE CITY OF
ANDOVER, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City Council requested that the Andover
Planning and Zoning Commission review information on methane gas
migration at the WDE landfill site and make recommendations on
possible setback requirements around the landfill, and
WHEREAS, the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission has
reviewed preliminary information on the WDE landfill site, and
fJP2C I':> cC'Y)o-<N'_d " .
WHEREAS, the information on methane gas migration at the
site is considered to be inconclusive and incomplete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission does not believe that adequate information
on methane gas migration exists'for the WDE site and that until
additional information is obtai ed, no setback recommendation will
be forwarded.
Adopted by the Andover Plannin and Zoning Commission this 12th
day of December, 1989.
CITY OF ANDOVER
Rebecca Pease, Chairperson
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission