HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 1988
:)J~
/ \
,j
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AGENDA
OCTOBER 4, 1988
7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Ordinance 8 Amendments, continued
3. Mining Permits/Erosion Control Discussion
4. Ordinance 8 Non-conforming Uses and
Structures Discussion
5. Ordinance 10 Metes and Bounds Discussion
6. Other Business
A. Setbacks
B. Motions
C. ATV Definitions
7.
8. Adjournment
o
o
:_)
"Cj.\
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 1988
The special Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
was called to order by Chairman Marjorie Perry at 7:30 p.m.,
Tuesday, October 4, 1988, in the Conference Room of Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, ~innesota.
Commissioners present included Chairman Marjorie Perry,
Becky Pease, Bev Jovanovich, d'Arcy Bosell, Bill Bernard, and Don
Jacobson.
ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENTS. CONTINUED
Chairman Perry stated that the changes to Ordinance 8 had
gone to the Council and asked if the Planning Commission members
had any further changes or revisions.
Don Jacobson had a concern with the language on page three,
Section 5.04 wherein it states that "economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship." Mr. Jacobson felt
the word alone should be deleted from that sentence. Ms. Bosell
stated that this wording was from the language used in the state
statutes.
Dave Almgren, Building Official, stated that the Commission
should be careful before making any changes to Section 4.05
Accessory Buildings and Structures. He had a concern in amending
the ordinance to read "a maximum of two (2) accessory buildings
per lot are permitted in all residential districts." He did not
feel any reason to change the present language for this Section.
He also stated if the Commission was inclined to use this
language, to make it applicable to R-3 and R-4 zoning, instead of
R-2.
There was some discussion as to whether agricultural
buildings were defined as an accessory building. Ms. Bosell
stated that agricultural buildings were not considered accessory
buildings. Also Ms. Bosell was concerned, if this amendment was
passed, that it may prove difficult for the City of Andover to
enforce.
C)
The Planning Commission agreed to change Section 4.05 (B) to
read, "A maximum of two (2) accessory buildings per lot are
permitted in R-3 and R-4 districts.
o
u
\
Andover Planning Rnd Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - October 4, 1988
Page T\Vo
The Commission also discussed Section 4.15, Setbacks Along
Arterials. They agreed to make the follo\Ving change in that
paragraph to read: "Along streets designated as "arterial" in
the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the minimum setback from the
arterial for all buildings should be 50 feet from the planned
right-of-way line. Where the right-of-way \Vidth has not been
established on the City Street Plan, a 110 foot minimum setback
from the section line and/or center line of all existing
art,erials shall be required."
There was also discussion on Section 6.02 regarding lot
width at front setback line for R-4 zoning, and it was a~reed to
change the number of feet from 80 feet to 90 feet. Also the "any
yard set back" (arterial) should read for Rl, R2, R3, R4, R5, M1,
M2 and a change from 40 feet to 50 feet should be made.
It was recommended by ~s. Bosell to leave Section 4.05 (K)
as it is currently written, \Vith no amended changes 1n reference
to the gnrden sheds.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by
COI~missioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends to the City Council thnt Section 4.05 of
Ordinance 8 remain the same as currently written, that Section
4.15 (Setbacks) be changed pursuant to the discussion above, and
that the Section 6.02 on lot width be also changed pursuant to
the discussion above. Under Section 5.04, Variances and Appeals,
the \v'ord "alone" in reference to economic considerations as
discussed above, should be deleted from paragrnp!1 five in Section
5.04. All voted yes. Motion carried.
MINING PERMITS/EROSION CONTROL DISCUSSION
It was requested that the Andover Planning and Zoning reV1ew
the mining and site development sections of Ordinance 8 and 10.
Ms. Bosell asked if there \Vas a place where
stockpiled somewhere, perhaps the landfill site.
was not sure if this was a possibility.
fill could be
Dave Almgren
,
/
,
,
,
J
./
CJ
u
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - October 4, 1988
Pagc' Three
Chairman Perry reported that a question was raised at the
City Council whether the City of Andover could require a
developer to sell his fill to the City, for less money than he
could ob~ain elsewhere. Commissioner Bernard didn't feel the
City could make such requirements of developers.
Commissioner Jacobson stated that the City could, in the
mining permit process, require developers to reserve 10% of fill
to the City, ~n lieu of a mining permit fee.
Ms. Bosell stated that the Council passed this agenda item
onto the Planning Commission, expressing their concern in
reviewing the mining and site development ordinance, that the
natural vegetation be left in place and the natural appearing
contours will remain when the site is completed. Chairman Perry
asked why this item was back on the agenda, as it was her
recollection that tile Planning Commission had already addressed
those issues and incorporated some language in amending Ordinance
10. Todd Haas also verified that he believed the Council did
table this item without ever reviewing it.
There were a couple of items discussed on the amended
Ordinance that ',~as included in the agendR packet. In section
17.02 (n) it wns agreed by all the Planning Commission members to
add the word "the" in this item. Also in Section 17.02,
subsection (e) second sentence should be changed to read, "No
area shall be left denuded for a period longer than the five days
from initial grading on critical erosion areas. In addition,
Section 17.03 Financial Guarantee, second sentence, it was agreed
by the Planning Commission to add the words "51,000 of the total
amount. In Section 17.04, the percent should be changed from
100% to 10%."
A motion was made by Commissioner Bernard, seconded by
Commissioner Pease to make the changes and corrections as listed
above to the Amendmellt to Ordinance 10, and then send this item
on to the Council as an agenda item for their review. All voted
yes. ~otion carried.
ORDINANCE 10 METES AND BOUNDS DISCUSSION
The Plannill~ Commission HilS requested to review thejJrites
and Bounds descriptions of Ordinance 10 ilnd determine how the
City of Andover could protect future development from problems
created by metes and bounds lot subdivisions.
(J
u
\
Andover Planning and Zonin~ Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - October 4, 1988
Page Four
Ms. Bosell stated that she disagreed with Mr. Schrantz'
proposal as indicated in the City Couricil August 2, 1988 minutes,
in which he proposed assessing for the use of the road or
requiring a driveway permit or connection charge, so properties
/ such as the Saarenpaas\ don't get a free ride. He then suggested
they dedicate an easement on the proposed five-acre piece. She
stated that this suggestion is contrary to what the ordinance
allo\vs.
Commissioner Jacobson suggested that the City Staff review
the language used in the state statues and allow the Planning
Commission to further review this item at the next Planning
Meeting on October 11.
OTHEH BlJS P,ESS
Makinq the Motion
Jay Blake stated that he had spoken with the League of
Minnesota Cities and they indicated that the new rules of
approving every motion is rarely used, and that it is a more
confusing way to make the motion.
It was agreed by the commissioners to continue with their
current practice of making motions.
ATV Ordinancp r\mendmel}..t
Jay Blake called the City of Champlin as they have adopted a
similar ordinance as the City of Andover is now considering in
regard to the handicapped provision. The City of Champlin has
had no problems with their ordinance.
Commissioner Jacobson still raised his concern regarding the
definition of a "handicapped" person. Commissioner Bernard asked
if it really made a difference - if the person takes the time and
effort to get the permit and then to follow the regulations,
there should not be any problems.
The commissioners agreed to table this item until the next
regular Planning Commission Meeting, as Commissioner Vistad was
not present to give his thoughts on the matter.
Ordinance 8
/
Chairman Perry asked Dave Almgren to submit a memo to the
Planning Commission on his additional concerns within Ordinance
8, Section 4.05 that he would lil,e to see revised.
r\
'-~
~-.J
'.
!
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - October 1, 1988
Page Five
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the
Special Planning Commission Meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Plan.12)
J/lU,(..:Ld-J2/0