Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2011. / -:z J-z� 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda November 8, 2011 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 8.01 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — July 12, 2011, September 13, 2011 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (11 -03) to location and setback requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 for existing accessory structure located at 2102 142 "d Lane NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (11 -04) to side yard setback requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5 for house addition at 2067 142 "d Avenue NW. 5. Work Session: Commercial Development 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment r 1 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes —July 12, 2011 and September 13, 2011 DATE: November 8, 2011 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the July 12, 2011 and September 13, 2011 meetings. Proposed changes to July 12, 2011 minutes provided by Commissioner Olsen are attached. WN tfj July 12, 2011 minutes amended On Page 2 Replace paragraph 4 with; Commissioner Walton clarified that the house itself was 17 feet high and that the proposed structure was 18'8" high, but because the proposed location of the garage is in a low spot the proposed garage roofline would still be lower than the house roofline. Mr. Bednarz stated this was the case. Insert between paragraphs 4 and 5; Commissioner Olsen revealed that ordinance subsection 12 -6 -3 (A) provided in the commission's packet regarding building height in residential districts erroneously referred readers to two other irrelevant or non existing ordinance subsections. Mr. Bednarz stated that the citations were meant to refer readers to exceptions for church steeple and flagpoles, and may have missed being updated because of a prior code change. Replace paragraph 5 with; Commissioner Cleveland asked if the final height is lower than the house, are we looking at a hard number, that no matter where the building is on the property, it can't be higher any than 17 feet? Mr. Bednarz answered right; we measure and take an average so in this case we would say the max would be 16 feet. We need to do that so say we have a low area in the back yard and you wanted to build an accessory structure and the home was built in front 10 to 20 feet higher let's if we just used the peak of the roof without a measurement from a (garbled) point you could build an excessively tall garage. That's why we take an average to give them as much as we can in terms of the height of the house, not the shortest point and not the tallest point. Insert between line 25 and line 26; Mr. Hagestuen commented that originally when they bought the house they misinterpreted the code and felt that it was based on elevation so they felt as long as they built in the low spot it was acceptable to go up to the second level based on where the house is sitting and how much lower this proposed building spot is. I On Page 3 Replace paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 with; Commissioner Olsen requested that the Planning Commission have a discussion regarding how the City was defining building height because there seems to be some inconsistency. Olsen commented that both the Zoning Dept's garage and accessory structure handout for residents and City code 12 -6 -3 (A) stipulates that the accessory structure height "shall not exceed the height of the principle structure ". City code 12 -2 -2 defines building height utilizing the mean level of the curb and /or mean level of front of house, and Mr. Bednarz speaks to using some average of height. Commissioner Olsen asked what is the City doing in practice, and how does that relate to the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained that the City uses the Uniform International Building Code (UIBC) definition of building height. Commissioner Olsen asked so in this case the proposed garage will not exceed the height of the house? Mr. Bednarz answered that according to the applicant the peak of the proposed structure's roof will be below the peak of the house. Commissioner Olsen explained that in his opinion the plain language of ordinance (12 -6 -3) and the zoning handout is a representation of sea level. Olsen reiterated the applicant's apparent confusion. And Olsen stated that to his knowledge, there is no reference to the UIBC's building height definition anywhere in City Code. Olsen further expressed his concern and questioned what do the folks in Andover rely upon, the Codes 12 -6 -3 and Zoning's handout "not to exceed" language, the Codes 12 -2 -2 definition of building height, or the UIBC? Olsen reiterated his opinion of inconsistency between ordinance and practice. Mr. Bednarz disagrees and states that the UIBC definition of building height is useful and is what the City consistently uses to determine building height. Commissioner Olsen read the City Codes 12 -2 -2 definition of building height and asked Mr. Bednarz if that is just our code or also a representation of UIBC's height definition. Mr. Bednarz answered that is a strict interpretation of our City's code. Commissioner Olsen related a scenario utilizing the plain reading of 12 -2 -2's language whereby a 15'tall building located at the end of a long downward sloping driveway would by our definition be only 5 feet high. e f Mr. Bednarz explained that that's not how the zoning department interprets the ordinance. Commissioner Walton explained that the UIBC is very complicated and difficult for a laymen to decipher. Mr. Walton re -read 12 -6 -3 (A) 's "not to exceed" language and stated his opinion that normal people as well as himself would interpret it to be a measure of elevation, where if the house is higher you are fine. Commissioner Kirchhoff commented he could see elements of 12 -6 -3 confusing as well On page 4 line 34 and Page 5 line 11 should read: Motion by Walton, seconded by Olsen On page 8 lines 39 and 40 replaced with; Commissioner Olsen questioned if a public hearing had been held on the amendment to ordinance establishing the Board of Appeals and Adjustment. Mr. Bednarz answered changes made to the ordinance were not part of the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission, and that the Council choose to amend that portion as process continued through. x PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —JULY 1212011 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on July 12, 2011, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Dennis Cleveland, Lynae Gudmundson, Tim Kirchoff, Michael Olsen, and Devon Walton. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Valerie Holthus. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 8, 2011 and May 24, 2011 Commissioner Olsen requested a change on Page 3, Line 7 and 8, to read that CUP applicants could not apply for another year. Staff clarified that on Page 2, Chairperson Daninger should be shown as absent on the vote. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Walton, to approve the March 8, 2011, minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present ( Daninger), 1- absent ( Holthus) vote. The May 24, 2011 minutes were postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting. PUBLICHEARING: VARIANCE( 11 -01) TO ACCESSORYSTRUCTURE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -6 -3 AT 18046 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on the application for a Variance at 18046 Round Lake Boulevard NW. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Variance with the Commission along with the new City Code language regarding variances. Chairperson Daninger explained to the Commission the new variance approval process. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 12, 2011 Page 2 Commissioner Kirchoff questioned the size of this lot. Mr. Bednarz stated the lot was 2.3 acres in size. Commissioner Gudmundson asked how far the garage would be set back from Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz explained the garage would have to be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the property line. He noted the location would have to be verified through the building permit process. Commissioner Cleveland inquired if the proposed building height was necessary. Mr. Bednarz stated 1,544 square feet of accessory structure space was being proposed and the applicant was requesting a higher roofline for additional storage. Commissioner Walton clarified that the house itself was 17 feet high and the accessory structure was proposed to be 18 feet 8 inches high. Mr. Bednarz stated this was the case. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the height of the accessory building would be lower than the principle structure due to the fact the accessory structure would be built on a low point on the lot. Mr. Bednarz stated the final building location for the accessory structure was still unknown. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Chris Hagestuen, 18046 Round Lake Boulevard, the applicant, stated he was present to take questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Cleveland questioned the height of the second level of the accessory structure. Mr. Hagestuen explained there would be seven feet of clearance space. The main level would have eight feet on the ground level. Commissioner Walton asked if the applicant had reviewed other possible designs to eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Hagestuen stated he has looked at 50 garage designs to maximize the space while trying to reduce the height of the structure. Commissioner Gudmundson inquired if there were other design options available to meet the City's height guidelines. Mr. Hagestuen indicated other options would meet the height requirements but eliminated the second story, which was needed for storage. Chairperson Daninger commented that an economical hardship would not be considered when approving this variance. 'He asked if the garage could be pushed back on the lot. Mr. Hagestuen stated this would interfere with his septic system. Commissioner Walton asked the square footage of the storage room in the accessory building. Mr. Hagestuen estimated the space to be 34 feet by 14 feet. LIM i r L Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Walton questioned if the applicant's storage needs could be met on the lower level of the garage. Mr. Hagestuen felt this would not be enough space for his family as they had three vehicles, a trailer, a tractor, and an ATV. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the Commission should be reading through the new variance guidelines one by one with this request. Mr. Bednarz felt this was a great suggestion and noted all guidelines had to be met before the variance could be approved. Commissioner Olsen was unclear how accessory structure height was evaluated in the City's Code. He thought that so long as the site line of the garage did not exceed the principle structure, this was acceptable. However, this varied from the information presented by Staff this evening. Mr. Bednarz explained the City followed the Uniform International Building Code along with their definitions for building height. Commissioner Olsen expressed frustration with the confusion in the building height definition. Mr. Bednarz stated the building height was quite clear and then averages were used from the Uniform International Building Code. Commissioner Walton commented the interpretation of building height could be misunderstood but City Staff does have a clear understanding of how this calculation was to be determined. Chairperson Daninger read through the variance requirements and asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Olsen was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Cleveland stated historically the Commission has approved variance requests when reasonable. Commissioner Gudmundson requested the Commission work through the new guidelines further before she finalized her decision. Commissioner Walton expressed concern with the applicant's need for the additional space and if he has, perhaps, outgrown the property. Commissioner Kirchoff commented the proposed structure fit with the neighborhood. Chairperson Daninger explained the structure was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner Kirchoff indicated the property owner would be using the accessory structure in a reasonable manner and are allowed in residential areas. Commissioner Cleveland questioned if the height of the structure was in harmony with the City's Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated this was for the Commission to determine and reviewed and indicated that the intent of the ordinance was to keep accessory structures in proportion with the home. Commissioner Olsen reiterated that the garage would be 120 feet from the center line of Round Lake Boulevard and the applicant was proposing a nice structure with a matching color scheme to the house. Chairperson Daninger explained the structure was in harmony as it was consistent with the City's other Ordinances. Mr. Bednarz added that because the structure would sit lower than the house on the property, the structure would be consistent with the Ordinance. He suggested the Commission could include language in the motion stating the difference in the two structures was minimal and that the accessory structure would sit lower than the house. Commissioner Gudmundson would support this so long as the final building spot was lower in elevation than the principle structure. Commissioner Olsen again expressed frustration with the confusion between the house height and visual difference in height from site lines. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if each variance request had to have a unique circumstance. Mr. Bednarz stated this was the case. Chairperson Daninger summarized the variance require criteria further stating the first guideline was met because the accessory structure was in harmony with City Ordinance because the physical height was minimal and was consistent with the neighborhood. The request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it shows no inconsistencies. The intent for the property was reasonable due to the fact accessory structures were permitted in residential zoning districts and all other aspects of the variance request were compliant. The foundation of the accessory structure would be lower. For this reason, the garage height and house height difference would be minimal. The locality of the accessory structure .fit the neighborhood and was unique due to the topography of the property and style of the house. Chairperson Daninger reiterated that the building height would have to be verified through the building permit request. Mr. Bednarz clarified the findings. Motion by Olsen, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Variance (11 -01) to accessory structure height requirements of City Code 12 -6 -3 at 18046 Round Lake Boulevard based on the findings stated above. N 4 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 5 Chairperson Daninger commented he was conservative on variance approvals and felt economic hardships were not a consideration for approval. He stated a building could be built to meet the City's requirements and not require a variance. Motion failed on a split 3 -ayes, 3 -nays (Daninger, Walton, Cleveland), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Gudmundson suggested a condition for approval be added to assure that the building pad is lower in elevation than the principle structure and that the City's setback requirements are met. This would assure that the building was only minimally higher than the house. Commissioner Olsen agreed with this recommendation. Motion by Olsen, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Variance (11 -01) to accessory structure height requirements of City Code 12 -6 -3 at 18046 Round Lake Boulevard based on the findings stated above and adding a condition for approval to assure that the building pad is lower in elevation than the principle structure and that the City's setback requirements be met. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 2 -nays (Daninger, Cleveland), 1- present (Walton), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING: VARIANCE (11 -02) TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATIONAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -6 -5 AT 13367 MARTINSTREET NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on the application for a Variance at 13367 Martin Street NW. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Variance with the Commission. He stated that it appeared the accessory structure could be moved to the side of the garage to comply with the ordinance. Chairperson Daninger noted for the record that an email was sent to the City opposing this variance request. Commissioner Gudmundson questioned the size of the current shed. Mr. Bednarz estimated the size to be 8 feet by 10 feet, or 80 square feet in size. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 6 Motion by Walton, seconded by Gudmundson, to open the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Christina Collison, 13367 Martin Street, the applicant, was present to take comments from the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned how the shed was placed on the property. Mrs. Collison stated she has temporarily relocated to Arizona for her husband's work and the home was now being rented. She felt the structure was properly located on the site and was surprised when she received a letter from the City. Mrs. Collison commented she understood the shed to be placed on her side yard and not the front yard. There was some concern for placing the shed adjacent to the garage due to the changing slope of the property. Commissioner Olsen asked if the shed was placed on 4 foot by 4 foot skids. Ms. Collison believed that it was placed on 4 foot by 4 foot pieces of timber and was fully landscaped around the base of the structure. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Chairperson Daninger read through the variance requirements and asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Walton felt the current location of the structure was odd and should be moved beside the garage. He indicated the setbacks may be met, but the location was odd. He did not feel the placement at this time was in harmony. Commissioner Cleveland questioned if the City gave out misinformation on the setbacks or placement of the shed. Mr. Bednarz indicated he had spoken with the staff person the applicant mentioned in the letter who indicated that he had discussed a fence location and the fact that a building permit for the accessory structure would not be required. However, he did not recall advising the applicant on the location. Commissioner Olsen asked if a shed could be in front of the sight line of a garage. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the ordinance with the Commission. Commissioner Olsen commented the building should not have been placed in its current site and agreed with Commissioner Walton that it should be moved. Chairperson Daninger read through the variance criteria noting the location of the shed was not in harmony and was out of compliance with City Code. The shed was also in front of the principle structure which did not align with City Ordinance. The shed was not consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan as it did not visually fit the intent of the neighborhood. The applicant was using the property reasonably and Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 12, 2011 Page 7 neighborhoods. The applicant did have a accessory sheds were had no backyard to place he shed, unique lot shape an pulled all the way to the front of uestioned if the shed were Commissioner Gudmundson questioned in this location. She then expense, as the garage it would fit. Ms. Collison indicated it may as given in information on the proper essed frustration that the shed would gave to be moved at an additional exp expr initially and she approached the City setbacks. 11 -02) Cleveland, to recommend denial of the variance Walton, seconded by requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 at 13367 Motion by carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, l- absent to accessory structure location and above. rMotion cart Martin Street based on the finding (Holthus) 19, 2011 City Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be the Council at the July Council meeting. IT 11 -02) FOR USED VEHICLE PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERM � un LANE NW. SALES AT 3138162 public hearing and take inp ut on Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a for a Conditional Use Permit for used vehicle sales at 3138 162° Lane the application NW fission. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the Comm M Mr• Bednarz indicated Commissioner Gudmundson questioned the size of this property. the site was just over one acre. ' er Kirchoff asked if a site would be placed in front of the building. Mr. Commission lace a sign out front. Bednarz stated the applicant could chose to p questioned if the CUP would have to be renewed annually* basis. Commissioner Olsen q uest to review the CUP on a yearly Bednarz stated the Commission could request uld remain with the property- otherwise the CUP wo adequate parking. Mr• Bednarz inquired if the site had the p as 15 stalls were Commissioner Gud parking would be housed in the building stated the additional required. ace on the West side orthelwesgt °r Commissioner Gudmundson asked if there was sswould be the best option trees and shrubs' Mr. Bednarz felt small shrubs property line. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 8 Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearin g at 8:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Jason Hemp 2293 151st Lane, Commission. was present to take questions or comments from the Commissioner Gudmundson questioned if the property t In Hemp explained he was the buyer and the Purchase ha e was continge teuponlapp oval r. the CUP. Chairperson Daninger asked if the applicant was aware of the Hemp noted he has reviewed this information with Staff. City requirements. Mr. City of Andover. to acquire a dealer's license in the He understood he also needed Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearin Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. gat 8'37 p.m. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend approval of Con Permit conditions: (11 -02) for Used Vehicle Sales at 3138 162 "d ditional Use Lane with the following two 1. The striping on site shall be reestablished. 2. Areas of the site not used for vehicles shall be re- vegetated. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 19, 2011 Cit Council meeting. Y WORKSESSION.• COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN, The Commission agreed to table discussion on this item to the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz introduced Dave Carlberg to the Commission as the City's new Comm Development Director. Mr. Carlberg stated he was looking forward to working Commission, Council, and the community, unity g with the Chairperson Daninger welcomed Mr. Carlberg to the City. Commissioner Olsen questioned if the Board of Appeals and Adjustment was done publically. Mr. Bednarz stated this section was included in the materials reviewed by the l Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2011 Page 9 Planning Commission but the changes made by the Council were not discussed by the Commission at the public hearing. Chairperson Daninger indicated the Andover Fun Fest was well attended this year. He thanked City Staff and all of the volunteers for the great success. The Commission discussed the new Variance process and requested Staff continue to keep the lines blank in the resolution but to create a list of possible language to fill in each line. This would assist the Commission with processing each request. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on September 13, 2011, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Dennis Cleveland, Lynae Gudmundson, Valerie Holthus, Tim Kirchoff, Michael Olsen, and Devon Walton (arrived at 7:05). Commissioners absent: None. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. May 24, 2011 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- present (Cleveland and Gudmundson), 1- absent vote (Walton). July 12, 2011 Commissioner Walton indicated he had three pages of changes for the minutes. He provided verbatim language to better reflect the comments made at the meeting. Chairperson Daninger suggested action on the minutes be tabled to the next meeting. Motion by Olsen, seconded by Kirchoff, to table the minutes to the October meeting. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent vote (Walton). Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:05 p.m. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (11 -04) FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY, STORAGEAND SALES FOR TIME TO THRIFT AT 13735 ROUND LAIfE BOULEVARD. Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor display, storage and sales at 13735 Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the Commission. He discussed new information received from the Fire Department regarding storage beneath overhead projections. The Fire Department did not recommend allowing any outdoor storage of combustible materials under the canopy without sprinklers, as regulated by the Fire Code. Commissioner Holthus questioned what the consequences would be if the fire code were not followed. Mr. Bednarz indicated the Council could vary from the code, but liability issues may arise. This was not the recommendation of the Fire Department. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the regulation was part of the overall Fire Code that the city adopted. Mr. Bednarz stated this was the case. Commissioner Kirchoff inquired if the proposed outdoor storage was planned for evening hours or only during business hours and whether this should be considered storage. Mr. Bednarz stated this was discussed with the State Fire Marshall and he recommended that regardless of the amount of time that no combustible items be allowed to be stored under an un- sprinkled canopy. Commissioner Olsen asked if the Planning Commission would need to hold a public hearing and review the variance, if this option was recommended, or if the City Council could do this. Mr. Bednarz stated the Council has the authority to approve a variance and would need to state findings to allow for the variance from the Fire Code. Commissioner Olsen recommended the applicant sign a liability waiver releasing the City from any liability if the item were to proceed. Chairperson Daninger commented that if the area were sprinkled outdoor displays and storage would be allowed. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Jackie Egan, 16462 Bittersweet Court, felt there was a discrepancy between what was and what was not allowed in outdoor displays throughout the city. She drove throughout the City and commented that gas stations are allowed to have outdoor storage, with combustible items, near gas pumps. 1 r Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 13, 2011 Page 3 Ms. Egan was asking to place furniture and household goods outside her store front during business hours only. She indicated the Andover Downtown Center was steel construction with a concrete sidewalk and felt the risk for a fire was extremely low. Ms. Egan noted the building owner Dave Hanson, supported her outdoor storage request. She stated she would be more than willing to mount a fire extinguisher at the entrance of the store to assist with safety. Ms. Egan explained that outdoor storage was allowed for other commercial uses throughout the City and that she should not be singled out or excluded. She requested the Commission approve her Conditional Use Permit request. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the goods would remain outside the store unsupervised. Ms. Egan stated they would be supervised and the household goods would only be placed outside in warm weather and would be pulled in each night. Commissioner Holthus asked if the applicants lease mentioned anything about outdoor storage. Ms. Egan was unaware of any language or stipulations. She reiterated that the building owner, Dave Hanson, had signed the application and was in favor of allowing outdoor storage. Commissioner Gudmundson inquired if the items being displayed outside were overflow goods or being placed outside to gain attention from potential customers. Ms. Egan stated her site had been vacant for five years and she wanted to draw attention to passer - bys. Commissioner Gudmundson questioned if window displays were possible. Ms. Egan commented this could be done if she had to, but that sales increased when items were placed outdoors for display. She indicated the outdoor items were drawing people into the store. Commissioner Gudmundson expressed concern with the amount of items that would be displayed outside and that they would encroach into the required three foot walking path. Commissioner Holthus stated she was pleased to see the Andover Downtown Center spaced being rented. She asked if the applicant had spoken to the neighboring tenants to see if either opposed the outdoor storage. Ms. Egan indicated she spoke with representatives from County Market and the sign placement was discussed. She noted Panda Garden was also pleased with the site being rented as it was increasing their business. Commissioner Walton questioned if a "No Smoking Sign" was posted outside of Time to Thrift. Ms. Egan stated the only sign posted outside of her store was "No Roller Skating, Biking or Skateboarding ". She indicated she could have this sign posted to increase the safety in the canopy area. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 4 Commissioner Kirchoff asked why the Conditional Use Permit request was brought before the Commission at this time. Mr. Carlberg stated a call was made to the City regarding the outdoor storage at Time to Thrift. Chairperson Daninger inquired if the building was sprinkled. Ms. Egan stated the building did have automatic sprinklers. However, she did not have time to speak with the building owner about extending the sprinkler heads to the canopy area. Chairperson Daninger questioned if the display items were placed outdoors year round. Ms. Egan clarified that items were only placed outside on clear, warm days. No items were placed outside on rainy, windy, or wintery days. Commissioner Holthus asked if more items would be placed outside if the Conditional Use Permit were approved. Ms. Egan did not anticipate placing more items outside the storefront as it was a great deal of work to bring the items in and out of the store on a daily basis. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Walton inquired if the City required new structures to have outdoor sprinklers in canopy areas. Mr. Bednarz explained he was uncertain that this was required, but indicated some newer canopies have been sprinklered. Commissioner Cleveland requested the City's definition of outdoor storage. Mr. Bednarz stated City Ordinance states outdoor storage includes items that are kept outside for a longer period of time such as vehicles and equipment in an industrial area. He stated this is different than display during operating hours only. Commissioner Cleveland did not feel the request before the Commission this evening did not fall into the "Outdoor Storage" classification. Therefore, if the items were not considered "Outdoor Storage" the Conditional Use Permit was not necessary. Commissioner Gudmundson stated the items placed outside were on "Display" and had to follow City Code 12 -12. Mr: Bednarz reviewed City Code 12 -12 with the Commission. Mr. Carlberg explained that this was not a zoning issue, but rather the City's building /fire code did not allow for the storage or display of combustible items in un- sprinkled canopy areas. He indicated another issue at hand was to bring businesses throughout the City into compliance with the City's outdoor storage regulations. Commissioner Kirchoff explained that he did not feel the items displayed in front of the store considered "storage" either. He supported the Conditional Use Permit request. 1$ IL Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Olsen felt the outdoor storage regulations were too extreme and that the Code could hinder businesses throughout the City if strictly enforced. Mr. Bednarz further reviewed City Code 12 -12 stating the word "combustible" would need to be further defined as only non - combustible items were allowed to be displayed outdoors. Commissioner Holthus commented the outdoor display could be brought into compliance if the wooden bookshelf were replaced with a metal bookshelf. Chairperson Daninger asked if combustible items could be displayed on the three foot sidewalk area that is not under the canopy near the curb. Mr. Bednarz stated this was not covered in Code, but may not be the safest option. Chairperson Daninger indicated it would be difficult for him to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and go against the recommendation of the fire department. Motion by Olsen, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 11 -04, to Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display, Storage and Sales for Time to Thrift at 13735 Round Lake Boulevard, and that the applicant, adjacent tenants and building owner sign a liability waiver to hold the City harmless. Commissioner Cleveland requested the word object be changed to obstruct in the Resolution. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Kirchoff explained he would have a difficult time going against the recommendation of the Fire Chief. He suggested the City Code regarding outdoor display and storage be reviewed by the Commission in the coming months. Chairperson Daninger indicated he would be willing to review this Code further if the Commission made the recommendation. He felt the stipulations were affecting Andover businesses. Commissioner Holthus reviewed the Resolution requesting a third stipulation be added to allow for only non - combustible items to be stored or displayed outdoors. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Olsen, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 11 -04, to Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display, Storage and Sales for Time to Thrift at 13735 Round Lake Boulevard, and that only non- combustible items be allowed in the outdoor storage display. Commissioner Cleveland again requested the word object be changed to obstruct in the first condition of the resolution. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 6 Commissioner Walton clarified that the four feet of display area should be four feet in depth from the leased storefront and not the four feet closest to the curb. Chairperson Daninger indicated he could support this Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 1 -nays (Gudmundson), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 20, 2011 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (11 -05) FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AT 3160162ND LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on the application for a Conditional Use Permit at 3160 162nd Lane NW for outdoor storage. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the Commission. Commissioner Cleveland requested further information on the recycled aggregate material. Mr. Bednarz stated this was a crushed asphalt material that would be rolled out in the outdoor storage area and act much like a bituminous surface when compacted. Commissioner Holthus asked if this product was less expensive than an asphalt surface. Mr. Bednarz stated this was the case. Commissioner Walton questioned how this site compared to the vehicle sales lot in this area of the City. Mr. Bednarz stated the sites were similar but curbing was required by the City at the vehicle sales due to the parking expansion; increase in impervious surface and to assist in directing drainage to the storm water pond required by the watershed district. Chairperson Daninger inquired who created the landscaping plan. Mr. Bednarz commented the applicant presented the City with a landscaping plan which was then reviewed in accordance with City requirements. Chairperson Daninger asked if an additional eight trees could be requested of the applicant. Mr. Bednarz stated this would bring the landscaping plan into compliance with the City's standards and the additional trees would provide a larger buffer from Round Lake Boulevard. He indicated a septic system would be installed on the site and would provide additional limitations to plantings in the northwest area of the site. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 7. The applicant, Ron Johnson, 16651 Quicksilver Street in Ramsey was in attendance. Commissioner Gudmundson asked if the trees in the southeast corner could be saved. Mr. Johnson stated the trees would be removed to allow for additional storage. He stated the cottonwood trees were a nuisance and had to be removed. Commissioner Olsen requested further information on the height of the future garage. Mr. Johnson noted the garage would be single story and 26 feet in height to the peak. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff was in favor of removing the cottonwood trees from this site as they were a nuisance. Chairperson Daninger questioned if staff had a preference on color of the fence slats. Mr. Bednarz recommended the color match the proposed building color as closely as possible. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Walton, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 11 -05, to Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage and Interim Performance Standards at 3160 162 "d Lane NW. Chairperson Daninger would be in favor of additional shrubs and trees within the landscaping plan. He noted he would support the request but stated the additional greenery would appease the neighboring properties. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 20, 2011 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION— COMMERCL4L DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Bednarz provided the Planning Commission with further information on Commercial Development in the City of Andover. He indicated this topic of discussion was brought about by the Commission at a past meeting. One concern was if the City had enough property zoned Commercial and Industrial. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the new Economic Development information available on the City's website with the Commission. The website would assist with marketing available properties in the City with contact information to City staff. Metro MSP links have been Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 8 added to the site, along with Andover Station North demographics. This would prove beneficial to potential businesses. In addition, 2010 census information was available. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what type of commercial development was thriving at this time. Mr. Carlberg indicated new buildings were a challenge at this time. For this reason, vacant space was being leased to new tenants. Commissioner Walton requested further information on two parcels near Fox Hollow. Mr. Bednarz stated these parcels were approved through the Grey Oaks subdivision and the PUD had proposed to place a convenience store and office space in this location. Commissioner Holthus asked for Staff to define transitional commercial. Mr. Bednarz stated transitional commercial means the site presently is residential and may transition to commercial in the future. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested the Commission look at ways for the City to become more business friendly, like in the case of outdoor storage. Mr. Carlberg stated City Code changes could be reviewed. However, fire code was in place to protect the general public. He indicated Andover was working to be a business friendly community by meeting the needs of the business community while maintaining public safety. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the City of Andover was seen as difficult to work with for commercial businesses. Mr. Carlberg stated he has recently received feedback from a business owner that Andover was friendly and easy to work with. He explained the more streamlined the approval process was, the easier it was for businesses to thrive in the community. Commissioner Olsen felt the City did need to diversify its tax base as only 2% of the land in the City was zoned commercial. Additional commercial property would generate additional revenues for the City. Mr. Carlberg indicated the larger issue with development is that Andover does not have a State Highway running through the City. Transportation issues were a concern for commercial development. He explained that County road corridors were being improved, but this was the City's challenge at this time. Chairperson Daninger questioned how the Commission felt about the percentage rate of commercial development in the City. He inquired how fast the City could react in the future to secure more commercial area in Andover. Mr. Carlberg explained that the focus of commercial development should be on the southern part of Andover where the critical mass of residents was larger. He noted that redevelopment of existing sites would be critical in the future. Bunker Lake Road, Hanson Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard would continue to be the main corridors for development. I Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 9 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the railways could draw industry to the City. Mr. Carlberg stated this does have potential to create a rail industrial park. He explained 600 acres would have to be available in the City to make it successful. Commissioner Holthus questioned the percentage of commercial development in other bedroom communities. Mr. Carlberg stated the preferred percentage would be 20% to diversify the tax base. He indicated staff could investigate this further and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Walton was pleased the City's current commercial properties were relatively all occupied. He noted some communities in the metro area were struggling with vacancy concerns. Chairperson Daninger inquired if the Commission could review the zoning map and designate additional commercial sites throughout the City to raise the current percentage. Mr. Carlberg clarified that the City was not looking to have 20% of its acreage become commercial but 20% of its tax base. Commissioner Olsen agreed with Chairperson Daninger's suggestion as it was forward thinking and would establish potential commercial corridors, understanding that future commercial development would be concentrated to the southern portion of Andover. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this would create concerns for existing property owners. Chairperson Daninger asked for the cause and effect if the Commission were to rezone properties. Mr. Carlberg stated the land use map and zoning designations would have to be amended through public hearings. He suggested retail analysis be completed to see if the community could support additional commercial sites. This would provide a great deal of information to the Commission as to what types of uses that would thrive. Chairperson Daninger indicated this was exactly the type of information the City needed before making any zoning changes. He provided a summary of the comments made this evening and suggested the Council proceed with a retail analysis for the City before any further Commercial Development decisions were made. Mr. Carlberg indicated he would take these comments to the EDA and report back to the Commission as to the next step. Commissioner Holthus requested that neighboring bedroom communities commercial development percentages be evaluated and reported back to the Commission as well. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2011 Page 10 Commissioner Walton thanked staff for updating the City's website and for providing the valuable EDA information to potential businesses. Mr. Carlberg stated the City wanted to have a "can do" attitude when working with new businesses. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. The Commission discussed how to handle future minute corrections. ADJOURNMENT, Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Gudmundson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ti t k NT Y O F DOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Planner' FROM: Andrew Liska, Planning Intern SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (11 -03) to location and setback requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 for existing accessory structure located at 2102 142 °a Lane NW. DATE: November 8, 2011 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an existing accessory structure to remain at its present location in the utility and drainage easement and less than 5 feet from the side property line and 10 feet from the rear property line. City Code 12 -6 -5 (attached) does not permit accessory structures to be located in the easement and requires a 5 foot minimum setback from side and rear property lines unless more restrictive easements exist. The survey for this property shows a 5 foot easement on side property lines and a 10 foot easement in the rear property line. DISCUSSION The attached survey and photographs show the location of the accessory structure in relation to the easements. The attached letter provided by the applicant addresses the difficulty in locating the accessory structure in compliance with the City Code. BACKGROUND This issue was brought to the City's attention due to its location and size. An inspection by Don Olson of the Building Department revealed that the current location of the accessory shed is on the rear property line and 3 feet off the side property line. Also, that the accessory structure is 12' x 14', which exceeds the 120 sq. ft. maximum size without a building permit. A building permit was not applied for prior to erecting. The accessory structure is anchored. to its current location using a concrete adhesive connecting paver stones to treated 2 x 4 lumber. Review Criteria The city has adopted new standards for variances to conform with state statute. City Code 12 -14 -7 is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff discussed with the applicant other locations in the rear yard where the accessory structure could be located in compliance with the City Code. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to compare the variance request with the review criteria of City Code 12 -14 -7. Any recommendation by the Commission should include findings either for or against the proposed variance based on the form provided in the attached resolution. k: Attachments Resolution City Code 12 -14 -7 Location Map Applicant's Letter Survey Photographs Applicant's Sketch City Code 12 -6 -5 Cc: Ryan and Anna Dosta1 2102 —142 °d Ln. NW CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -6 -5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2102 —142ND LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 8, BLOCK 2, KENSINGTON ESTATES 3RD ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -6 -5 to allow an existing accessory structure to remain located in the side and rear utility and drainage easements; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the property owner does /does not intend to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds there are /are not circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the variance will/will not maintain the essential character of the locality because NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to allow an accessory structure to remain located in side and rear utility and drainage easements and less than 5 feet from the side property line and 10 feet from the rear property line based upon the findings in this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2011. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 12 -14 -7: VARIANCES: A. The City Council, as authorized by Minn. Stat. 462.354 subdivision 2, and Minn. Stat. 462.357, subdivision 6, shall have the authority to hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance and other sections of the City Code where variances are authorized, including restrictions placed on nonconformities. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970, Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) B. Review Criteria: 1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) C. Conditions Authorized: The City Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) D. Specific Variances Authorized: No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located, except as follows: (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 1. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. (Amended Ord. 407, 6 -21- 11) 2. Variances may be granted for the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) E. Procedure: The procedure for granting variances is as follows: 1. Request For Variance; Fee: A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the Community Development Director a request for variance application form together with a fee as set forth by ordinance'. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. (Amended Ord. 342, 3 -6 -07; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) ' See subsection 1 -7 -31-1 of this code. 0 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: A public hearing shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the provisions of City Code 12 -14 -7. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 3. City Council Action: The City Council may grant the variance based upon the provisions of City Code 12 -14 -7 request if it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this title and if it finds that strict enforcement of this title will cause undue hardships because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this title. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 4. Appeals: The petitioner, if appealing an interpretation of this title by an employee of the city which would require him /her to obtain a variance, shall have the fee refunded if his /her appeal is upheld by the City Council. 5. Emergency Variance Requests: The City Council may waive Planning and Zoning Commission review and take immediate action on emergency variance requests that affect the immediate health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Andover or if time constraints present severe hardship to the applicant. The applicant is required to show the immediacy of the issue and the potential health, safety or welfare threat. The City Council shall determine if the request warrants immediate review. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 6. Time Limit On Implementing Variance: If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the variance, the variance will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 8, 1 C I T Y o LOCATI ®N MAP: NN-KO 2102-142nd Ln. NW N Disclaimer: This information is being distributed as demonstration data only. You should not use the data for any other purposes at this time. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. w e Copyright © 2011 City of Andover, All Rights Reserved S City of Andover We are writing this letter because we would like a variance granted for our shed we built on our property which is located at 2102 142nd Ln NW Andover, MN 55304. The shed size is 12'x 14' and is 11' tall with a barn style roof that has the same style and color shingles as the house and is also painted the same color of the house as well for aesthetics on the property. The reason we are asking for a variance is we would like to have the shed near the fence so it is tucked nicely in the corner to save space in our yard as we have a very extensive landscape in the backyard with a large patio, outdoor fireplace and outdoor kitchen. If the shed was built 10' off the rear property line it would be too close to the fireplace and would cause unnecessary safety concerns. The shed was constructed and placed on a paver patio where it currently is near the property line on the back of the property and 3' off the line on the side of the property. Before we built the shed, we asked the neighbors adjoining our property where the shed was going to be built if they had any concerns with the location of the shed and they all said they were totally fine with the location of the shed. At the time, we did not know there was a 10' back easement and a 5' side easement and we thought if we had our fence back there that it would be ok for the shed as well. On Monday, September 19th the City Inspector (Don) was at the house and he stated that the city received a call from a homeowner saying they should stop by to make sure the shed was up to code. We had no problem taking Don back to look at the shed and he looked at where it was located and said we would need a variance for the location of the shed. At quick glance, he stated that the shed looked great. We went to City Hall and got the paperwork for the building permit and variance and took them home. We are asking you, The City of Andover, to please grant this variance because there is no other location in the yard for the shed that will not disrupt full grown trees, existing landscaping or cause unnecessary safety concerns. Since the location of the shed is a concern, we will take on any expenses required if anything needs to be done to the easement in the future. However, this is highly unlikely due to the excellent drainage and the sandy soil. This shed will be very difficult to move as it is heavy and all the green treated 2x4's are glued to the paver patio with very strong concrete adhesive. Lastly, the shed will not fit into the backyard if we move it as it will be on the fireplace. We are not looking to complain, we are just looking for your help and would greatly appreciate it. There are about 6 properties in the area that do not look like they pass the offset code and we know one for sure that is exactly the way we have it where the shed is tucked into the corner. That property is 2128142nd Ave. NW. The other 5 properties are 2188141St Ave. NW, 220014V Ave. NW, 2164141St Ave. NW, 2116 141St Ave. NW, 2212 141St Ave. NW. We can't say for sure if it is over or not but from the aerial view online, it looks like they are. We also have signatures from all of our adjoining neighbors stating that they are totally fine with the location of the shed. We appreciate your time and would love to work with you to make this best for all of us. We are also planning a permeable paver driveway for next summer and would love to have you involved in the project as this product is fairly new to the market. We would like to reduce runoff by 100% onto road and capture all rainwater and reuse for irrigating our yard. As you can see, we want to raise a family in Andover and are spending money on our property for the future so we can live here for years to come. If you have any questions, please call anytime at 612 -240- 4478. Sincerely, Ryan and Anna Dostal n �n • I r �I AN SSO I TES, INCO LA�DTelephone ORS pp��¢¢pp��qq qq��gqpp��va�� ppaa pp�� ®®�p ��pp ppqq��aa MINN.- 55433 421 7822 0. BOX cAc9026 —COON P7P91 IDS9 Im1INN 10731 MISSISSIPPI BLVD. N.W >a COON RAPIDS, MN CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY: S. W. WOLD CONSTRUCTIGN¢ INC. 30 APO 9 o0 l, � of -5 I� SCALE. 1 °° = 31 Nr � �2� �, 6926-262/25p2( r // .B Denotes Iron 9 I Denotes Wood Rul 0 Denotes existii _ elevation I I 1 I Q I Lot 8. Block 28 U �I KENSINGTON ESTATES 3RD ADDITI01 N7- / Anoka County v MN 9b.N - -- - -- — r +' o � GARAGE FLOOR SHALE 8g MINIMUM is °g ABOVE EXISTING STREET GRADE WITH EX a S € MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 10 P€RCERT'a GE FLOOR = 899.0 �4g2�°. ¢g7e5P,, PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK = 899.4 g� � � � '�., =� "A i 8NEI PROPOSED LOWEST LEVEL = 891.4 0 F0011at ia1s Eci 0 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE Aid® CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE 6...... IES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, AND THE , staking of a proposed house. 17th October ...................... A.D. 19.9 ........... AS SURVEYED. BY ME THIS .................. DAY OF .................... N.C. HOIUM AND ASSOCI Qs�•` / �•�1 ..... �" P.. ..r ......... ............................... ? Alinneso4d RagfnBe ®Pisa 442.i•. °•• ° ° ° ^..... +411 re �; i ilff ili l ! M r' .� 4 ' ♦ Sa I FL rye { t ? iCi Hl�j��♦ ... ,J �i i a c ic' .� x . 1 y •- 3:_3.::51" } � R K S `ia� i 4glti..f Z„' h � � {.i .. � i ,.1<ire ci t v ^I{. y��`11';J�i.. �.l♦� .iXi � V � w..� h '.�� r. 2i i , - - M-1 {q A. �,�♦ r � �f f � is �'��,',�. °�R'1G$ uMr�f; ' `ki � ` � -�t � � t ♦ x 4 t - T 'tai gV'' =.. ... - �`•,�,�'• ��.�. , 1 f 7 a �• �rt ) ��( ,�'+`r�vft� t .�SSV �'* �� x`�",gZ. Y�i �( „aDr�J 6'�y ts�lr�'" 7�-a �j,. ' r. '`; xra N. yr {� }.+-I t. q,'99��,r r.. �y.� 96.`"'ii`�a,�?�?shQ�r ,yy�,�i_�,.�`..�•,,.� ^�.,��y + .JF�•iAf`�,'�^� 4 �• �` [ r�i �.S fw�� 5�, ��� {,. �ssc �"+• �`� fib+ �i"��`1�r .. ,\'� x.{,+f. � �L a^'� � '� �.w. .4 era a ✓.1 1 af: '!ia% �' fi��l: it /� ',J.C..... F'F3aif #SlY � 1 1.? 'i ., •l •n , °� ' �(, ' .� �... r, s_a s. � S b t � x r OaY Will e MJ qzn� � s- r . 1 ,�-- V i Le I r7 i3 E f (5) acres or less, but more than one acre, shall not exceed the total square footage of land covered by the foundation of the principal structure. C. The attached garage and detached accessory buildings on a residential parcel in the R -4 zoning district or any property less than one acre shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet total, and in no case shall the detached accessory building be greater than fifty percent (50 %) of the total square footage of the foundation of the principal structure. (amd. Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005) D. All principal structures constructed within the single - family urban residential (R -4) district after the effective date hereof shall have an attached garage with a minimum size of four hundred forty (440) square feet. E. All detached accessory buildings within the single - family urban residential (R -4) zoning district shall have a minimum 4:12 roof pitch. F. All detached accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar in design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible to the principal structure, except as stated in Subsection G of this section. G. Exterior Finishes: No permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted accessory building, except small garden sheds not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3) acres or less in all residential districts and within the metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) boundary. The foregoing shall not apply to painted and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002) 12 -6 -5: LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: A. Private Garages Facing Public Ways: When a private garage is oriented so as to face onto a public right -of -way, it shall not have less than the minimum required setback for the principal structure as measured from the lot line. B. In Residential Districts: 1. Accessory buildings and structures located in residentially zoned districts shall have a minimum setback of five feet (S) from side and rear lot lines unless an easement exists that is more restrictive. (Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005) 2. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a County road shall have a minimum setback fifty (50) feet from the property line in all residential zoning districts except for the R-4 district, where the setback shall be forty (40) feet. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4- 05) 3. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a City street shall have a minimum setback forty (40) feet from the property line in R -1 and R -2 zoning districts and thirty -five (35) feet in R -3 and R -4 zoning districts. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -05) 4. Accessory structures located in the side or rear yard of corner lots that are adjacent to a lot that fronts on a cul -de -sac shall be no closer to the property line than the outside wall of the house. (Amended Ord. 325A, 4- 18 -06) 5. Where less. than 120 feet of right -of -way exists for county roads or arterial streets, setbacks for all structures shall be measured assuming a sixty-foot right -of -way on each side of the existing right -of -way centerline. (Amended Ord. 314,10-4-05) 6. Where less than the minimum roadway right -of -way required by City Code 11 -3 -3 exists, setbacks for all structures shall be measured assuming right -of -way required by City Code 11 -3 -3. (Amended Ord. 314,10-4-05) C. In Business And Industrial Districts: Accessory buildings in the business and industrial districts shall not be closer than ten feet (10') from side and rear lot lines subject to provisions for the abutting residential zone provided herein. D. Location In Rear Yard Setback Areas Generally: An accessory building may be located within the rear yard setback, provided said accessory building does not occupy more than twenty five percent (25 %) of a required rear yard. E. Prohibited In Drainage And Utility Easements: All accessory buildings and structures shall not be constructed or placed in a drainage or utility easement. F. Front Yard Setback Requirements: No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure except as follows: 1. On residential parcels with a lot area of one acre or more, a detached garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure; however, the minimum distance it may be from the front lot line is sixty feet (60') subject to City Code 12 -6 -5. (Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005) 2. All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed nearer the front lot line than the principal structure shall be similar in design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible with the principal structures. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002) G. Animals: Any building in which farm animals, pleasure /recreational animals or poultry are kept shall be a distance of one hundred feet (100') or more from any other occupied residence, and any open or roofed enclosure in which such animals are kept shall be a distance of fifty feet (50') or more from any occupied residential lot. The City Council may order the owner of any such animals to apply for a Conditional Use Permit if it is deemed to be in the interest of the public health, safety, or general welfare. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970; amd. 2003 Code; Amd Ord. 314 10-4 -2005; Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A) 12 -6 -6: TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: Temporary structures shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, as otherwise provided by this title. The Conditional Use Permit for a temporary structure shall be reviewed subject to the following regulations: A. Temporary structures governed by this chapter shall be allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. B. There shall be a time limit established for temporary structures to remain on a site as a part of the Conditional Use Permit review during the construction process. Temporary structures allowed by administrative approval, other than construction trailers, shall be limited to six (6) months in duration. The City Council may extend the six (6) month time limit, if special circumstances exist. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan review must also be approved. D. Security measures such as lighting and including connections to the main building shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. E. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -10 of this title. F. Signage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -9 of this title. G. The Conditional Use Permit will address the date the temporary structure shall be removed from the property. The applicant will provide a written long -term plan for its removal. r Y O F ONDMINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-51p0 D N.W • •ANDOVER. MN.US gOULEVAR • WWW.CI.ANDOVER. 1685 CROSSTOWN FAX (763) 755 -8923 and Zoning commissioners TO: planning o Bednarz, City plain 4 to side y and setback requirements of FROM: NG: vanance (11 -0) nd avenue N W SIJBJECT. Uy Cod I12 -3 � °T house addition at 2067 142 November 8, 2011 DATE: existing home that would INTRODUCTION a variance to constrict an addition to an applicant . requesting and setback. The app house encroach into the ten foot si e y line on the side of the on would the side property The proposed ad DISC= shed survey g3 feet to the property line. on the atta d 5.83 house is located 19.83 feet from The existing osed ass hown resulting in a distance of 7 erty line the side of the house an where the addition is PYq s location that extends 14 feet from extend 12 feet towarae k at this There is an existing line- the property City Code feet from P to state statute. laps to variances to conform d building P Review Criteria e attached letter an has adopted the new standards s rov ded th The city The app 12_14_7 is attached. riteria. adequate address the review es to ensure adeq Pr' for yard area .0'md structnr and sunlight; access to and around Intent of the Ordinance aids is to P uiring y al light, ventilation, gardening, and recreation. The purpose of req desirable and safe visibility�a space for landscaping, g privacy, betveen uses; s buffering ears no permit was building ; s address it app roved, this d permit system fort porch addition is aPP roved, the Existing Deck ermit file an P ance for the p the building P ro ect. If the variance is not app In reviewing deck. In the event the vari this issue with the existing letion of that p CCode. In reviewing are self issued for the to the City accessory stru °t1zTe if they issue would be resolved d fi d to conformconsidexed an ould involve constructing 11 need to be modified have been on the house. Thus w the deck from the deck Will moment, er board d detaching S. A Building IDeP posts and not the ledg structure with p support the deck adjacent to the house an supporting s to supp and setback for accessory posts with footing e of the fnvlete this project. ledger board. This would allow use to comp building permit would be necessary foot side yard width to conform to the 10 able style Staff Recommendation Of the house with a g for an addition on the rear While not ideal, the addition could for reduce in setback. Additionally there is room recommend, approval of the variance. roof design. Staff does not reconun ACTION RE VESTED The pl City Code Illg C °omission is asked to or a 12 -14 -7. Any recommendation b are the against the proposed v y the Covan cc request wi ariance based on omission should he review criteria of Attachments the fO� provided ' uld include $ndings either for m the attached resolution. Resolution " Location Map Survey Applicant's Letter Porch Details I City Code 12 -14 -7 R&Y:B ly submitted, ednarz Cc: Pat and Bonnie Hayek 2067142nd Avenue NW i CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING A VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -3 -5 FOR HOUSE ADDITION AT 2067 142 AVENUE NW. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, KENSINGTON ESTATES 6TH ADDITION (PID# 27- 32 -24 -34 -0075) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and reviewed the request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -5 to allow an addition to the existing house that would be less than the required ten feet from the side property line, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request is /is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the property owner does /does not intend to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance because WHEREAS, the City Council finds there are /are not circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner because WHEREAS, the City Council finds the variance will/will not maintain the essential character of the locality because NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to allow an addition to the existing house with less than the ten foot side yard setback required by City Code 12 -3 -5 based upon the findings in this resolution and with the following conditions: 1. The Porch addition shall be 12 feet in width by 16 feet in depth and shall maintain a side yard setback of at least 7.5 feet. 2. The variance shall be subject to a sunset clause as provided in 12 -14 -7 E.6. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of 12011. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor `MOVER 2067 142nd Avenue NW Incorporated Variance to Side Yard Setback Requirements 1974 1 14430 .. , i�toy� - - - - - — 143bl O O I \ O O 14386w1438 14386 ��� ��n'3 tk 4 `MOVER 2067 142nd Avenue NW Incorporated Variance to Side Yard Setback Requirements 1974 1 14430 .. , i�toy� - - - - - — 143bl O O V' N O O 14386w1438 14386 ��� ��n'3 tk �, LO 14435 s 14372 14371 O Cv N N N 14354 14357 �'� N�� N 9s 14375 N LO N N 143`43 rs�,,� �Q�s �0 14357 LO ' M CN 14335 N N N N 4320 7Q N N N N 1% Z N 14310 N 14315 M LO N rn ti Ln C\l N N N I N N N N N N N N N ��j rn OD 14091 LO M 04 2 OJN N N N N N N N n LO o T r rn u v L i 2127 N N N N ch M , N N V' 'd' LM M N N N O � NNNNN 14049 N N 7 CO CO 1-t �O c2�0�0 7Q�j 2140 N L O N N N iii N N N N N fp LC) (A r` LO M CO � M N 2101 14154 rn o 14150 G c O �p N N N N N N l �� "I,c 141 ST `\l 14 (L O O V' N O O N N �, LO 't O Cv N N N N N cM- N N N LO N N N O C~O LO ' M C N N N N N N N N N N N 1% N r M N d C\l 04 OD L r O 14091 04 04 14085 LO ch M , N N V' 'd' LM M M M M LO NNNNN 14049 N N N "�NH L `L2� 5 N O C) CO O CO O 00• V V CO N N c c O 0 l �� "I,c 14045 14435 N Location map w --E S ROYAL OAKS CONSTRUCTION ✓ 7, Proposed Top of BI 1. 99 -2,3 Proposed Garage Fl Property located in Section g o,S 'Proposed Lowest FI 27, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota Type of Building - � - 8800 - APPROVED STAMPED SUB POST BE ON JOB SITE FOR FOOTIING IilSPrCPIOx3, �.I-kt11f� � pr�trt�c�2 Easement" -�--+r t 1 GARAGE FLOOR SHALE BE MINIMU !� ABOVE EXISTING STREET GRADE W 5 MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 10 PERCENT, r P,°I`f.2 897.1 a�15o at o � o o j pI'o Pose d Feu (?es�d�rlc.i sn �'� � 1 MIS S 8° 8Rb.I 814.1 d Q S`1 .b 1- k A --------- �- ►�t.g3; m � m jj 030.1 ConL.[.tlr4� -� Pst43l qe 142 N D ABC. N.�±. fsI IJ !" ���,.� � s 1 •, Y vt g, a i � • .,+. r5 7. J�% _ a,ty�' �.�_T� ���7�1�� }� �+•P, a `�- ��� -'� t _ y "gip _. t��vf' '-il s �.. .��1�iSa a tr 'f ! wa �i.•'! �� }aa - .1' .a. ti. a d►o- .T . t 4y �� _ • g f ' `fir _ '_ � T hl _ 4 f o T 0 /%8q 0 m=Z7 Floorjoists / )]_; / C: \z . ] \ / aS0 \ /) \/ /0 \{ L C3 . _ __ CD \ \\ � ƒ \} k CL %a / -u >m�0 CY)wzCL gm 24 > /CD 7 } e \ > \ \ / \ \ Cl) 7 } $ co 0 d . 0 m y a m ± ƒ$¥(E /})&( /4¥J _■#&q« §§DU2 e-3 §0 }(\0 ;°#otr:3o \ƒ(3 CD 0 JWCD CL a« /J( ' / -x -£ §\]p■a } R� C0%)@ =CL§ &_ ®/ \] }\ k / /G CD CD ( � \ 0 \ \ ( m)-4 E CL /x \ CD \k CD / Floorjoists / / C: OD ] \ / ! CD /0 \{ L .�` . ± ƒ$¥(E /})&( /4¥J _■#&q« §§DU2 e-3 §0 }(\0 ;°#otr:3o \ƒ(3 CD 0 JWCD CL a« /J( ' / -x -£ §\]p■a } R� C0%)@ =CL§ &_ ®/ \] }\ k / /G CD CD ( � \ 0 \ \ ( m)-4 E CL /x \ CD \k CD .x \ 0. ƒ CD / ] ! /0 \{ L _ __ . [ \ \\ q \} k %a / .x \ 0. ƒ CD o -0 z±0 /!aq - mzZ-0 4 =§ ) wQ3k mm�± , to /;_ \ k05p m3 ƒ \ « >0 o CL CD C3 0 -4 0 E: 0 =$ M \z >CD %m4± fD 7 \ / } / r r 0 § w � G) m ff ( m + ■ f ) / \ (a ( »)$(7J±) »(/4$$ CD ID # %gAk("CDZ)r \§rr /§ - /}2a / /%k ®k) \ \ \ CL - « \Q §Qka w m' =3 =&S &_ ®/ \0 /\ Cr� \ rq ;0 [3.N o /R CD ( � ) � 'COD {�/ % CL }\ _ - \0 \\ CD C2 \0 ae / m i T. 12 -14 -7: VARIANCES: A. The City Council, as authorized by Minn. Stat. 462.354 subdivision 2, and Minn. Stat. 462.357, subdivision 6, shall have the authority to hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance and other sections of the City Code where variances are authorized, including restrictions placed on nonconformities. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970, Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) B. Review Criteria: 1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) C. Conditions Authorized: The City Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) .D. Specific Variances Authorized: No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located, except as follows: (Amended Ord. 407, 621 -11) 1. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Variances may be granted for the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) E. Procedure: The procedure for granting variances is as follows: 1. Request For Variance; Fee: A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the Community Development Director a request for variance application form together with a fee as set forth by ordinance'. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. (Amended Ord. 342, 3 -6 -07; Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: A public hearing shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission as provided in City Code 12 -14 -8. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council based upon the provisions of City Code 12 -14 -7. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 3. City Council Action: The City Council may grant the variance based upon the provisions of City. Code 12 -14 -7 request if it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this title and if it finds that strict enforcement of this title will cause undue hardships because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this title. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 4. Appeals: The petitioner, if appealing an interpretation of this title by an employee of the city which would require him /her to obtain a variance, shall have the fee refunded if his /her appeal is upheld by the City Council. 5. Emergency Variance Requests: The City Council may waive Planning and Zoning Commission review and take immediate action on emergency variance requests that affect the immediate health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Andover or if time constraints present severe hardship to the applicant. The applicant is required to show the immediacy of the issue and the potential health, safety or welfare threat. The City Council shall determine if the request warrants immediate review. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11) 6. Time Limit On Implementing Variance: If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the variance, the variance will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 1 See subsection 1 -7 -3H of this code. NIA OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLAN DOVE R.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Work Session: Commercial Development Discussion Continued DATE: November 8, 2011 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission at the September 13, 2011 meeting discussed what the appropriate amount of commercial /industrial land should be zoned in Andover. The Commission discussed the idea of having a retail market analysis done for the City. The analysis would determine the appropriate amount and type of retail uses a community can support in the marketplace. The Commission suggested the EDA/City Council consider having an analysis done to base future discussions on. The Commission was also interested in what neighboring communities had for commercial /industrial development percentages and that they be evaluated and the results reported back to the Commission. DISCUSSION Staff discussed with the Andover EDA at their November 1, 2011 meeting the recommendation of the Commission to have a retail market analysis done. The EDA directed staff to solicit proposals to have an analysis prepared and to bring the proposals to the November 16, 2011 EDA workshop for further discussion. As discussed at the September 13th Commission meeting, currently there is only 2% of land (436 acres) zoned for commercial and industrial uses. In a typical community, 20% of a city's tax base is desired to come from commercial /industrial uses. Below is a list of Anoka County cities with corresponding percentage of tax generated revenue. Andover — 8.26% Anoka — 36% Blaine — 32% Coon Rapids — 31 % East Bethel — 9.27% Ham Lake — 15.72% Oak Grove — 5.20% Ramsey — 25% St. Francis — 13.73% ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to continue the discussion on commercial /industrial development in the city. espectfully submitted, David L. Carlberg