Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 11, 1989 o o 0/1\ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 1989 The regular meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Becky Pease at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 11, 1989 at Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present included Chairman Becky Pease, Bill Bernard, Don spotts, Wayne Vistad, Gretchen Sabel, and Ron Ferris. Also present were Jay Blake and Todd Haas. APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was tabled until the end of the meeting as not everyone has had a chance to review the minutes. o Chairman Pease reviewed the procedures to be used during the public hearing section of the meeting. HEIDELBERGER VARIANCE. CONTINUATION This item was tabled until Mr. Heidelberger would be present to discuss. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE 8. AMENDMENT. WASTE TIRE STORAGE Mr. Blake stated that the Planning Commission was requested to review the proposed amendment to Ordinance 8 -- which would limit the exterior storage of waste tires throughout the City. He also explained that Mayor Elling had requested the issue of waste tires be re-examined by the Planning Commission. There apparently was a proposal in 1987 to limit the storage of tires, but the proposal was tabled, and no action was taken. Mr. Blake described the proposed amendment -- it defines waste tires, it excludes the exterior storage of waste tires throughout the City, and it allows for the storage of no more than 250 tires on anyone property in the Industrial District. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. .~ Mr. Andy Ronchak, with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, gave a summary of the State Waste Tire Program. He stated that they do have a program governing the stockpiling of waste tires which starts at 500 tires per permit. Also, he mentioned that they have a permit-by-rule status which is essentially notification between 50 and 500, that doesn't require a permit process. o l) \ ~~ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Two He also stated that there are quite a few exemptions from that permit rule. One of these exemptions was that if the tire dump existed prior to the PCA rules, they could be asked to be put on the abatement program or on the list of tire dumps to be cleaned up if they no longer want to be an active site. Mr. Ronchak stated that they work with places so that they have a regular collection system and no need to store any waste tires. Mr. Ronchak felt an ordinance, such as the one Andover is proposing, would greatly encourage these places to not have stockpiles in the future but to tap into a very extensive collection network that's already in existence. Mr. Ronchak reported that the PCA is trying to make an agreement with Cecil Heidelberger to move the trailers (with 17,000 waste tires) over to the existing shredder that's located on the Andover Tire Dump and to process those waste tires. He felt agreement with the other Andover sites would follow. r, He reiterated that the PCA permit program is designed for ~ on-going tire generation. In summary, Mr. Ronchak did feel these ordinances should be specifically designed to close down the sites that do not need to stockpile the tires, and the ones that do need to stockpile them, to control them in the future very closely. Mr. Spotts asked if other communities are taking similar steps through stricter ordinances to alleviate the waste tire problem. Mr. Ronchak stated that the City of Andover was unique, and it's more on a county-wide basis that there are ordinances like this being presented. Because of the Andover Tire Dump, Mr. Ronchak felt that attention has been focused on the need to do something on not only a county-level, but a local level also. He stated, if there are specific concerns, they encourage local units of government to pass more strict ordinances that would address their particular problems; and they are definitely in support of ordinances such as the one Andover is proposing. Ms. Sabel asked if the tires at Lou's Tire Town being abated. Mr. Blake stated that the property has been sold to new owners, and the owners are required to remove the tires before the completion of the purchase of the property can be transacted. ( , ~J u -) L 'J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Three Mr. Bernard asked who counts these tires to determine whether a permit is needed or not. Mr. Ronchak stated that they know that 1,000 tires can fit on a semi-load, and 500 is about half that amount. Their estimating procedure is 10 tires per cubic yard. Mr. Bernard also asked why do these tires have to be stockpiled and handled two-three times. Mr. Ronchak stated that most of the facilities in Andover will not have enough tires to justifying a $300,000 shredder. Mr. Ronchak also described other ways to economically reduce the size of the tire pile such as using a cutter, which could be very portable and run about $6,000 each. Mr. Blake stated that the intent of the amendment was to eliminate exterior storage of waste tires throughout the City. 8 Mr. Rick Heidelberger stated that the trailers were an effective and inexpensive way to store waste tires, and this alleviates the problem of having tires outside at all. He stated that he used to work for a firm as a driver hauling waste tires. When these trailers were full, he would drive them to a shredder, and it was a very effective way to handle the problem. Mayor Elling stated that ordinance before the Planning Commission was an amendment that he was proposing. He further explained that the 250 tires are only for those business that deal in tire sales, as Andover has no interest in storing tires, shredding tires, etc. There have been ramifications from the tire fire -- the FHA is even considering whether to back loans for houses in the Andover area. MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Sabel to close the pUblic hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. Discussion: actual businesses ordinance. Mr. Vistad would like to find out from the if 250 is a fair number to go by in the Mr. Spotts if the information in the packet was ever previously approved. Mr. Blake stated that was only a draft, and never approved, and currently there is no ordinance. / , o Mr. Ferris stated the proposed amendment, while defining what a waste tire was did not define what is a reusable, resalable tire. He thought this definition should also be included to differentiate between waste tires and reusable tires, and that this would be especially important for enforcement ( '\ \J () , '- --./ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Four Mr. spotts asked if there was a state law that addressed whether a tire had enough tread on it to deem it still usable. Mr. Ronchak stated that it is very difficult to determine what tires are reusable. He stated that there is a state law on this issue. Mr. Spotts felt that too much was being read into this proposal. He stated that the ordinance addressed waste tires. The Planning Commission directed staff to survey some of the tire companies to determine the volume of tires to be used in this ordinance. MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the city Council approval of the Ordinance 8, Section 3.02 Definition as presented, Section 7.04 Uses Excluded as presented, Section 8.01 Exterior Storage as presented, except to strike the word "in" (following shall be allowed) . , ,-) Discussion: Commissioner Sabel asked about the issue Ron addressed regarding any tires not attached to a vehicle. Mr. Ferris agreed this would not include any tire attached to a vehicle. Mr. Vis tad had a question on how this would affect tire swings. It was decided it would not affect them. Roll call: Vistad-no, Sabel-yes, spotts-yes, Ferris-yes, Pease-yes, Bernard-yes. Motion carried. Commissioner Sabel still requested that Mr. Blake do the research that was asked earlier about the 250 tires. This item will go to the City Council on May 2nd. HEIDELBERGER. RICK AND MARIAN. VARIANCE Mr. Blake stated that this item is a continuation of the variance request of Rick and Marion Heidelberger at 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard. The property has two uses on it -- it houses Mom's Auto Salvage and has a residential structure on it, along with the garage in question. The garage is considered non- conforming pursuant to Ordinance #8, Section 4.03, Subsections A and B, and Section 4.05, Subsection F. " '\ '-.../ ( \ \J u '\ I '-J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Five Mr. Blake stated that the strict interpretation does not cause practical difficulties and/or necessary hardships to the property owner, and that the mere location of the building does not constitute a hardship. Mr. Blake also explained that the garage is currently an illegal structure, built without a building permit. It was the staff's recommendation that the variance request to complete construction of a non-conforming accessory structure be denied. Mr. Blake also stated that he had spoken with Mr. Heidelberger this week, and he related that he would be very willing to work with the City to do whatever needs to be done to make the structure conform to code. , " V Mr. spotts asked if in the future when Bunker Lake Boulevard is widened at that point, does Mr. Heidelberger have enough footage for both the principal structure and the garage. In Mr. Blake's discussions with Anoka County, the plans are for Bunker Lake Boulevard to be a four-lane road with turning lanes between Round Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. It is Mr. Blake's understanding, that the County will need 60 feet from the center of the existing road (the road is roughly 32 feet wide now). The plans for development from that area include a frontage road from Thrush Street all the way to Jay Street. Mr. Vistad reiterated the fact that the garage was built as a non-conforming structure, with no building permit. Mr. Blake agreed that the structure was started and completed without any building permits, and that the roof of the structure does not meet the state building code. Although, stated Mr.Blake, Mr. Heidelberger has agreed to redo the roof so it would meet the building code. Mr. Heidelberger stated that until the four-lane road is built, the structure on his property is well off the road, and does not create any hazard for anybody. , '- Mr. Vistad asked if Mr. Heidelberger was aware that this was a non-conforming structure. He was aware that he did not have a permit to complete the structure. He feels that the building inspector doesn't have credentials to tell him how many pounds per square foot his roof can hold. Mr. Heidelberger stated again that he would do what needed to be done to make the building conform to code. \.J (- \ U ~J , "- , ') \....../ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Six Ms. Sabel asked if a variance was granted for this project, would he plan to finish the other incompleted structures with variances also. Mr. Heidelberger stated he gave Mr. Blake a tour, and he proposed to tear down most of the other structures. Mr. Vistad stated that the party realizes he violated the ordinances and he's trying to bargain his way out -- Mr. Vistad did not think this was a proper way to handle things. MOTION was made by Commissioner Bernard, seconded by Commissioner Sabel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance requested by Mr. Rick Heidelberger, 2052 Bunker Lake Boulevard for the following reasons: A hardship was created due to the fact that the concrete footings and walls were there before he took possession of the land and that it would not adversely affect the existing or adjacent lands, and the fact that when the road is widened, if it takes the house, it will take the garage structure at the same time. f \ Discussion: Mr. spotts would like included in the motion ~ the fact that this structure is illegal pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 4.05, Subsection F; also there was no building permit obtained according to Ordinance 8, Section 9 (B); Section 4.03, Subsection B states that no structural alteration shall be made to a non-conforming structure; also there is a violation of Section 4.03, Subsection A in that a structure that was non- conforming is still in continuation today. Mr. Bernard has an addition to his motion to state that Mr. Rick Heidelberger would make arrangements with the appropriate architect and engineers to build a structure that meets all the building code requirements. The maker of the motion and the seconder agreed to including these additions into the motion. Mr. Ferris made the comment that he did not understand what the hardship was in this case. Mr. Bernard stated that footings and walls was put in 15 years ago, before Mr. Rick Heidelberger owned the property. He took over ownership of the property after this structure had already been started. Mr. Ferris was also concerned about the number of ordinance violations that have taken place on this property. \ 'J Mr. Vistad asked how the City could expect any other citizen to abide by the City's building codes or ordinances, and by approving this item, they are totally meaningless. /" '\ U CJ " ) '-- ./ Andover Planning and Zoning commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Seven Ms. Pease asked if double fees would be charged because a permit was not obtained. Mr. Blake stated yes, they could charge double fees. She also asked if the building permit could be issued if the variance granted to bring the building up to specifications. Mr. Blake stated that all the plans and specifications would have to be approved by the building inspector. There would have to be variances for setback of building, a variance that it is a non-conforming building that is being completed and life of the building is being prolonged, and a variance to the fact that he did obtain a building permit. This would allow Mr. Heidelberger to get a building permit after the fact. Mr. Vis tad referred to Section 5.04, Variances and Appeals, where it is stated that hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land and not the property owner. Mr. Vis tad doesn't feel the hardship, as Mr. Bernard previously stated in his motion, is a consideration in this case. o Roll call: Sabel-Yes, Bernard-Yes, Spotts-Yes, Ferris-No, Vistad-No, Pease-Yes. Motion carried. This will go to the City Council on May 2nd. Mr. Spotts stated that he would like some of the stipulations to come from Mr. Heidelberger, and not the City Council. Mr. Vistad wanted the following statement included for the record and for the City Council to review: He feels if the City Council passes this, because there are so many gross violations, it would be a true indication of setting a precedent in our community that would make our building requirements, permits and ordinances a total sign of worthlessness. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. ORDINANCE 8 AMENDMENT. VEHICLE WASH ESTABLISHMENTS Mr. Blake explained that this item was a continuation of the discussion regarding the amendment to Ordinance 8 that would allow vehicle wash establishments by Special Use Permit in a Neighborhood (NB) District. " .....~ u : '1 V ", '-.., ..J Andover Planning and zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eight He also stated that several questions arose as concerns -- which types of establishments would be appropriate within the NB district, what type/style of wash establishments would be appropriate for the NB district. Mr. Blake added a definition of a vehicle wash establishment that also is the definition used by the City of Minneapolis and under Section 7.03 Special Uses 7.03, added that vehicle wash establishments as an accessory use with a service station and 2,000 square feet of retail space and with no more than one washing stall. Ms. Sabel asked why Mr. Blake determined that two vehicles could fit in the stall -- Mr. Blake commented that one stall was for the wash area and one stall would be for the drying area. - " '0 Mr. Spotts asked what neighborhood districts in the City could be affected by this proposal and where, in the future, would these NB districts be located. Mr. Blake outlined the areas of the current neighborhood districts -- locations of SuperAmerica, the Speedy Market, the Meadowcreek Office Building, Hidden Creek outlot, and some are along Hanson Boulevard near Hills of Bunker Lake. Mr. Blake also explained that as the city redoes its Comprehensive Plan, this is an issue the City will have to address; the City will have to be very protective as to how the City chooses to develop along the major county roads. Mr. Spotts also asked if other communities allowed this type of use in their neighborhood districts -- Mr. Blake stated that yes, they do with special use permits (restricting with number of hours, type of hours, what it has to be accessory to, etc.). Chairman reopened the public hearing. Richard Thompson, car washes in Andover. noisy. 3422 134th Avenue, spoke in disapproval of He felt the car washes are too loud and Dale Strassburg, 3422 136th Lane, is also concerned in general of the NB districts in Andover. He felt that Typhoon Car Wash in Anoka is a single bay establishment, and was concerned that this type of car wash could conceivably fit under the proposed ordinance definitions. Also, he asked if the hours of operation would be limited, and how about the number of employees. Also, he doesn't feel car washes belong in a " neighborhood districts as the property values are then affected. :'J ~. \ ~ f, ~ ~ , 'J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Nine Mr. Strassburg felt the City has a right to protect the rights of citizens as homeowners. He asked how many general business areas are available for building car washes in the City of Andover. Mr. Blake stated that there are three areas of general business in the City -- one is full, and one of the areas will not be developed for another five-ten years. Sharon Widmark, 3501 136th Avenue NW, related the 3.02 definition of the proposed ordinance. She feels the detached car washes are very noisy. She had the feeling that the City was talking about only attached car washes. She wants to go on record saying that she doesn't want car washes at all in established neighborhood businesses, and also the City needs to look at the rights of the landowners. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Ferris to close the pUblic hearing. Ms. Sabel agrees that the detached car wash would not be appropriate in a neighborhood business district. Also, Ms. Sabel : ') doesn't like the concept of two cars being housed at one time. '-/ She wanted it noted that this car wash would be as an accessory use with a service station and 2,000 square feet of retail space. Mr. Ferris was concerned about whether a car wash is appropriate for the neighborhood business area -- he feels it should be restricted to the general business areas. Mr. Vistad stated that the car wash in the neighborhood business area would be as a convenience for the customers using the service station that is already there. He feels that the two vehicles in the stalls would be necessary as one is needed for washing, and one would be needed for the drying bay. MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Vis tad that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Ordinance 8, as hereby amended, 3.02 Definitions as presented, Section 7 Uses, Subsection 7.03 Special Uses as presented. Discussion: deleting the word Mr. Spotts stated Mr. Bernard asked if the maker would consider detached building and just keeping in attached. that he wanted the wording as he presented it. f--'" Mr. Vis tad stated this is not a stamped approval of the process, but that each case would have to come before the City in the form of aSking for a special use permit. 'J , \ U u '\ , ) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Page Ten Roll call: Bernard-no, Spotts-no, Ferris-no, Pease-no, Vistad-yes, Sabel-no. Motion fails. This item will be forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation on May 2nd. PUBLIC HEARING. ECHO HILL Mr. Haas stated that the Planning Commission review and the preliminary plat requested by Mr. Robert Heliker. Mr. Haas explained that the proposed preliminary plat is currently zoned R-l, single family rural, minimum area of 2.5 acre lots. Mr. Haas commented that many variances from the ordinance would be required to approve this preliminary plat -- lots 1-5 of Block 1, Phase 1 would require variances as they front on arterial streets, lots 1 and 4 of Block 1 in Phase II do not meet the requirement of 300 feet at the building setback line and , ') would need variances, and in Phase II, an existing pole barn and '-/ two existing garages are located in front of the existing home and would require variances. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Kane, surveyor for Mr. Heliker, stated he's brought in a number of plats that have had less than 300 feet frontage in a cul-de-sac, and almost every time they've been approved. Although Mr. Heliker is willing to extend the road to the property line, that would make the lot undersized, and feels this is a hardship. The City staff disagrees that this is a hardship. Mr. Vistad asked why on Lot 4 went into Lot 3 at an angle, rather than running it straight back. Mr. Kane stated that Mr. Heliker it would be a very nice building site to overlook the valley. MOTION was made by Commissioner Sabel, seconded by Commissioner Bernard to close the public hearing. Mr. Ferris expressed his view that he would have trouble approving the plat, knowing that there were so many variances that would be needed. , ,~ (j () ( " \,J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eleven , --. : I '--./ MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Echo Hills with the following legal description to be attached (that part of West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8 Township 32 Range 24 Anoka County, Minnesota lying westerly of the center line of Valley Drive NW). A pUblic hearing was held, and there was no opposition. The plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer and by the Anoka County Highway Department. This approval is sUbject to Park Board dedication fees being met. Variances are granted for Lot 1 and Lot 4 of Block 1, Phase II pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 on lot width on front setback line of 300 feet. Both of these will have less than 300 feet. A variance is granted for 168th Lane right-of-way to be extended to the west property line. A variance is to be granted for the existing pole barn and the two existing garages located in Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1, and those are to be declared into non-conforming structures, where 'they could not be altered or added onto. A variance is granted for the driveways of Lot 1,2,3,4,5 of Block 1, Phase I pursuant to Section 8.03 - fronting onto a County road. There is a hardship due to the topography of the land of Phase II concerning Lots 1,2,3,4 and because of existing property lines. Discussion: Mr. Vistad wanted to add to his motion a variance to be granted for Lot 4, Block 1, Phase II for the property line between Lots 3 and 4 to extend straight back, instead of angling. The maker of the motion and seconder agreed to this addition to the motion. Roll call: spotts-Yes, Ferris-No, Pease-Yes, Vistad-Yes, Sabel-Yes, Bernard-Yes. Motion carries. This item will go to the City Council on May 2nd. SKETCH PLAN: KIRBY ESTATES Todd Haas presented the sketch plan for the Planning Commission to review by Kay and Wayne Olson, owner of the property. :: ) Mr. Haas stated that Kirby Estates is zoned in an R-4, single family urban district, with six lots are being proposed. He also stated that the City staff has been working with the developer and the City of Coon Rapids for the alignment of Hummingbird Street so there is a full intersection and for the development of a storm drainage pond which will be located in Outlot A of Kirby Estates. (- " u o ~-'\ <~ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Twelve Jay Blake reported that the City of Coon Rapids sent a notice and will hold a hearing tomorrow night regarding the preliminary plat in the Maxwell Estates. One of the items to be discussed is the alignment of Hummingbird Street. Mr. Blake also stated that there may need to be a variance for lot depth of lot 11 located on the west side of the proposed Hummingbird Street because a hardship has been created with Hummingbird Street located on the Coon Rapids side of 133rd Avenue. Mr. Vis tad asked if it would be possible to propose to Coon Rapids to move Hummingbird street over a little bit, so no variance would be required. Mr. Blake stated that it would be dividing two property lines and would make it more difficult to do this. Chairman Pease took an informal poll of the Commission to see if the sketch plan meets with their approval at this point in time. All commissioners agreed this plan is fine. , , . ."-.J Commissioner Spotts had a question of what would become of Outlot A -- Mr. Blake stated it would probably be some sort of drainage area. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on May 2nd. PUBLIC HEARING: MORRELL, MINING PERMIT Mr. Haas explained that Mr. Larry Morrell requested a Special Use Permit to mine dirt as required per Ordinance 8, Section 4.24. He also stated that since the spring of 1988 the City of Andover has been strictly enforcing property owners and contractors that are actively mining dirt, to obtain the necessary permits from local, state and federal governments. An observation was made by the city staff during 1988 that Mr. Morrell had been mining and removing dirt since about 1981 without a Special Use Permit. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. .',\ ,,-) Mr. Haas stated that Mr. Morrell was planning to excavate approximately 30,000 cubic yards over the period of a few years. City Staff recommends the excavation goes at least six feet to alleviate problems with vegetation. (' ~ o (J Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Thirteen Mr. Vistad stated that it was his understanding that for previous mining permits, it was a requirement to show the actual before grade and final grade on the sketches, and the grades/slopes going into the pond areas. Why wasn't this information included now? Mr. Haas stated although it was not indicated, it would be their usual procedure to have 5:1 or 4:1 slopes on the banks, and the depth of the pond would be five feet. Mr. Haas stated that Mr. Nordeen brought in a drawing similar to this, and his plan didn't indicate any grades/slopes at that time. Ms. Sabel asked if that was the County ditch that was shown on the diagram. Todd Haas reported that Mr. Morrell is required to get approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that it would be helpful to have this information in the City files. Chairman Pease asked why there hasn't been a special use permit up until now. Mr. Haas stated that there hasn't been any complaints on Mr. Morrell's activities of mining dirt, and that the City has just begun enforcement of this section of the , , ordinance. o Mr. Ferris asked about the approximate amount of acreage Todd Haas estimated between 2-3 acres. Mr. Ferris also asked if there are restrictions set up on the directions the vehicles would travel. Mr. Blake commented that there are no such restrictions on the route of travel. MOTION was made by Commissioner Sabel, seconded by Commissioner Vistad, to close the public hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. MOTION was made by Commissioner Bernard, seconded by Commissioner Spotts, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Larry Morrell at 1850 167th Avenue NW for the purpose of mining black dirt. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards. It will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values and it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and City's Comprehensive Plan. A pUblic hearing was held, and there was no opposition. o The applicant is requested to make reasonable use of the property without altering the topography greatly. u o C) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Fourteen Safety precautions are to be taken at the end of each working day to prevent injury to playing children, bike riders, snowmobilers, etc. The applicant is required to restore the banks of the mined area after the area has been excavated using an approved topsoil, seed and/or vegetation or brush to establish erosion control. The applicant shall provide the City of Andover with a security bond to hold the City harmless against road damage and for restoration of the site as determined by the City Engineer. Signs are to be placed on both sides of the driveway (haul road) indicating trucks hauling. Hauling of material is Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. It is recommended by City Staff that Mr. Morrell be 1n contact with the various governmental agencies to obtain the f ~ necessary permits and issuing a copy of such to the City for ,~ their files. The maximum amount of cubic yardage would be 30,000, with an annual review for the special use permit. This approval of the mining permit is in reference to Ordinance 8, Section 4.24. All voted yes. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on May 2nd. PUBLIC HEARING: BENOLKIN, AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT Mr. Haas presented this agenda item, explaining that this was a request by Jim Benolkin for mining at 16040 University Avenue. The reason, Todd stated, this permit is back for review is that the original Special Use Permit asked for only six months to complete the work. As Mr. Benolkin did not complete the work in six months, he is aSking for an amended Special Use Permit for one year, with an annual review. Chairman Pease opened the pUblic hearing. , '\ ',--.j ( ~ l) o ~) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Fifteen Mr. Bernard asked why thiz was being brought before the Commission. Mr. Haas explained that Mr. Benolkin thought the jOb could be completed within six months, and because it was not, a review was required by the Planning Commission for an extension on the Special Use Permit. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Sabel to close the public hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the extended Special Use Permit for one year with annual review requested by Mr. Benolkin, at 16040 University Avenue. All previous requirements are to continue on this extension of the Special Use Permit No. R-074-88. A pUblic hearing held, and there was no opposition. No discussion. C) All voted yes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: STRAUSS, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, RETAIL SALES IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Mr. Blake stated that this is a request for a special use permit by Michael Strauss to allow retail trade and sales in an Industrial District (pursuant to Ordinance 8, Section 7.03). Mr. Strauss proposes to lease a portion of the building (currently known as Andover Tire Town) located at 13650 rrw Hanson Boulevard to operate a mail order or phone-in four-wheel drive parts business. Mr. Blake reviewed the four items of criteria for the Planning Commission to evaluate this proposal. He found that there will not be any detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; that the proposed use should not have a detrimental effect on the traffic or parking congestion on the property; that the proposal will not have a negative effect on the property values; and that the proposal meets policy objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. ~ MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Vistad to close the public hearing. ~ , u o \ , ) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Sixteen Mr. Spotts asked if this means retail sale of new tires. Mr. Blake explained that this proposal is for mail-order only. Mr. Elling asked if Mr. Blake had checked it out with the City Attorney to see if it was okay to issue two special use permits on the same parcel. Mr. Blake stated that he had not, but he would check it out. Mr. Vistad asked what the other owner would be selling. Mr. Blake stated that the other owner would be looking to operate a tire sales business. Mr. Vistad thought that because someone could be ordering a set of new tires for a four-wheel vehicle (through the mail order), then new tires could be included in this special use permit. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Ferris that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Michael Strauss for the operation of a retail business in an Industrial District located at 13650 NW :. ) Hanson Boulevard, as allowed by Ordinance 8, Section 7.03 with .~ any or all of the following conditions: A. The storage of equipment associated with this business shall not be allowed outside the building, unless a special use permit for such storage is approved by the City Council. B. The applicant must submit signage plans and obtain the appropriate sign permits prior to installation. C. The storage of new or used auto parts outside of the structure is not allowed. A public hearing was held, and there was no opposition. The use shall not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. The proposed use shall not have a detrimental effect on traffic or traffic congestion on the proposal. The proposal will not have a negative effect on the property values in the surrounding area. The proposal meets pOlicy objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal is contingent upon the review and approval by the City Attorney. ~) Discussion: Mr. Ferris asked if this permit was done on an annual-review basis. Mr. Blake stated that these types of permits would just continue, unless complaints are received. u o () Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Seventeen Mr. Vistad wanted the following statement added to his motion: For the operation of a mail order or phone-in four-wheel drive parts business and retail of new tires. The seconder agreed with this addition. Mr. Ferris thought that the wording about retail of new tires should not be included. Mr. Vistad agreed that it would be okay to delete that part of the statement (retail of new tires) in the motion so that it would read: For the operation of a mail order or phone-in four-wheel drive parts business. Mr. Spotts asked how the new owners would repair/clean up the outside of the building. Mr. Blake stated that the City is working with the owners with some planning/signage/etc. All voted yes. Motion carried. This item will go to the City Council on May 2nd. u PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT: MERRYMAIDS. BUSINESS OPERATION IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Mr. Blake reviewed the request for a Special Use Permit by Laurel Landowski to allow the operation of a home cleaning business in an R-4 single family residential district, Section 7.03. Mr. Blake explained that the home cleaning business is currently being run from an accessory garage at 13857 NW Underclift Street, and the operation has existed for approximately 2-1/2 years and employs 18-20 people. The Andover Deputy had cited the business for violating several sections of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to those violations, Mr. Blake stated that the significant problem was that the business does not meet the criteria of a Home Occupation and the fact that the business is being operated from an accessory structure. Chairman Pease opened the pUblic hearing. ~) Mr. Vistad stated that if this business was a minor repair service, there may be 18 clients in one day coming to that house. Mr. Blake stated that the similar use was not as much of an issue, but the issue was that the business was run from the accessory building, and it was remodeled without a special use permit. ( " u o / -" \..._~ Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Eighteen Mr. Vis tad then asked if the employees were to receive their daily assignments from the actual home, would it then still be a problem. Mr. Blake stated that this would alleviate a lot of the problem. Laurel Landowski stated that she is the owner and purchased the franchise six years ago. She also explained that people come to the office at 7:45 a.m. and disperse at 8:10. She also mentioned that her property is uniquely set up to accommodate the employee vehicles that remain there during the day on her large driveway. The employees do return at the end of the day to return the equipment. Mr. Vistad asked storage of equipment. accessory building is telephone there. if the accessory building was used for Ms. Landowski replied that yes, the used for this purpose and also there is the () Ms. Landowski stated that there is no customer contact at her site and that all the sales are made over the phone. She also explained that since she had been notified that there was a problem with the on-street parking, that it has been eliminated, with the exception for half an hour in the mornings, there are 2- 3 cars on the street. Ms. Landowski stated she has heard no complaints from the neighbors. Also there were written statements from Bruce and Shirley Juhl (neighbors) which stated that they have no objections whatsoever to the continued operation of the business. Also a written statement was submitted by Carla McCoy indicating that she lives across the street from Ms. Landowski and that there is no extra noise/traffic problems associated with her business. A third written statement was received by Mr. David Burnett who lives at 3654 139th Lane NW asking that there be no on-street parking due to the number of bicyclists and pedestrians in the area and also that he was in favor of Ms. Landowski getting her permit. Mr. Vis tad felt that to include this type of business as a home occupation might be a proper solution, thus not requiring a special use permit. Mr. Blake stated that the ordinance would have to be amended first. Mr. Vis tad agreed to this, stating that he didn't think this type of home business would create any traffic problems. , ') "- l) () :j Andover Planning and Zoning commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Nineteen Ms. Sabel asked how are businesses such as daycares and Amway classified. Jay Blake stated that they are considered home occupations if they're operated out of the home and they fit under the "similar uses" category. Mr. Bernard asked if Ms. Landowski ran the business out of her home, would that solve the problem. Mr. Blake stated that would solve the biggest problem with this situation, and he felt that he could work with Ms. Landowski to alleviate the on-street parking situation. Ms. Landowski asked if she moves her telephone from her accessory structure to the kitchen in her home, that would be technically running her business from her home. The Commission agreed that this would, in effect, allow her to run her business from her home. Ms. Pease asked about the equipment being stored in the garage structure. Mr. Blake related that the equipment being stored in the garage would not be a problem. r " \ ~ Mr. Ferris asked if Ms. Landowski's business is growing to the point where there might be 30+ employees in the near future. Ms. Landowski reported that her business has leveled off since last year, and she doesn't anticipate any tremendous growth. Mr. Vistad stated that he didn't feel a special use permit was necessary. Mr. Blake recommended that the Commission should still go through the permit process and have a waiver of the three additional parking spaces. Mr. Ferris asked if the item 1) C in the recommendation for approval would need to be accomplished having the applicant obtain building permits to remodel the accessory structure back to its original use as garage and storage. Mr. Blake stated that he could probably work with the applicant on this item and that his concern was that no business is conducted out of this building. Mr. Spotts questioned the applicant what restore the garage to its original structure. the overhead garage door was affixed shut. it would take to She stated that , ) '- Mr. Spotts asked the applicant how many vehicles in general are left on the premises each day. Ms. Landowski stated that Monday-Wednesday, approximately 3-6 employee cars are parked in her driveway from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.; on Thursday and Friday about nine cars are parked from 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. r~ ~~ , , ,~ , ~ J u o Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Twenty MOTION was made by Commissioner Sabel, seconded by Commissioner Vistad to close the pUblic hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. MOTION was made by Commissioner Sabel, seconded by Commissioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Laurel Landowski with the stipulations listed in Option 1 provided by staff which include: A) That the operation shall be conducted from the principal structure and no business shall be conducted from the accessory structure. B) The parking plan to be worked out with the City Planner. C) The Special Use Permit shall be reviewed in six months to establish if the operation is in compliance with all City Ordinances. An annual review will occur after the initial inspection. Discussion: It was recommended to include in the motion that a public hearing was held, and letters of support were entered into the public record. The maker of the motion and the seconder agreed to this addition. All votes yes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT. ANOKA COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT This permit request, described by Mr. Blake, is to allow the construction of a public utility structure in a Residential District, as required by Ordinance 8, Section 7.03 Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. Mr. Dave Torgelson, Director of the Parks and Recreation for Anoka County, reviewed the proposal to construct a storage building (36' x 104') on the property located at 1350 NW Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated that the equipment sits outside, and that they needed this storage building to protect the equipment. ~ ) ~J ~ ) () , (--) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Twenty-One Mr. Ferris restated Mr. Blake's understanding that the only problem with this proposal was the setback from the rear lot line and that 50 feet setback is required in an R-l single family district. Mr. Torgelson clarified to the Commission that it is a fence (not the lot line) that is twenty feet from the southern property line, and that the setback is 2-1/4 miles from 242. MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Vistad to close the public hearing. All voted yes. Motion carried. MOTION was made by Commissioner Vistad, seconded by Commissioner Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Anoka County Parks Department for the construction of a public utility structure in an R-l single- family residential district located at 1350 NW Bunker Lake Boulevard. The proposed use shall meet all the criteria outlined by the City, but limited to: A) The building plans shall be approved by the Andover Review Committee prior to construction. B) The applicant shall provide necessary lighting for the building and surrounding areas. This will not area; and A public hearing was held, and there was no opposition. structure will not cause serious traffic congestion; it have a significant impact on the property values in the it is in harmony with the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The effect of this proposed use will have little or no impact on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. This proposed use is required by Ordinance 8, Section 7.03. All voted yes. Motion carried. This item will go to the City Council on May 2nd. ~-) ~J '" '\ o / " ~) ,-, ( ) \..... Andover Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 1989 Meeting Minutes Page Twenty-Two APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Bernard to approve the special minutes of the March 21, 1989 minutes and the March 28, 1989 (regular) minutes. All voted yes. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT MOTION was made by Commissioner Spotts, seconded by Commissioner Bernard to adjourn the regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (Plan.5)