Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/06C I I T Y O F • 1 6 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 December 12, 2006 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — November 28, 2006. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (06 -11) to allow outdoor storage on property located at 13533 Jay Street NW. 4. Work Session: a. City Code 11 -3 -6 Buildability b. End of year conversation 5. Other Business: 6. Adjournment k C I T Y 0 F N� DOVEK j` 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 - November 28, 2006 DATE: December 12, 2006 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the November 28, 2006 meeting. 0 0 F7 • r_1 LJ L] PLANNING AND ZONING COADaSSION MEETING —NO VEAOER 28, 2006 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on November 28, 2006, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, and Devon Walton. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Rex Greenwald and Michael King. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 14, 2006 Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- present (Kirchoff, Walton), 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SKETCH PLAN TO CONSIDER OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD AND 157 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz stated the applicant is seeking direction from the Planning Commission and Council on their idea to construct a rural office development. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. r Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 28, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Sue Wagenstein and Steve Haag, Minneapolis Real Estate Developers, stated they • were at the meeting seeking to develop an office complex. She stated they would like to offer office space at a more affordable rate than what is currently found in the area. She stated they would like to start off with one office building and have a maxim of four and to maintain the rural setting of the area. Ms. Wagenstein made a presentation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff noted Ms. Wagenstein indicated she talked to the County and they thought a right- in/right -out on County Road 9 would be feasible. Ms. Wagenstein stated that was correct. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the County said anything about County 20 and an access there. Ms. Wagenstein felt the County would want a main access onto County 20 and would be the best access. She stated they could also consider keeping the access on County 9 as a fire access. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in looking at the development, did they feel they were limited by not having sewer and water there and maybe this site in the future would have a greater value at a higher intensity. Ms. Wagenstein thought it was partly due to the septic and well that they would need to install but they have never been developers to abuse the property. They would like it to be nice and quaint and they could be more dense if they wanted to but this is what would work for them economically and create a different setting. Mr. Steve Haag, 4765 Chandler Road, Shoreview, stated this was option D. They actually had more square footage on this site on some of their earlier options. He stated they could get more square footage on this property and still provide for sanitation treatment, storm water ponding and a private well. He indicated they have an opportunity here to do something that is in keeping in character of the neighborhood and they want to take advantage of that so that is why they are presenting this option. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what kind of materials they had in mind for the buildings. Ms. Wagenstein indicated they would be trying to achieve the Tuscan look indicated in the latest photographs and that all of the buildings would be one level. Mr. Haag noted they are trying to be sensitive to the trees that are on the site. Chairperson Daninger asked if the reason for this site was because of the cost versus other commercial sites in Andover. Ms. Wagenstein indicated the primary drive and focus was they were looking fora great site where they could create this type of environment. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Rural Reserve did not move forward, would this affect their intent to move forward. Ms. Wagenstein indicated it would not. They would still Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 28, 2006 • Page 3 do the septic and well until a future date when there would be utilities. They planned this into the site so it would be easier to connect in the future. Chairperson Daninger asked when the sketch plan before them be complete if they were allowed to build all four buildings. Ms. Wagenstein indicated they would have a lot of it complete by next fall, at least one or two buildings. Mr. Haag indicated it would depend on the acceptance by the market, it could be one to four years. Chairperson Daninger asked if the parking would be complete as seen or would it grow with the buildings. Mr. Haag indicated it would grow with the buildings. Chairperson Daninger stated there was talk about school and commercial property here when they were discussing the Rural Reserve, would this be the spot they discussed. Mr. Bednara stated it could actually be on the east side of Round Lake Boulevard in the Rural Reserve itself. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the parking would serve retail as well as office. Ms. Wagenstein indicated they would not provide retail in this development. They were looking for professional services such as accounting, dental, etc. • Commissioner Holthus asked how tall the office buildings would be. Mr. Haag stated they would all be one story buildings. Chairperson Daninger wondered if the Commission thought the office buildings fit in this area of the City. Commissioner Kirchoff stated at face value, looking at the photos, County Road 20 and County Road 9 will be busy in the future. He thought this was a little premature but not out of character. Commissioner Holthus thought the development looked very attractive but there is the question of when the Rural Reserve will be developed and when utilities will be available. She thought this may be out of character for some time until the Rural Reserve is developed. She did not know if this was the right place for it. Commissioner Casey thought it has a lot of good potential especially with the Rural Reserve across the street and eventually coming. He thought this might be a good pace setter for the whole Rural Reserve area once it does come in. He stated right now the area is very underdeveloped and across from the Andover Industrial area which is in bad need of some sort of development. Commissioner Walton stated he struggled with the location being that close to residential • but they are acreage properties there and it is a busy intersection and will be difficult to put a residential property there. He felt the corner is not residential and should be commercial of some type. He was not certain if office was the best fit for the space but Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 28, 2006 Page 4 the appearance may blend in better with the residential than any other square pointed • building might. Chairperson Daninger stated if this was allowed, he wondered if anyone would have an issue with the sketch plan, Alternative D. Commissioner Holthus asked what the tree preservation plan would be. She thought according to the sketch plan a lot of trees would have to go. Chairperson Daninger thought a lot would have to go because of the pavement and the buildings and storm pond. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he was concerned that if a really intense development were proposed, it would not have good access because of its proximity to the intersection, which he expected to carry even more traffic in the future. He liked the lower intensity of the proposed development because the access is limited. He supported this on the site itself because he considered this to be relatively low intensity. Chairperson Daninger thought the underlying guidance is that it may be premature. if it was closer to some other things, the sketch plan might be doable other than the fact they would want a little more detail. His guidance is this is not a no, but their concern is it may be too early. There are a lot of restrictions. He thought if they were going to vote it would be a no but maybe as they move forward of the Rural Reserve development gets . closer, it may be a yes. That could be six months or five years. They may struggle if they see this and probably if they had to make a recommendation, he was sensing it would be a vote for no. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 5, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERAHT (06 -10) TO ALLOW A CHURCH ONRESIDENTL4L PROPERTY LOCATED AT 475 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Cross explained Sambulsa of Minnesota, Inc. has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Buddhist temple on a residential property at the northeast corner of the intersection of Andover Boulevard and Prairie Road NW. Churches are conditional uses in residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission was asked to determine whether this use is appropriate and/or needs to be modified to prevent adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Walton stated in reviewing the letter that was provided from Mr. Mark • Smith, if most of the items on the letter are zoning requirements. Mr. Cross stated most Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 28, 2006 • Page 5 of the items addressed are either addressed by zoning requirements or in the commercial site plan review. Commissioner Kirchoff how large the existing structure was. Mr. Cross stated the area of the existing house is roughly thirteen hundred square feet. Commissioner Kirchoff noted it would be thirty -eight hundred square feet with the additions. Mr. Cross indicated that was correct. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Mr. Kent Meister, 541 Andover Boulevard, stated in reviewing the paperwork the City sent them that the criteria to grant or deny a Conditional Use Permit includes a variety of items. One of them being Item 1B: "existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent properties and land". He thought the key word was anticipated. He did not know if there was a formula they can create to uncover what they will have down the road but in the letter prepared by the representative of Sambulsa, it states only fifteen to twenty families attend services on the average Sunday. He stated while this may be accurate, it may be also immaterial to them. In a growing City like Andover, that number is going to grow as well as their church size. One of the reasons they are looking to expand in Andover because in discussion with the City of Brooklyn Park where they currently worship they could not meet setback requirements to expand their current facility. The fact they are planning to expand is quite obvious to all. Mr. Meister stated in discussions with the City's Building Officials they shared one major concern, which was onsite parking. He wondered who will police the parking situation if it becomes too small in the next three years. He thought they should try to be proactive instead of reactive in this scenario. If they end up with cars parking out on Prairie Road like they do at Prairie Knoll Park, they will have a mess. Mr. Meister stated there are a number of concerns he has. He stated City Code 13 -06 in the City Code book states "all commercial buildings two thousand square foot or over require fire suppression systems ". This home is not serviced by sewer and water and he did not believe there are any plans for it to ever be serviced by sewer and water. He noted just the cost on this for a well is extremely high. There are also immense costs to making the building completely handicap accessible. Septic and well probably need to be replaced. City Code also requires that any parking lot, driveway, anything of that nature be paved with curb and gutter and storm sewer. These are costs he hoped the applicant was aware of because they are extraordinarily high costs to do these things. Mr. Meister stated when this plan does go to commercial site review, if it is approved, his discussions with the County indicated that they will require that both driveways be removed off of Andover Boulevard and all traffic be directed to Prairie Road, which • would require quite a bit of land moving and a lot of work to be done there. He also wondered how this proposed plan is less intrusive than a person running a small company Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 28, 2006 Page 6 out of there because with this plan, there could be more traffic than a small business • would have. Chairperson Daninger stated a small business would also require a Conditional Use Permit and they would explore the same way they are exploring this one. Mr. Meister asked if the applicant would be tax exempt. Mr. Bednarz believed the church would be tax exempt if they could meet the State's requirements in terms of reporting. Mr. Meister suggested they look at expanding the area of notification in rural areas because this mailing only reached people within 350 feet of the property and more neighbors should be notified than just the surrounding neighbors. Chairperson Daninger indicated that was a good idea- Mr. Scott Daninberg, 425 Andover Boulevard, asked how many people will end up in the church five to ten years from now. He also wondered about the septic system because he did not think the current septic could handle this number of people. He wondered how this will affect him because he has a shared driveway with the applicant. Mr. Archie Zahler, 15309 Cottonwood Street NW, Andover, stated the main reason he was here is because he knows what a nightmare it is for them at times to get out of the east side of Andover. They have railroad tracks and Prairie Knoll Park is a nightmare, now they are going to add more cars and traffic on a road that is deadly. Andover • Boulevard going to the east through Ham Lake is very dangerous and does not need any more traffic. He stated he did not know where they will put all of the cars on a two lane road. He stated this road cannot handle additional traffic. He thought there were better places for this project than this area. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Mr. Jack Prescott, representing Sambulsa, stated as a fifteen year member of the church he would like to say in response to the people concerned about the church growing, ten years ago they were the same size then as they are now. He stated their prayer room in Brooklyn Park is very small and he did not see a significant increase in cars and traffic. He stated this is the only Korean Church in Minnesota and the Korean population is not increasing. He stated they do not look for a large growth. They also realize there are big expenses involved and they will try to get over that as well and they will work with the City and be as cooperative as possible. He noted they are tax exempt Chairperson Daninger indicated there was an issue regarding the shared driveway and he asked staff to look into this. Mr. Prescott stated if there is a problem with this they will adjust their plans to fit the circumstances. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 28, 2006 • Page 7 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if things come up where they were asked to vacate Andover Boulevard and move the access to Prairie Road, would this be something the church would be willing to look at. Mr. Prescott stated they would. Commissioner Holthus wondered if the Korean Buddhist had significant holidays that would produce more traffic. Mr. Prescott indicated they have one holiday, which is Buddha's birthday in the late spring. Mr. Prescott indicated they celebrate Thanksgiving and New Years but they are not big celebrations. Commissioner Walton wondered what brought them to this particular site in Andover. Mr. Prescott stated it was because they tried to do something in Brooklyn Park and they put so many things in their way that financially they could not handle it. Commissioner Walton wondered if other sites within Andover had been reviewed and compared with this site. Mr. Prescott stated they have looked around a little bit but they are stuck with RI because the Code says the only place you can put a church is Rl. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was residential districts in general. Commissioner Kirchoff stated if this goes to a Site Plan Review, that is where they will really see some requirements and improvements the applicant will be aware of He did not see a lot of traffic as compared to the Prairie Knoll Park site. He stated this is a large site and there are a lot of requirements already in place on what can be placed on this property. He did not see any real negative issues with this project Commissioner Holthus stated she did not see any negative impacts on the community with the project. She did not know how it will affect the value of properties in the area but she did not see any major negatives at all and she was ok with it also. Commissioner Walton stated he was concerned with the access to Andover Boulevard as well as the impact to the neighbor to the east since there is right now a required shared driveway and he did not know how they will get around that and he did not think it was fair that the resident should have to share that driveway continually with the neighboring property. He would rather see both access points to Prairie Road because Andover Boulevard is probably the faster of the two and Prairie Road could probably handle the traffic better than Andover Boulevard. He thought this was potentially a good spot with this and did not disagree in whole with it Chairperson Daninger indicated staff will look into the shared driveway and what can be done regarding this. Chairperson Daninger stated he looked at other churches in Andover and what is located around them. He stated this is the first time houses were in the area before a church and • the only difference was neighbors did not know a church was coming. He could not find any negative reasons for not allowing this. He stated he did not have an issue with what was before them at this point. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 28, 2006 Page 8 The Commissioner discussed with staff what things the developments in this area would be responsible for the improvements to the roads. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Sambulsa of Minnesota, Inc. and to direct staff to explore the shared driveway. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- (Greenwald, King) absent vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO DELETE CITY CODE 12-14 - 6A.5 PERMITTING DISCRETIONARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OF USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED. Mr. Cross stated based on direction from the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to discuss the deletion of Code Section 12- 14- 6 -A -5, which allows certain Conditional Uses to be located in zoning districts where they are otherwise prohibited. n U Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the actual change would be. Mr. Cross stated the actual change is illustrated best in the Resolution and is the deletion of part five. Commissioner Kirchoff indicated in the most recent addition of Planning magazine there was an article indicating that it was better to list prohibited items than to try to list all permitted uses. He wondered how that would fit with this. Mr. Bednarz stated if they can identify those uses to prohibit it is certainly a very proactive and useful way to approach the subject. In their own code they list uses as permitted and anything that is not listed is in fact prohibited. Part 5 was always the safety valve where if something made sense but was not listed in the code there was the opportunity to entertain it. All of the things Mr. Cross said are accurate in terms of the Council's view of that and why this is being brought forward to be deleted. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to open the public bearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Commissioner Walton stated he saw that part of the City Council meeting and understood • the City Attorney's comments that as stated, "he was not fond of the language ". Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 28, 2006 • Page 9 However, he thought it was important that the City not be so boxed in because if they box in things now, it becomes more difficult to change in the future. If they remove language that gives the City Council the veto power to allow something that in the future makes sense, they will not be able to do it and they may end up with barren land or a building that sits vacant for a number of years because conditional uses in that particular area as they were originally granted don't allow it to be changed or any flexibility in change. That is the only concern he really had in removing this because it makes everything so black and white, it does not allow for any creativity to spawn change. He thought that is what it was intended to be left there for was to give some flexibility and veto power. He thought what Commissioner Kirchoff mentioned made sense. Chairperson Daninger agreed with Commissioner Walton and asked staff if there was another opportunity for Council to make decisions. Mr. Bednarz stated the applicant can always request the City to amend the code to put a use into a Zoning District. Commissioner Holthus stated at the City Council meeting Councilmember Knight suggested they clean up the paragraph that the City Attorney mentioned. She wondered if there was any way they could maintain the flexibility while at the same time make the Council's decisions defendable if challenged. Mr. Bednarz thought that could be done if that is the decision that is selected. Commissioner Walton recommended instead of pulling this and then looking at it and putting it back in, they look at a rewrite with the City Attorney to allow the flexibility to stay there because if they pull it out, it is harder to put it back in. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council to have staff work with the City Attorney to modify but not delete the existing paragraph due to the flexibility that it allows not only the current governing body of Andover but the future governing bodies of Andover and that the City Council's decisions are defendable. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 1 -nays (Daninger), 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that the City is now taking applications for the Planning Commission, Park Commission and Community Center Advisory Commission. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 28, 2006 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, King) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 0 • r� 0 • 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 Planne99 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (06 -11) to allow outdoor storage on property located at 13533 Jay Street NW. DATE: December 12, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking to use the site for storage of dumpsters and concrete equipment and materials as described in the attached letter. Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District. DISCUSSION Chapter 12 -14 -6 of City Code lists the following "Criteria For Granting Conditional Use Permits:" 1. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: a. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is asked to review the attached letter and drawing and determine whether conflicts with the review criteria cited above would be created. If additional information is needed, the applicant may be able to provide the information at the meeting. If conflicts are identified and measures can be taken to mitigate them, reasonable conditions should be attached to the approval to address these items. If conflicts are identified that cannot be adequately addressed, the conditional use permit should be denied. If the conditional use permit is approved, the applicant will be required to complete the commercial site plan review process and meet all of the applicable City Code (zoning, fire, building) requirements. A summary of key requirements is attached. Staff Review of Proposal The site is bordered by industrial zoned property to the north and east, commercial property to the west and residential properties to the south. The potential impacts and potential mitigation strategies are as follows: 1. Operating the business in a way that does not disturb the adjacent residential neighborhood a. Apply the construction hours of City Code 5 -6 -3 which prohibit activity between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00am. Ensure compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements of the City • Code through the commercial site plan process. 2. Meeting the requirements of the City Code a. The site drawing presently does not provide enough information to Uly determine conflicts with the City Code. Completion of the commercial site plan process, involving submittal of the required materials as well as review and comment from all city departments will be necessary. b. Prohibiting a outdoor storage on the property until all required improvements have been completed. 3. Preventing the site from accumulating refuse, debris and other items collected in the rolloff boxes. a. No on site storage of refuse, debris, waste or salvaged material and regular maintenance of the grounds to prevent debris from blowing off the site will be allowed. b. Require dumpsters to be emptied at an appropriate waste collection facility before being returned to the site. 4. Maintaining fire access throughout the storage area. a. Create and maintain fire access lanes as determined by the Fire Chief and shown on the approved commercial site plan. • Staff Recommendation Staff believes that potential adverse impacts can be mitigated. The Planning Commission is asked to determine if the suggested conditions discussed above are sufficient and to determine if there are other potential impacts that have not been identified. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council and to modify the attached resolution with their findings. The attached resolution includes the conditions suggested in the staff report in the event the Planning Commission recommends approval. Attachments Resolution Key City Code Requirements Location Map Applicant's Letter Site Drawing Res ctfully�si{bm' d, o y Bednarz • Cc: Tony Nitti, Nitti Rolloff Services Inc. 23245 Drake Street NW St. Francis, MN 55070 • RES. NO. R • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING/DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13533 JAY STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: THE WEST 272.84 FEET OF LOT 13, WATTS GARDEN ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WEST LINE THEREOF. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD OVER THAT PART THEREOF LYING WITHIN PARCEL 4, CITY OF ANDOVER HIGHWAY RIGHT - OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1. WHEREAS, Tony Nitti has requested approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage on the subject property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request based on City Code 12 -14 -6 and the established criteria for granting conditional use permits; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission finds and recommends approval/denial of the proposed conditional use permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves /denies the conditional use permit application for outdoor storage on the subject property subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall complete the Commercial Site Plan process with the City of Andover to include compliance with all applicable sections of the City Code. 2. No outdoor storage shall be allowed on the subject property until the applicant has completed all of the improvements required through the commercial site plan process. 3. The hours of operation shall only be between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. 4. On site storage of refuse, debris, waste and salvaged material shall be prohibited and the site shall be regularly maintained to prevent debris from blowing off the site. 5. Dumpsters shall be required to be emptied at an appropriate waste collection facility before being returned to the site. 6. Fire access lanes shall be maintained clear of parking or storage in the areas determined by the Fire Chief and shown on the approved commercial site plan Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2006. l_J ATTEST: CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Key City Code Requirements 1. Compliance with Fire and Building Codes for any modifications to the existing building. i Information will need to be provided to show how the interior of the building will be used and/or modified to determine the extent of these requirements. 2. Curb and gutter for the parking areas, drive lanes and storage areas and meeting the minimum setback and dimensions for these items as required by the City Code. The parking area as presently drawn will not meet the required minimum dimensions, including the size of parking stalls and width of drive lanes. Additionally, City Code 12- 13-9E.5. requires a 10 foot setback required along the east property line. 3. The number of parking stalls required by City Code 12 -13 -9 based on the uses and the square footage of each use of the building. More information from the applicant is needed to make this determination. 4. Screening of the east side of the property will also need to comply with City Code 12-13 - 5. The applicant has verbally indicated that the easterly fence will be chain link with slats. This fence and the lack of landscaping will likely be in conflict with City Code 12- 13 -5 which states: "Exterior Storage: Screening from residential properties and public streets shall be provided with an architecturally compatible opaque fence with a minimum height of six feet as measured from the surface of the exterior storage area. Plant material shall be provided on the outside of the fence for aesthetic appeal. Additional fence height and/or berming shall be required if a six foot fence would not block direct vision of the exterior storage." 5. Screening of parking areas from residential properties in compliance with City Code 12- 13 -5 which states: "Parking Areas: Screening from residential properties shall be provided to a minimum height of six feet as measured from the surface of the parking area. Screening from public rights -of -way shall be provided to a minimum height of three feet. Parking area screening must consist of: 1. An architecturally compatible opaque wall or opaque fence. 2. A landscaped berm 3. Two staggered rows of evergreen trees with trees in each row spaced a maximum of 12 feet. Such trees shall not be used to satisfy minimum tree requirements. 4. A combination of above." 6. Landscaping to meet the requirements of City Code 12 -13 -6. The table below summarizes the requirements for this site based on the perimeter of the site and building. Irrigation is also required for all landscaped areas of the site. *NOTE: credit is given for existing trees and shrubs L� 7. A separate sign permit subject to City Code 12 -15 is needed for construction of new signs on the site. Trees Shrubs Site perimeter 998 feet 1 per 50 feet 20 1 per 20 feet 50 Building perimeter 480 feet NA NA 1 per 10 feet 48 Total 20 Trees 98 Shrubs *NOTE: credit is given for existing trees and shrubs L� 7. A separate sign permit subject to City Code 12 -15 is needed for construction of new signs on the site. C I T Y O F NDOVE Incorporated 1974 Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Storage Location Map - SUBJECT PROPERTY N N Nov 27, 2006 {� 6 011 R S PHI% I VA i "The Name Twin Cities Contractors Have Trusted For Over 30 Years" 11 The City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit Dear The City of Andover, Nitti Rolloff Services and Craftsman Concrete are requesting a conditional use permit for the property located at 13533 Jay Street NW. We are looking to purchase this property from Kottke's Bus Service Inc contingent on The City of Andover granting us a conditional use permit. NRS and Craftsman Concrete are willing to remove the old six foot fence and install an eight foot wood fence around the majority of the property (as seen in the map provided). In addition to the fence, plant material will be provided on the out- side of the fence for aesthetic appeal. The new fence will be moved in about eight feet of the original fence to allow more room for landscaping. The outside storage will consist of a main area about 170ft x 143ft with some extra storage area on the northeast comer of the building. The main area will be used mostly for the storage of roll -off containers, trailers, some demolition/excavation equipment and parking of trucks (any items, besides the trucks, stored in this area will not exceed the height of the wood fence). The smaller area on the northeast corner of the building will be used for things like small demolition/excavation equipment, concrete equipment, general job supplies, and items that may be slightly taller than the fence (excavator and a job trailer). All the items will be kept in a neat orderly fashion and within the fenced in area. Nitti Rolloff Services and Craftsman Concrete understand that properties appearance must be kept up as for not to create an eyesore for residents and or other business in this area. We will do everything possible to give it aesthetic appeal and make everyone in the neighborhood comfortable with the type of businesses we run. Please feel free to contact me at 763 -755 -0303 with any questions and or concerns you may have. Sincerely, Nitti Rolloff Services. Inc L Anthony Nitti President Proud Member of the Teamster Local 120 23245 Drake St Nw.. St. Francis, MN 55070 Office: 763- 755 -0303 Fax:763 -755 -1363 Cell: 763-286-2756 -:6 • • \ \ co v � Ln /901 7�tj.tvWc4 z�3rrau -. v�hs sw311 fp'YiL ,F 1 S'Ud31t �.lttooalr aie R 1� 3 QiS1Ij�J_ . t LAJ J i vi a 3 _ C tu IN N co 9 ��^� Z N N Saw 9 �37i hf'3j QOO�*l �, 1 ¢ Z 1 I � 06 N 1 Ll60sOON c _7_ • \J 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 a (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -6923 a WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissione�r s, / FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner (Y SUBJECT: Addendum: Work Session City Code 11 -3 -6 Buildability DATE: December 12 2006 INTRODUCTION The Planning, Engineering, and Building departments have had further discussions on the proposed changes to the buildability requirements. After these discussions, it was determined that one more change was required to the code section dealing with buildability requirements. DISCUSSION The additional change is intended to clarify the buildability requirement and to ensure that the intended outcome is reached. It would clarify that there needs to be 116.5 feet of buildable space between the front property line and the 100 -year flood elevation. City Code 11 -3 -6 -B 1. Lots Served By Municipal Sanitary Sewer: Lots served by municipal sanitary sewer shall remove all organic material and replace with granular material with no more than five percent (5 %) organic material by volume for the front one hundred sixteen and one -half feet (116.5') {-003 of depth of the lot at a minim width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the zoning ordinance. This one hundred and sixteen and one -half feet (116.5') of buildable space shall be measured from the front nroverty line and shall not include any area below the 100 -year flood elevation. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to take the additional change to City Code 11 -3 -6 into consideration when discussing the proposed changes to the City's buildability requirements. Respectfully Submitted, v� C Vrchota n \J 9 LN&IVE O F . 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissione s FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Work Session: City Code 11 -3 -6 Buildability DATE: December 12, 2006 INTRODUCTION Staff has had a number of discussions with the City Council on the issue of buildability over the past year. Some amendments to the City Code are being proposed as a result of these discussions. DISCUSSION There are three issues that need to be discussed: Issue #1: The City Code requires 100 feet of buildable area. The City also requires soil correction for the first 100 feet. After factoring in the front yard setback and building a large home on the lot, most, if not all of this buildable area is used, leaving no room for a deck or future addition to the house. The drawing labeled "Exhibit A" and the attached photograph provide an illustration of this problem. To address this problem, an additional 16.5 feet of buildable space is being proposed. Issue #2: A 16.5 -foot buffer is required abutting all wetlands and storm water ponds. The buffer must be outside the buildable area of the lot. However, the City Code does not clearly specify where the buffer area should start in relation to ponds and wetlands. Code changes are being proposed to clarify these requirements. See the attached "Exhibit B" for an illustration of these requirements. Issue #3: Homeowners may not be aware of how much or little of their back yard is buildable. This becomes an issue when decks are constructed after the home is built. A City Code change is being proposed, to require the surveyor to include a "ghost drawing" of the deck on the survey showing where it could actually be built. The survey would be submitted with the original building permit application for the house. The following code amendments are being proposed in order to address the issues mentioned above. Issue #1 The first proposed change is to City Code 11 -3 -6, which lays out the design standards for lots served by municipal sanitary sewer. This section would be changed as follows: City Code 11 -3 -6 -B 1. Lots Served By Municipal Sanitary Sewer: Lots served by municipal sanitary sewer shall remove all organic material and replace with granular material with no more than five percent (5 %) organic material by volume for the front one hundred sixteen and one -half feet 116.5 {IW4 of depth of the lot at a minimum width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the zoning ordinance. City Code 11 -3 -6 -M Wetland Buffer: Pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 6 of this code a one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or in its natural condition during the development, building and landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not be included within the preceding one hundred sixteen and one -half foot 116.5 (490' buildability requirement. (Ord. 273, 9 -2 -2003) City Code 13 -6 -4 BUFFER STRIP: A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or in its natural condition during the development, building and landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not be included within the one hundred sixteen and one -half foot 116.5 (400') buildability requirement of Section 11 -1 -4 of this code, definition of "buildable lots ". These changes would create an extra 16.5 feet of buildable space on all urban lots. This space would allow for the easier placement of decks, patios, sheds, and additions on the rear of the house, as well as creating more useable rear yard space. It should be noted that this change could potentially have an impact on the number of lots that could be attained in a particular development, especially in areas where there are large numbers of wetlands or storm pond requirements, such as the rural reserve area. Issue #2 The next proposed change is to section 13 -6 -5. This section establishes the requirement • for buffer strips and describes where they are to be located. The change is meant to remove any confusion about where buffer strips are measured from in relation to wetlands and storm water ponds: City Code 13 -6 -5: Requirements: Buffer strips shall be established and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Buffer strips shall be identified within each lot by active protective fencing approved by the city. The developer shall be responsible for the placement of the fencing. A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters, measured linear) wide undisturbed buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands and/or storm water ponds during the development and building phases. (Ord. 114A, 7 -17 -2001) 2. Buffer strips shall apply to all wetlands and/or storm water ponds. Buffer strips shall be measured from the delineated wetland boundary around wetlands and from the designated normal water level elevation surrounding storm w ater, sedimentation and/or rate control Ponds as identified on the grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for all new developments. Issue #3 • The final change would require that a ghost drawing showing the location and allowable size of any future deck be included on the survey for the initial building permit when the deck is not constructed with the house. City Code 9 -1 -4: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (STRUCTURE): A. Elevations Included In Permit Application: The application for a building permit, in addition to other information required by applicable laws or regulations, shall include exterior elevations of the proposed structure and drawings which will adequately and accurately indicate the height, size, design, and appearance of all elevations of the proposed structure and a description of the construction and materials proposed to be used. When the plans for a house include a sliding door or other access for the addition of a deck, and the deck is not to be fmished prior to occupancy of the house the survey shall show where the deck can be constructed while remaining m conformance with setback and location requirements. This would give the eventual purchaser of the house a good idea of where they can build a deck in the future, as well as how large of a deck they can build. Attachments Buildability Diagram (Exhibit A) Storm Water Pond Buffer Diagram (Exhibit B) Photograph is ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to give input and feedback on the proposed code changes. Respec ly su miffed, Chris Vrchota • - NoRMAL,, . C)X inir NoRMAL VIAISA C) P, -,PP,UAkA7ZV pup BvrraW PEUA: -FOWPAP,) �xG�ibr+ $ . .. . . - �a� =: �., - . �.wa. .a... .�,. . ...� ¥ }a� . . . .. � ...�