HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/07Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
February 27, 2007
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes — February 13, 2007.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (07 -04) to allow dry cleaning in
the Northpointe Plaza retail building at 13783 Ibis Street NW.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan to review site plan for multiple
dwelling at 14430 Crosstown Boulevard NW.
5. Work Session:
A. Consider Amendment to City Code 12- 14 -6A.5 Discretionary Conditional Use
Permits.
6. Other Business:
7. Adjournment
0
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
.9k C I T Y o f
ND O�
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 - February 13, 2007
DATE: February 27, 2007
Request
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the
February 13, 2007 meeting.
lJ
A C I T N7 0 F
NL6D 60 V E9 A
• 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
PLANNING AND ZONING C0IWHSSION MEETING — FEBRUARY 13, 2007
The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 13, 2007, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kircboff,
Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:18 p.m.),
Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland.
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Michael Casey.
Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
Associate Planner, Andy Cross
Others
0
APPROVAL OFMINUTES.
January 23, 2007
Motion by Falk, seconded by Cleveland, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion
carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present ( Kirchoff), 2- absent (Casey, Walton) vote.
PUBLIC AE,4 R1N G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07 -03) TO ALLOW A TOWER
AND ANTENNA FOR GREAT RIVER ENERGY TO BE CONSTR UCTED AT 2980
173 LANE NW
Mr. Bednarz explained Great River Energy intends to install a 60 foot tall wood pole for
the purpose of mounting an antenna to allow remote monitoring of the substation that is
presently located on the subject property.
Commissioner Kirchoff noticed the proposed tower will be slightly above the high wires
there. He wondered how much taller it would be. Mr. Bednarz did not believe it would
be taller than the high wires there. The applicant indicated it would not be taller.
0
It
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 2
Commissioner Cleveland asked how tall the transmission line is. Mr. Bednarz did not •
know and indicated the applicant might be able to answer the question.
Commissioner Falk wondered if the City prefers wood or steel for the other
telecommunication poles in the City. Mr. Bednarz indicated they will have to build it to
support the weight that is there but the City does not have a preference.
Chairperson Damnger asked if there was a future pole possible. Mr. Bednarz stated he
was not aware of others at this time.
Commissioner Kirchoff noticed at some of the other lift stations, not necessarily in
Andover, there is already radio monitoring in place and he wondered if those were sixty
feet tall. Mr. Bednarz stated they typically were not. He thought the ones he was aware
of were shorter than that. Chairperson Daninger stated typically they are placed on the
structure with a directional type antenna to transmit less of a distance than the one
proposed based on the height.
Commissioner Holthus wondered if the trees surrounding this site provide enough
screening of the pole and facility to the neighboring homes. Mr. Bednarz indicated there
were a number of trees around the site and he thought the drawing indicated that He also
noted there were trees on the neighboring properties to screen this.
Commissioner Falk wondered if the land was landlocked. Mr. Bednarz stated it has
direct access to 173 Lane.
Commissioner Cleveland stated he was at the site the other day and it is heavily wooded
on all sides. He doubted it could be seen at all in the summer.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Casey, Walton) vote.
Mr. Keith Larson, 17285 Round Lake Boulevard, stated they own the land directly on the
opposite side of the power line that runs east and west. He wondered if Great River
Energy owned the land in red on the location map because it is mistakenly known as open
land that anyone can use. Mr. Bednarz explained that Great River Energy does own the
property.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Casey, Walton) vote.
Mr. Pete: Schaub, East Highway 10, Elk River, stated he was at the meeting to answer
questions.
I*
f
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 3
• Mr. Schaub stated the height will generally be between fifty and seventy -five feet tall.
He did not believe there would be any noticeable difference in height between the tallest
part of the substation and the pole they want to put in.
Commissioner Kirchoff asked what this will do to increase security. Mr. Schaub stated it
is for monitoring purposes. He stated this is part of a broadband network Great River
Energy is putting together that will service their transmission and generation system and
the purpose of the antenna is to allow data to be transmitted and received by another base
station farther away and that is part the reason they need the sixty foot pole. The
security part of it is there will be alarms at the system and enable them to know sooner if
something were to happen at the sub - station. The other reason is to also monitor the
flow. He did not think there were any others planned in Andover.
Chairperson Da asked if there were other substations in Andover. Mr. Schaub did
not think there were. He indicated there may be a coop station but he was not aware of
any. Chairperson Daninger stated the reason for the inquiry is because on Hanson and
Bunker there is a large electric station and a sixty foot tower would blend in there and he
did not know if that site would be advantageous if Council did not like the proposed site.
Mr. Schaub stated the reason it is going there is because the antenna is dedicated
specifically to the equipment located there.
Commissioner Holthus wondered if in the future there was any intent of putting anything
more on that pole. Mr. Schaub stated at this time they do not have any intention of
putting anything else on that pole. He stated this is just for their 700 MHZ broadband
system they are putting together. He stated this is not setup structurally to allow co-
location.
Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:18 p.m.
Commissioner Falk asked how high a tower is typically to accept more than one antenna.
Mr. Bednarz believed the tower at 161 sc and Round Lake Boulevard is 110 feet tall.
Usually 100 -150 is more common, especially if there was to be more than one antenna.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of
a Conditional Use Permit to allow a tower and antenna for Great River Energy to be
constructed at 2480 173' Lane NW. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent
(Casey) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007
City Council meeting.
I*
4t
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE REQUIRED
BUILDABLEAREA FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO ADJUST WETLAND
BUFFER LOCATIONREQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE TITLE 11:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Mr. Bednarz explained at the December 12, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission
discussed changes to three sections of the City Code to address problems that have been
arising in new developments. The proposed changes were further discussed by the City
Council at a workshop meeting on January 23, 2007. Some additional changes were
made based on input from these meetings and the proposed changes are now being
brought forward for a public hearing.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated they had the initial discussion and it came back with a
suggestion of ten feet based on the construction industry suggestions and he was pleased
to see that and he was glad they received input from those that have to deal with this. He
noted be was very comfortable with what they have.
Commissioner Falk wondered what the history of the buffer was. Mr. Bednarz thought it
was somewhere around 2000 or 2001 when the requirement was first put in place. He
believed it was a cooperative effort between the City and the Watershed District to
provide some of that protection during construction. At some point in the future the
Watershed District may have other requirements that make that a permanent wetland
buffer. At this point, once the home is constructed, that silt fence comes out and the
owner can choose to use that property as they see fit.
Commissioner Falk wondered if staff was happy with 110 rather than 116 la Mr.
Bednarz stated they were. It was an improvement from their point of view. He knew the
development community is very correct in saying it will add cost however, if they look at
the backyards and the increase in the size of homes and the size of the lot remains the
same, he thought that ten feet will help.
Chairperson Daninger stated they see so many variances for decks and Item 3 is trying to
address that and be proactive rather than reactive.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7.29 p.m. Motion
carved on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Mr. Joe Hauglie, Woodland Development, stated that issue one is an issue with
developers as well as builders as far as a cost point of view. They appreciate the
opportunity to have participated in the work sessions and the ability to give their
feedback and see that some of that was taken into consideration. He would like to state
however, that they still oppose anything that increases the costs of lots. He noted this is a .
very tough market right now and looks to be one for quite sometime. Not only is the City
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
• Page 5
competing against other cities in costs for lots, but a new thing is the inventory of
existing homes. With such a high inventory, people are lowering the price of their homes
in order to sell them and yet for developers and builders, their costs continue to go up. It
is getting harder and harder for builders to be able to afford to build homes and sell them.
Mr. Hauglie stated he did not have any issues with items two or three.
Mr. Hauglie stated they appreciated it going from 16.5 to 10. One of the issues he knows
that is complicating the costs of the lots is the 35 foot setback in front. Some of the
neighboring communities do not have this, they have 30 foot setbacks. This also adds
costs and makes it hard to compete with other cities.
Chairperson Daninger asked what his intent was regarding their campaign referenced in
their letter. Mr. Hauglie stated the campaign was for marketing to help them sell lots.
Commissioner Kirchoff asked if Mr. Hauglie received calls from people they built homes
for indicating they were not aware before that they could not put a deck on their home.
Mr. Hauglie stated they have not but they do not build single family homes, they sell their
lots to other builders so they might have gotten those directly. He noted they do build
townhomes and work directly with the buyers and work with them on their deck size and
what they are capable of doing and what will fit on their particular lot.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Commissioner Walton felt item one went exactly where they anticipated it would go. He
agreed with the change from 116 to 110 and thought it was a soft compromise at this time
for this particular code. Chairperson Daninger concurred.
Commissioner Cleveland asked if the thirty-five foot setback was for aesthetics for a
certain look to the neighborhood or why is it locked at thirty-five instead of thirty. Mr.
Bednarz felt thirty-five feet was somewhat of a historical standard from the sixties or
seventies. Since that time a lot of cities have reduced their front setbacks to thirty feet.
This was a topic that was discussed by Council at a work session and they like the thirty -
five foot setback.
Mr. Bednarz noted they did not receive any letters from other developers regarding this
topic but staff did meet with a group of developers and the common theme was this will
add additional costs to development and given the times they are seeing now, that is
somewhat of a hardship for them.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend approval of the proposed code
changes.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 6
Chairperson Daninger indicated he was sympathetic to the developers and would like to •
monitor this for possible review in a year if there is a lot of impact.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007
City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH FARM
WINERIES AS A HOME OCCUPATIONREQUIRINGA CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT I7V TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS.
Mr. Cross stated at a recent City Council Workshop, staff was directed to make
modifications to the City Code to allow farm wineries in the R -1 zoning district on 2.5
acre lots with a Conditional Use Permit. This report provides the suggested language
changes to make that happen.
Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Walton stated bullet point E talks about "subject to production limits" and
he wondered if they have a set table of production limits they are anticipating. Mr. Cross •
stated they currently do not have any production limits in the code and is a condition that
could be added in the resolution and may change as requests come in. He thought this
would be something they would look at handling on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Holthus stated on the very last page of the agenda item, there is some
copies of minutes from the January 23 Special City Council Workshop meeting and on
line 9 it mentions that Councilmember Knight requested the applicant to determine the
amount of wine he believed he could produce and store and she assumed the applicant
would bring that to the. meeting as well as a list of the neighboring residents in the area.
She saw the list of residents that signed the petition but she did not see the information
and she wondered if he was required to bring it in. Mr. Cross stated it would appear so
from the minutes but nothing was submitted to staff in regards to quantity or production.
Chairperson Daninger stated Mr. Hedin has been the catalyst to this change but they are
looking at the change, not the specific incident but he thought that helped answer the
questions.
Chairperson Daninger thought a CUP was the place where quantities would be stated or
required if an applicant came forward. Mr. Cross stated that would be an appropriate
place to put a condition like that.
Commissioner Walton stated he has been an advocate to maintain flexibility but he •
wondered if this was one where they should set some guidelines for acreage and
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Page 7
• production limits. It seems that in the commentary and what Council had discussed that
maybe they should impose limits because they have left the resolution wide open for a
case by case basis. He thought they might then get into some issues of being too flexible
for one and not flexible enough for another. If they laid down some guidelines that
seemed to be generous, then people will know the requirements.
Commissioner Cleveland asked if staff could find out, given Minnesota's climate, what a
reasonable amount of gallons would be. Commissioner Kirchoff was under the
impression that not all of the grapes that are processed are grown there. Chairperson
Da noted the grapes are purchased. Commissioner Holthus indicated there are
other things wine could be made out of other than grapes.
Chairperson Daninger stated the intent is not physically growing it there, it is the
production.
Commissioner Falk thought another question was if this would be an individual doing
this as a hobby or making a profit full time. That could vary the gallonage. Mr. Cross
agreed.
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they were trying to separate it out from the 2.5 acre
lots to the larger lots. Commissioner Holthus thought the Council has already decided
where they think it would be appropriate to have a farm winery but the Council also gave
her the impression that they want to set a gallonage per year.
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they set a limit, does that mean the City will have to
start monitoring it. Mr. Cross stated that could be part of the CUP permitting.
Recordkeeping for these at the Federal level is very detailed so the records are produced
and they could request those reports.
Commissioner Walton thought they could possibly table this to get a better feel for a
hobby farm type of setup and a casual wine creation limits versus full scale wineries. He
thought it was better to have something laid out because if it becomes case by case and
they deny a farm applicant who wants to farm and have a full scale winery as a job and
they end up denying that but allow a hobby farm to do it, it seems like they created a
problem by not giving some type of guidelines.
Chairperson Daninger stated he did not have a problem with tabling this but they could
also approve requesting some kind of limitation to have staff bring it to Council for
approval.
Motion by Walton, to recommend approval of the proposed code changes for farm
wineries with some additional guidelines from staff regarding what was discussed.
0 Commissioner Falk indicated they did not hold the public hearing yet.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Page 8
Commissioner Walton rescinded his motion. •
Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Mr. Winslow Holasek stated when a restaurant gets approved to sell wine, they have to
have a liquor license and he wondered if a farm winery would need a license to sell wine.
Mr. Cross stated their City liquor licensing does not cover farm wineries so the applicant
would not require a City liquor license to sell. Chairperson Daninger believed there are
State and Federal regulations for this.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Commissioner Cleveland wondered if the City had any concern about any environmental
considerations for waste. He wondered what is done with the waste product.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated in other states, they take the waste and put it back into the
field. Mr. Cross stated as applications come forward, that would be something they may
want to look at for consideration. This may best be handled on a case by case basis.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to recommend the City Council approve the
proposed code changes for farm wineries with the addition of some guidelines from staff
for Council to review regarding quantities. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent
(Casey) vote.
Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PUBLIC
HEARING NOTIFICATION DISTANCE OF CITY CODE 12 -14 -8 FROM 350 TO
700 FEET.
Mr. Bednarz explained this item continues the discussion regarding public notification
distance in the rural area.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the change with not having a public hearing on
variance requests. He supported the 700 feet in rural areas and keeping the urban at 350
feet.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 9
Mr. Winslow Holasek wondered on the illustration of the MUSA development if this was
accurate because the developments did not seem to line up correctly. Mr. Bednarz stated
the illustration is for an example showing what 700 and 350 feet would look like for a
development.
Mr. Holasek thought this change would only be for rural areas and not urban areas.
Chairperson Daninger stated that was correct except for rural abutting up to urban areas,
then it would be 700 feet.
Mr. Bednarz stated the proposed amendment determines if the notification would be 350
or 700 feet based on whether the property is connected to municipal sewer. If it is
connected, it would be 350 feet, if it is not connected, it would be 700 feet.
There was discussion regarding the example given to the Commission whether the
notification would be 350 feet or 700 feet.
Mr. Holasek stated he would strongly object that they would pick some other place in the
area and say it is in a MIJSA area and has public service just to the line but they were
forced to put it over on their property fifty feet Chairperson Daninger indicated he was
not in favor of changing this to 700 feet
• Mr. Holasek asked for a.definition of "physically connected" from Mr. Bednarz. Mr.
Bednarz stated the intent was there would be a structure on the property connected to the
municipal sewer that would be the trigger between the 700 and 350 foot notification
areas.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Holthus, to close the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Commissioner Walton noticed the City of Ramsey in the survey brought up the point of
commercial development and Andover does have some commercial development that is
older within the center of the urban city and there was not any discussion in here
regarding commercial development and if they need to notify the neighbors of changes.
Mr. Bednarz stated with the language in the report, if the site is connected to MUSA, the
notification area would be 350 feet.
Chairperson Daninger thought staff needed to add some clarification or a definition if
they wanted to see that extended.
Commissioner Falk wondered if staff felt 700 feet for rural would benefit them that
much. Mr. Bednarz stated it would pick up a second or perhaps a third property around
an acreage lot with a direct notice in their mailbox. Commissioner Falk asked if the City
gained feedback from residents as to why they were not included in the mailing list. Mr.
• Bednarz stated public hearing notices are a typical item of contention whether you
received or did not and what was in it. He stated by the time something reaches the
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 10
public hearing stage, a lot more people in the area are aware of what is going on than •
received the notice in the mailbox. There are other methods of notification also.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the City Code change to extend public hearing notification distance of City Code 12 -14 -8
from 350 and 700 foot notification areas with the following amendments to the definition
of connecting to municipal sewer as well as the definition of the measurement being at
the perimeter of the property and at the discretion of staff to expand beyond these
minimums as well as striking the notification for variances with the definition of
connection being to the structure. Motion was tied and did not pass on a 3 -ayes
(Cleveland, Holthus, Walton), 3 -nays (Daninger, Kirchoff, Falk), 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Commissioner Falk thought 350 feet was enough because staff has the ability to expand
the distance if needed. Commissioner Kirchoff and Chairperson Daninger concurred.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007
City Council meeting.
PUBLIC SEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH
REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA IN CITY CODE 13 -3: PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT is
Mr. Bednarz explained the City Council directed staff to create criteria for
"Redevelopment Planned Unit Developments" (PUDs). These criteria, which would
apply to lot splits rather than larger developments, would allow for a PUD to be used to
create flexibility in the development standards in older sections of the City, where
existing housing might not meet current building codes or requirements. This would
allow lot splits to occur on properties that cannot meet the existing requirements for a lot
split, but have the potential to be split into two properties that come close to meeting City
standards and would fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This direction
stemmed from the Council's discussion of a proposed lot split on 134' Avenue and
Crooked Lake Boulevard that would have required two variances to be approved.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Holthus wondered how many is a handful of lots and how often will they
be looking at these unusual PUD's. Mr. Bednarz stated with the PUD ordinance and the
way it is set up, if you have an existing older structure and they are willing to meet some
Council discretion on what kind of architectural design will go on it is fairly wide open
and would be very difficult to say there is a certain number of properties because it is
flexible enough that it does not say you need to have a minim of this or that. It has
criteria of what the final product will need to meet but there is no minim requirement
to apply and that may be a concern. •
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 13, 2007
Page 11
• Commissioner Walton asked about the thirty year old structure requirement. In his line
of work, he may see structures that are blighted and may need to be torn down but they
are only eight years old. He wondered if the criterion of thirty years might block them
from applying this. Mr. Bednarz stated as written, it would appear to do that. His
suggestion might be to remove that all together.
Chairperson Daninger stated his concern is if they cannot afford the cost of a split or it
does not fit, that means they cannot afford the cost of a single house, how they will be
able to afford a PUD because a PUD typically adds cost by giving up buildability area.
Commissioner Cleveland wondered in the staff report, 13a, would a property have to
meet all the conditions or could they put in "or" where the commas are. Mr. Bednarz
stated they could do that. He thought that was an excellent suggestion.
Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Walton, to close the public hearing at 8:38 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Chairperson Daninger stated he did not like this because there is a reason this code is
here. He reviewed a past code amendment that was done regarding the ninety percent
change. He did not like having a ton of rules and regulations but he felt another bend
coming.
Commissioner Walton stated he felt they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. With
this particular property in mind, there are a handful of lots like this that may qualify
throughout the City. He stated Minneapolis redevelops homes all the time and they
handle them in some manner but he does not know what that is and if there is a Code that
guides them. He thought staff should look at alternatives to this.
Commissioner Cleveland thought this removed minimums unless there is something real
specific that is added to that. If you do this, what would be the minim
Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to recommend the City Council not approve the
City Code Amendment to establish redevelopment criteria in City Code 13 -3: Planned
Unit Development because the current ordinance gives them enough guidance to handle a
case by case basis for property management and this was sufficient. Motion carried on a
6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 20, 2007
• City Council meeting.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 13, 2007
Page 12
40
OTHER B USINESS.
Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he attended a Community Development Block Grant
meeting and they are recommending the City receive an additional $50,000 for its rental
rehabilitation program through the Federal pro gramming .
Mr. Bednarz also noted that the Administrator and City Engineer attended a meeting at
the Legislature where they were talking about rural speed limit requirements. There is
some movement to change the unposted speed of 55 mph to allow it to be posted at a
lower speed.
Commissioner Walton thought it might be a good idea to research what other cities are
doing with redevelopment of older or blighted property.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Falk, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Casey) vote. 40
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
0
i
k-
• 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner
DATE: • February 27, 2007
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (07 -04) to allow dry cleaning in
the Northpointe Plaza retail building at 13783 Ibis Street NW.
INTRODUCTION
The applicant wants to operate a dry - cleaning facility in the Northpointe Plaza retail building,
located in Andover Station North.
DISCUSSION
As per City Code 12 -13 -3, Dry Cleaning Processing is a conditional use in the GB zoning
district. The definition of "Dry Cleaning Processing ", found in City Code 12 -2, limits the scope
of such an operation to the cleaning of clothes accepted at the site and up to four remote drop off
sites.
. It has not been determined which bay or bays the dry - cleaning operation would occupy, though
the applicant would prefer an end cap in order to stay away from the dance studio. The applicant
has indicated that upon opening, the site would be used to process clothing from this location and
two others, with the possibility of other sites being added in the future, up to a maximum of four.
The applicant has operated a processing facility in Anoka for approximately 20 years that
services four remote sites. The City of Anoka has indicated that there have been no significant
issues with the operation during this time.
Applicable Ordinances
Chapter 12 -5 -6 B of the Andover City Code provides the following criteria for the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit:
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.
2. If it shall determine by resolution that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
• health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic
congestion or hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that
said use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the comprehensive
plan, the City Council may grant such permits.
Comparison of Proposal to Applicable Ordinances
The proposal conforms to all applicable ordinances.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in
the attached resolution.
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
Site Plan
Building Plan
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit.
W!! tted,
Chris Vrchota
Cc: John Maddio, 4280 Hawksburg Circle, Eagan, MN, 55123 -3061
Boulder Point LLC, 2711 Dahlia Street NW, Oak Grove, MN 55011
0
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF JOHN
MADDIO FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ON -SITE DRY - CLEANING BUSINESS ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13783 IBIS STREET NW, (PIN 32- 32 -24 -14 -0013) LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS:
The North 195 feet of Lot 5, Block 3 Andover Station North, Anoka County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, John Maddio has requested a Conditional Use Permit for operation of an on -site
dry- cleaning business, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request meets the criteria of City Code, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
the Conditional Use Permit request;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the
Conditional Use Permit for the operation of an on -site dry- cleaning business on said property
with the following conditions:
1. The site shall conform in all ways with the Andover City Code.
2. The operation shall be allowed to process clothes accepted on site and from up to four
remote drop -off sites.
3. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as per section 12- 14 -6 -D
of the Andover City Code.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _day of 2007.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
1 1
Qie.
> . '
0:2
"-
<=,e
~~ .
-00 .
o U
>.'-
->
GG g $'rrs
w
o. , · ·
wwwW · · 0
",.w - · ·
. > < . . ".,
< ., . 0 OW
,."D ,,~. 0"
~ 0 Ul UJ<
g ~ 0 >>
__vI- 01-
~ ~ (.) OZ
.. N 0 Z~
-S! Q.i -. <0
rl _.l!! ..u
U) ~ 0 $~
ti g-.!! $0
::E == 0 J:;~
6"sel.
aLC"
I I
I \
: '\
, I \ ' '
'\ ' ' - '
, '
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ ' \
/ \ \
/\ \ /
/ ,\ \ '
, \ \ ' .
\ I ~
A, '
/.... / \ \ '
\\~) I
"Z_
i!:
~ '
I
: I
__L I
, -~
I r- -
I 1.;' -,
o 0 ,. -
, ~ " ~, . ill ,,-'li~ I
0'" ' z'-
o <( 0: I 0
zo' 'OO'W I
< z r' . < './ CD m
/" \ . "" '"
/ \_ I ~ [!][iJ
/''' I >
(' \\. I' I ~ I....' 11..'1
\ ' . <
, ~. ~.
, ,. ' l
" I~~"-'
, I -." ' , '
, . _ '" ' z '
-',-- 1S NllClV~-
o m i s J
I H m �i c w Z ®
e�osauueyy .tanopud d m o
u W `u i o
�/ �/ 7 �y � 99 � � I
V Z V 1d 311 IOdHI�ION 0 m a _ o u E z
x F Z z
.Suipling pasodoid
- 69'L64 °w
— — -oi 1 1 I
I I I I I I. I I I I
` K wm 2 00
\ ta'z «m Q A 3019
OFN 1/11 -C �w w � 1- J
0 -Al m �r
3amni
r-
y �y
2
I o 0
L I I I co
h w Horw �Yx
-�i_w
H
.0 - . Z i 0- I - i .0 -.901
o
ryyl l l a I Z
a o.: T z-•I m I J z
s Oa I sl � o�tw
m
0
I I a i a
V
m ----- - - - - -- T - -�-
7 I I
e 13s 1
- o' p I
d I
I P I ' m °Ngard aantn:
Zo
,0 -.561
M Imo— mw mR- ____ I-- � -� -- c I IL-
mw h I I 4f 1:i
tl P I I
6 M . - o OR I - - I - Vl v
6W WY 11 I
>Z
i I I I
L I � � � �I � � � � � •D-sla ., .� � � � Dwravd 3arund
g b p
+o -z
I
1
1 p
ais
cz<
1 j ' I 3W J Ww<�W =moo
M R
_ _OI>N _ laa \ _ y�•l � O O a = j om 00 �
_ —
Ro mm=�LL
_ O6b.
,6c, Lb.LO N "
1 ° ice
Q B
DWv In°e 3AVl r Morns weed
�. 16
Y I
j
I�
I
t—s
I
O
O
I
00,
Ii
I m l
ti
vi
F
z
32
z
mO
1 SO �.J
0
1 N
z �,H
M iE Q
cf q
r
gz e
Uj LL
.Kz
ova
' R
12
i LLl
U
Z I
0
pw_-
O
O
I
00,
Ii
I m l
II
II
II
I II
II
I II
II
V VI
< p 0
CID
ti
vi
F
z
32
z
mO
1 SO �.J
0
1 N
z �,H
M iE Q
cf q
r
gz e
Uj LL
.Kz
ova
' R
12
i LLl
O'i
Z I
0
pw_-
II
II
II
I II
II
I II
II
V VI
< p 0
CID
II
II
h
II
II
ti
vi
F
z
32
z
0
*
1 SO �.J
0
1 N
z �,H
M iE Q
II
II
h
II
II
ti
vi
F
z
32
0
*
1 SO �.J
8 -'z
1 N
z �,H
M iE Q
cf q
gz e
.Kz
ova
' R
12
i LLl
O'i
Z I
0
pw_-
<
O'ai j
-P z
II
II
h
II
II
ti
vi
F
z
32
0
*
1 SO �.J
8 -'z
1 N
z �,H
M iE Q
gz e
.Kz
ova
' R
12
z
Z I
OU
pw_-
O'ai j
-P z
ti
vi
F
z
Z I
-P z
: 5 m
III
:Po
S
* R
I
L�a 49
ti
vi
F
Z I
-P z
: 5 m
E
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 Planne>t
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan to review proposal for multiple
dwelling at 14430 Crosstown Boulevard NW.
DATE: February 27, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The property owner would like to construct a new home on the subject property that would
contain an additional dwelling unit for rent. This is considered a multi- family structure. By
applying for sketch plan review the applicant is attempting to get a reaction to whether the
necessary approvals described in the report would be supported.
DISCUSSION
Conformance with Local and Regional Plans
The property is zoned Single Family Urban Residential (R -4). This district allows one single -
family structure per lot and does not allow multi - family structures. A rezoning to Multiple
Family Medium Density (M -1) would be necessary to allow a multi - family structure to be
constructed on the lot.
• The property is in the Urban Residential Low Density Land Use District. This district allows up
to four units per acre with planned unit development approval. The property is approximately
0.42 acres in size. Allowing two units on the property would yield a density of 4.7 units per
acre. As a result, a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation to Urban
Residential Medium Density (allowing up to 6 units per acre) would also be needed.
Th e tabl below com ares the ro osal to the M -1 Zonin District re uirements:
e
Excerpt from City Code 12 -4 -5
Minimum District Requirements
M -1 Requirement
Existing Lot/ Proposed
Home
Lot Dimensions:
Lot Width
150 feet
154.14
Lot Depth
150 feet
148.73
Lot Area
6,000 s.f per dwelling unit
9,237 s.f. per dwelling unit
Building Setbacks:
Front Yard
30 feet
35 feet
Rear Yard
30 feet
37 feet
Side Yard
20 feet
34 feet
Side Yard Adjacent to a street
30 feet
NA
Any yard adjacent to a county road
50 feet
50 feet
'Lot depth is measured as an average of three measurements. typically th is one iinca�u,cuic„
along each side property line and one measurement through the center of the lot. However, the
. location of these measurements is adjusted for lots that exceed the minimum lot width and taper
off. In this case, measurements are taken along Crosstown Boulevard, seventy -five feet into the
lot, and 150 feet into the lot.
2 The lot dimensions were verified using a previous survey. The building setbacks are based on
the attached sketch plan.
Recent Lot History
A previous property owner declined to be involved in the Creekside Estates 2nd Addition when it
was platted in 2001. In 2002, the previous property owner sold the 16.35 foot exception shown
on the site drawing to allow the adjacent lot to the west to be created. In 2003, the applicant
purchased the property as it presently exists.
Potential Precedence
The properties surrounding the subject property are zoned Single Family Urban Residential (R-
4). It is staff's view that the proposed rezoning and resulting multi - family structure would be out
of character with the surrounding neighborhood and may inspire additional property owners of
single - family lots to make similar requests. If this were to occur, the nature of the city's single -
family neighborhoods could gradually change.
Zoning Practice
In the practice of zoning, approval of this request could be considered spot zoning. In this case,
a single lot containing a single home is rezoned to allow it to allow a land use that is not
available to adjacent properties. A zoning decision that merely provides for individual benefit
without a relationship to public benefit or equitable zoning regulations for similar properties
should not be approved and may not withstand a legal challenge.
Existing Twinhouse in an R -4 District
In 1984, in another area of the city zoned R -4, the city approved a plat containing single- family
lots and one twinhouse lot. The twinhouse lot is located at the southeast corner of 142 Lane and
Round Lake Boulevard. The twinhouse was not ultimately constructed until 2002. At that time
the property was split to allow a lot for each side of the twinhouse. It was determined in 2002
that the previous approval for a twinhouse on an R -4 property would stand without rezoning the
property to M -1.
If a twinhouse were proposed, the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment discussed above
would still be necessary. Staff would not recommend approval of this approach.
Staff Recommendation
Staff does not recommend a favorable review of a sketch plan for the proposed multi - family
structure or a twinhouse as identified in the staff report. The city's zoning and land use districts
guide this property to remain as it presently exists, a site for a single family home.
Attachments
Location Map
Site Drawing
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, discuss the proposed sketch plan
and make a recommendation to the City Council.
R y �tted
�o Zf y ednarz i
Cc: Steven Butler, 14430 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Jack Knoedl, Midwest Home Loans, Inc. 10800 Lyndale Ave. S. Suite 100 Bloomington,
MN 55420
C T Y o r
NDOVE
Incorporated
1974
14430 Crosstown Boulevard
Sketch Plan
Location Map
- SUBJECT PROPERTY
N
�f
s�
r
J
7
c
�c
1-2
�a
V
0
ANL6 �6W
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVER. MN. US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner/ VC
SUBJECT: Work Session: Consider Amendment to City Code 12- 14 -6A.5 Discretionary Conditional
Use Permits.
DATE: February 27, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to simplify the attached proposed
amendment to the City Code regarding conditional uses.
DISCUSSION
At their February 6"' meeting, the City Council reviewed the attached proposed revision 12- 14 -6 -A -5
(which the Planning Commission had seen at their January 9 "' work session). Council felt the attached
section was too open- ended. If unchanged, it could open the door for inappropriate land uses in the City's
commercial and industrial zoning districts. Council has asked that the above section be simplified and
• modified to narrow the scope of land uses that could use this provision.
To address their concerns, these options are presented for the Planning Commission to discuss:
1. Delete section 12- 14 -6 -A5 as the City Attorney had originally recommended. This will eliminate the
need to create selective criteria that would be called upon to regulate a wide range of potential land use
proposals.
2. Review what the City Code currently says at the bottom of the Uses table. At the bottom of the table is
a footnote (see attachment) that can be used to review proposed uses that are "closely related or similar
to those that are listed ". This could be relied on more heavily instead of inserting a section for
discretionary Conditional Use Permits. The use must be in character to the district to even be
considered and the Council will make that determination.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the actions staff is proposing to meet the Council's request.
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Cross
Attachments
Planning Commission Minutes (1/09/07)
City Council Minutes (2/06/07)
Original & Proposed Code Section 12- 14 -6 -A5
Table 12 (footnoted text that allows some discretion)
S
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting f
Minutes —January 9 2007 1
Page 4
Commissioner Holthus stated she thought about having the criteria based on how many
residents were notified but maybe it is in a certain area that even if they notified twenty -
five residents, resident number twenty -five maybe affected very little, if at all from the
issue that is at hand so she thought that would not be very effective either. She thought
there needed to be some kind of compromise. Chairperson Daninger stated he was
willing to suggest a greater distance in that area.
Chairperson Daninger stated he would like to go on the record that he would like to leave
this the same but when there are only a few letters, staff needs to expand the mailing area
and this could be at their discretion.
Commissioner Daninger stated he was fine with leaving it and residents needed to
become more aware of what is around them.
b. Consider Amendment to City Code 12- 14 -16A.5 Discretionary Conditional Use
Permits
The Planning Commission was recently asked to consider deleting a section of Code that
gives the City flexibility to review and approve land uses not specifically allowed in a
particular zoning district through the Conditional Use Permit process. Agreeing with the •
Commission's recommendation, the City Council voted not to delete the section when
they met on December 19, 2006. They have directed staff to work with the Planning
Commission to rewrite the section to include criteria by which to judge whether a use
may or may not be suitable in a particular zoning district.
Mr. Cross discussed with staff the reason for the deletion of the section of code and some
examples of cases that were previously look at by the Commission and Council.
Mr. Cross stated if the Commission felt that anything else could be added to the criteria
to round out the criteria they already have, this could be something for discussion.
Commissioner Holthus thought it would help if they thought of this as a miscellaneous
clause because this is where everything goes that does not fit anywhere else. She thought
this would make it more understandable to more people. Number five says "the proposed
site shall not be located in a Residential Zoning District ". She thought this was confusing
when she looked at the top line "The City Council may consider granting a CUP for a use
not currently permitted in a particular zoning district ". Particular zoning district to her
sound broad and does not fit with number five's reference to not be located in a
residential zoning district. She indicated she would like to change the top line so it says
"The City Council may consider granting a CUP for a use not already permitted in
Business/Industrial Zoning District ", because that would clear up a point of confusion
which is vague. They should also give the section a name that identifies what this is all
about.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —January 9, 2007
Page 5
•
Commissioner Holthus stated as far as going into their list that is attached "Permitted,
Conditional and Prohibited Uses ", she thought it would be worthwhile to have another
work session and go through those because she saw some inconsistencies that did not
make sense. For example on the first page of the permitted uses table, under Barber
Shops and Beauty Salons, they are conditional in all of the residential areas but are
permitted only in limited business but not permitted in neighborhood business, shopping
centers, and general business and that is where all the beauty salons area.
Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the six criteria listed supersedes the permitted use tables.
Mr. Cross stated the table and section do not overwrite each other, they are meant to work
in harmony or congruity. There are many uses that are not permitted in a certain district
and what they have is just the table to go by so as a solution to that they have the catch all
clause. The catch all clause is meant to supplement the table and give the City Council a
bit more flexibility in looking at uses that may not be allowed on the table.
Commissioner Holthus stated the top line of the Code Section would be clearer if the
particular zoning district was changed to Business /Industrial so that it would fit with
number five.
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if this would prohibit agricultural. Chairperson
Daninger stated items 1 through 6 are broad except for residential and when they hear a
case, they are hearing specific situations.
Chairperson Daninger asked who has the author of the verbiage for items 1 through 6.
Mr. Cross indicated he wrote it and some of them are taken directly out of the Code.
Chairperson Daninger wondered where the supporting data is to come up with the
remaining three. Mr. Cross stated items 1 through 4 are directly from the Code, 5 and 6
are site specific, they did not have any site specific standards and they felt they needed
them. He thought what the miscellaneous catch all clause did was bring the Council
some flexibility in looking at new uses.
Chairperson Daninger wondered if item 5 was added per Council direction, was it a
guiding point from some discussion. Mr. Cross stated it came about from discussion
between staff, the City Code provides a lot of existing regulations for existing areas and
so they stuck with that and allowed the flexibility in non - residential areas.
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if someone is in a residential area and wants to start a
business, does this mean you cannot. Mr. Cross stated if they are looking at a use that
does not currently exist in the City Code, then this new miscellaneous catch all clause is
not something that will affect or help at all. The section does not touch new uses; it only
has to do with existing uses in the table. Mr. Bednarz stated this should state it in the
City Code because it does not say it now.
• Chairperson Daninger reviewed what they discussed.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —January 9, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Cross stated definitions play an important role in the table. There is some updating
that needs to be done. He stated there are some definitions within the permitted uses
section such as retail, trade and services.
Commissioner Holthus thought this agenda item had two parts to her, it was reviewing
and making a recommendation on the miscellaneous or catch all clause and it seems like
the other half was deciding or whether or not they need to go through the permitted and
prohibited uses chart. Regarding the first part of the agenda item, she kind of liked the
items 1 through 6 because on page one, a, b and c is worked pretty well for the CUP
criteria so if they maintain those three points in their potential revision for the
miscellaneous catch all clause, she thought that would be acceptable to her except for a
couple of word changes to make it more clear.
Commissioner Holthus stated on the second part of the agenda item, she thought they
should schedule another work session to go through the table and bring it up to date and
have it make more sense because she saw many inconsistencies with it. Chairperson
Daninger concurred.
Chairperson Daninger thought they needed to discuss this further when more
Commissioners are at the meeting to give their views but he would like to go through a
few meetings with any new Commission members before having this on another work
session agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS.
dnarz updated the Planning Commission on related items and the outcome of
items tha to the City Council.
Mr. Bednarz noted the P ng Commission annual report has been issued and will be
reviewed when Mr. Vrchota is he meeting. It was noted Mr. Vrchota prepared the
report and was very thorough. The ssion appreciated the time spent to get the
report to them.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Holthus, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8: m. Motion
carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Walton, Casey) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
•
. L Regular And City Council Meeting
Minutes — February 6, 2007
age
1
2 Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve the attached resolution in support of a
3 Regional Forensic Crime Laboratory in Anoka County. Motion carried unanimously. (RES. R -18-
4 07)
5
6
7 CONSIDER CITY CODE AMENDMENT /DELETING CODE SECTION 12- I4 -6A.5
8
9 Community Development Director Neumeister stated this section of Code has been brought back
10 with criteria added at the Council's request. Conditional Use Permits have three standard criteria
11 that have been incorporated into the new section. Two additional criteria add site - specific review,
12 including a restriction on applications in Residential zoning districts. This restriction was added as
13 an option if the Council decides it would like to limit the Conditional Use flexibility to commercial
14 and industrial zoning districts.
15
16 Councilmember Jacobson wondered if a business conformed to four of the six items would that be
17 sufficient or would they need to conform to all six in order to be approved. City Attorney Hawkins
18 stated they don't necessarily require all of the six to be met when they consider conditional uses.
19 They have the list very similar to this and some may be applicable and some may not. They would
20 go through the list and if it violates one of them, it would not get permission but he did not think it
21 has to meet the criteria in here because it may not be applicable.
22
23 Councilmember Trade thought they may want to take some specific examples just to be sure because
24 she is worried they might open the door to stuff they have not thought of. She explained it seems
25 like this undid the chart and anything could go.
26
27 Councilmember Orttel stated that is not his intent. His intent is that they have an ordinance that does
28 not cover everything and it is for some trivial little matter that is part of an overall package and
29 generally fits into that area.
30
31 Councilmember Orttel thought they should have the Planning Commission hold the public hearing
32 and come up with some more information.
33
34 Councilmember Trade asked if the heading is accurate because it talks about it only applying to
35 industrial and commercial districts. She wondered if that was intentional or in error. Mr.
36 Neumeister stated it was intentional. Councilmember Trade thought the problem they were trying to
37 cure was not cured at all.
38
39 Mr. Neumeister reviewed with the Council how this issue came about. There was discussion
40 between the Council and staff regarding the broadness of this item.
• 41
42 Mr. Neumeister stated commercial needs to be better defined. He stated this is supposed to include
43 all of the neighborhood shopping districts.
44
Regular Andover City Council Meeting •
Minutes —February 6, 2007
Page 13
1 Councilmember Jacobson thought these uses needs to be defined. He thought they should forward
2 this to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and for refinement and then brought back
3 again for discussion.
4
5 Councilmember Trude thought this was better than where they were and she thought they need to
6 have a strict code.
7
8
9 CONSIDER CONTRIB UTION FOR 200 7 ANOKA A Q UA TIC CENTER
10
11 City gineer Berkowitz explained this item is in regard to considering a contribution of $4,000 to
12 the Ano quatic Center for the 2007 swimming season.
13
14 Motion by Jacobs o Seconded by Orttel, to concur with the Park Commission to not contribute to
15 the City of Anoka Aq 'c Center for the 2007 swimming season.
16
17 Mayor Gamache stated the A conducts swimming lessons and he wondered how much they
18 cost and how many people use the rvices and if you need to be a member. Mr. Dickinson stated
19 they do not need to be a member but s ices are offered to members first and the fee is elevated to
20 non - members.
21
22 Councilmember Trude thought the biggest thi is swimming lessons that are provided for their
23 residents.
24
25 Mayor Gamache wondered if they were approached fr other places besides Anoka for reduced
26 discounts. Mr. Dickinson stated they have not been appro ed by the County and the County does
27 not offer discounts. He stated the YMCA technically has to b membership based organization to
28 maintain their 501(3) (c) status. They do offer some progr outside of that as part of their
29 community outreach but it is not their priority.
30
31 Councilmember Orttel wondered how they would feel if the City came them with $4,000 and
32 asked them to teach the Andover residents' kids to swim. Mr. Dickinson s they may open the
33 programs up more. He stated it would be offered to them. Councilmember rttel thought they
34 should approach the YMCA to see if they would be interested before they make ecision.
35
36 Councilmember Jacobson withdrew his motion and directed staffto contact the YMCA t ee if they
37 would open up the swimming lessons to Andover residents only at a reduced rate.
38
39
40 APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /ON -SALE LIQUOR SALES 115190 BL TIE BI
41 STREET NW •
42
43 New Dragon H is located in Clocktower Commons. In Clocktower Commons' SC- Shopping
44 Center zoning district a liquor license is. a conditional use. If the conditional use is approved for
/) -/ # -6 -AS
• locations, conditions imposed by the City Council, time limits, review
dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. A copy of the
Conditional Use Permit shall also be filed with the Building Official.
(Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970; amd. 2003 Code)
3. Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification
of use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the Conditional Use
Permit shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit, and all
procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being issued.
4. All uses existing at the time of adoption of this title (October 21, 1970)
shall be considered as having a Conditional Use Permit which contains
conditions which permit any land use and structures as they existed on
said date, and any enlargements, structural alterations, or intensification of
use shall be required to amend their Conditional Use Permit through the
process provided in this section. (Amended Ord. 314 10 -4 -2005)
—�-�' 5. Certain uses, while generally not suitable in a particular zoning district,
may, under some circumstances, be suitable. When such circumstances
exist, a Conditional Use Permit may be granted. Conditions may be
applied to issuance of the permit, and a periodic review of the permit may
be required. The permit shall be granted for that particular use and not for
a particular person or firm. The cancellation of a Conditional Use Permit
shall be considered administratively equivalent to a rezoning, and the
same requirements and procedures shall apply.
B. 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.
2. If it shall determine by resolution that the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the
community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will
seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that said use is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the
•
Proposed changes to City Code 12- 14 -6 -A -5 .
"12- 14- 6 -A -5: Certain Uses: The City Council may consider granting a CUP for a use
not currently permitted in a Commercial or Industrial district if the Council finds by
majority vote that the proposed use meets the following criteria:
1) The proposed use shall not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands.
2) The proposed use shall not have a detrimental effect on traffic conditions. The
City Engineer may require a Traffic Impact Study to verify that the proposed use
meets this criterion.
3) The proposed use shall not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
4) The proposed use shall not have a detrimental effect on property values or scenic
views in the surrounding area.
5) The proposed use shall not be located in a residential zoning district.
The proposed site shall have characteristics that make it comparable to sites in zoning
districts where the proposed use is permitted."
0
•
N
L
v�
W
H
� q
W
QI
F
s Pr
v
c
�
L
h
c
U
r-i
U
°
U
�
iC
U
+G.
c
0.
00
0
U
U
w
ti
x
x
u
c
�
�
�
y
° L'
S
v
°
c
°
.c
3
m
o
a
a
z�c�
U
Nx p�AV
U
W
Z
a
U>C>GU
U
❑.
u.,
rs,
w
c
n.
04
C_
❑
C
❑
cd
O
zzzzz�ca
a
a
C
DJ
a
d
�
E
o
�
O
d
�•'
C�
y
a
Q
L
>G
x
0
E
�
c
•�
p-
^
a
aUko
�
r-i
U
C
U
>G
iC
U
+G.
U
0.
U
U
w
u
x
x
u
U
a
a
U
U
U
Z
a
U>C>GU
U
04
a
U
X
X
a
a
a
C�
a
U
>G
x
A
U
>C
x
U
U
U
a
N
Ux>C
U
V
V
a
U
x
x
U
U
V
a
a
U
x
x
U
v
V
M
a
a s
Ux>C
U
U
V
N
z
aCL
U
U
UV
a
a
u
x
X
U
U
v
U
U
b
° d
U
d
U
o
V c
b
L
q
C
O
O
eC
C
7
N �
b17.—
C
c�
t6
cd
+�
O
O
U '6
Y
'O
�
•y C ''
k"
y
G
�
N
v
C
V S E
v
m
o
CL
H
.5
N
d
y
m
c
x❑
y
v
'�
o
o
w
O
'L Cd
O
y_
_❑
J
O
y
•--
cd
C
C
N
Y
•�
O
O
ti
C
2
[ fir
-
v
v
•_ '- i
0
o
L
'O
.
.L
a
_0
O
O
'O
?_
• 7
ae
•C
• C
c O❑
cC
7
O
0
cg
W
N
dddd
a�ddddW
CgmmUUUU
V
a
a
0
ai o
•
a
a
c � r
m
00
E V p m m
y-
co
W 5 C C a)
a m >
` O N O O
O
O
d N w ca ".' C v ' O
�m Ems' cG �
y C > C C m
m m
CO N a)
L ` L N v
3 c
a
a) i °" E w m �
a
Q
(D C L o
w an d m a d N
..
a
O r x
N O
N
00
O
a m @ O N (D
a a) m L 'O ... EC a L
N ..+ m C O C .. U
tm
7 M C N w
t :3 N
o..
O
@��oaN od
. y p N N W CD O O O. Q
m N O) tp •6 m
U
O
N O C a) O a) -C
N Ua >`16 -- N m j C
`
w N d a
a) p a ve N N
cc
0
p�
M
b
3 o o a o =
a O O C m N O U .O
0 C "m O = N E � C C d
lu
rA
co,
a �t o_w ;a. w U
O
.ti
:2
p CO a) N m W a) m m L
(D C m L N U CO ,`� in N O`
C .N., c O L N a) O a) O •
C
O
•�
>
F
ij
N .b
O N a) L
o
CD 'LO N O —
Z'amcy'3 m X •16 m
N U
p O�.U� O a) N p
o
o p r.)
a
C: a a i ca c aai cri c o -
°
o m m z a
n N
Nw V "N O C O O"O ) V
ti b
C= (a a m U fl. LO L N '6
y
.
CD � 'O (D a) .N.. N a Co
L a U
o M
>. a) a a C L O) �
D
ID
'p O
s. N
4) m m O 2) a 0 N 7 C C O d
M C C— m O— :3 N N 0 `
O
N
k n
N
L a M N> L .L-. N L a O
O C N a) C y
o 0
'L5
N N w m a)
C� m La O OJ a
'C
Q3 44
co �2O T N
Q
O
3 N C 3 L
a w O
0
Q
a) >. T N a) a)
0 L N O O N i 3 O O ..-
`N G. w
y
Q
'- '^ a 7 N O
y - p m f`a
C
N .e
N
E `� a u) —o 3v E > E_ °=L N
"
N
_
G. Oa0 a)a M 0 U O` O r
N= C Lr, C E p d
C
00
00 .D
0
N w C O 'O .0 •C C m 0 7 O
C
=
om
N
'B O
m° L) 0. 3� m .° rn m 'c_ m
N
ti
d
m
p
-p.
L N C N f a O)•C tm E L
y c- p
cu
'o
_ o a0) m C a; c -0 c E c m y
o
N
a p m N L an d •� m w a `
E
o
y
'o
Cm0>_ou >d�cm m a)
Oaa))a` Eo
wa U)
w
•
u it u
0
Q N