Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/07ANL66W 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 March 27, 2007 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — February 27, 2007. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family rural residential property to be known as the Smith Addition located at 17919 Tulip Street NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (07 -05) to allow a farm winery for property located at 3482 165' Lane NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to delete Section 12- 14 -6 -A -5 of the City Code and revise Section 12 -12 "Permitted Uses ". 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment 0 C� 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 27, 2007 DATE: March 27, 2007 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the February 27, 2007 meeting. • C C I T Y 0 F 1 / • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETWG — FEBRUARY 27, 2007 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 27, 2007, 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, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 13, 2007 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLIC F7E.A EV G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07 -04) TO ALLOW DR Y CLEANING IN THE NOR THPOINTE PLAZA RETAIL B UILDING AT 13783 IBIS STREET NW. Mr. Vrchota stated the applicant wants to operate a dry- cleaning facility in the Northpointe Plaza retail building, located in Andover Station North. Mr. Vrchota reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Walton wondered if there were vast differences between them and Anoka • regarding dry cleaning standards that the applicant may or may not experience. Mr. Vrchota stated he did not look closely at the City of Anoka's requirements. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the comer lot was the proposed site and the dance studio was currently there. Mr. Vrchota stated they were looking at one of the end spots of the building and the dance studio is in the middle of the building. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 6, 2007 City Council meeting. f r1 U PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLAN TO REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING AT 14430 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW Mr. Bednarz explained 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. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Chairperson Daninger asked if the proposed structure was all one unit but part of it would be rental. Mr. Bednarz indicated that was what was understood by him. Commissioner Holthus indicated she had a question regarding the site plan and exception. She wondered if the exception portion of that property was bought in 2003. Mr. Bednarz stated that part of the parcel was sold off to allow a lot to be created in 2002. Commissioner Holthus asked if the exception property was included in this. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was not. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. 0 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 27, 2007 Page 3 • Ms. Sarah Doughty, 14381 Osage Street, stated her concern was the space that the home will take up. She stated she was also concerned about the rental part of the home because this is a single family neighborhood and she liked it that way and was concerned about renters coming in and out when it is only the one house being rented. Chairperson Daninger indicated this was a sketch plan and they would take her comments into consideration when discussing this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Jack Knoedl of NK Financial indicated he was representing the owner, Mr. Stephen Butler at 14430 Crosstown Boulevard, gave the Commission some background regarding the property along with a presentation as to why they should allow this type of housing. Commissioner Falk wondered if this was well and septic. Mr. Knoedl stated the property is not connected to City water and sewer. Mr. Bednarz stated they would be required to connect to municipal water and sewer if this went forward. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if it would be two separate connections. Mr. Bednarz stated if they are talking about one structure there would be one connection. If there would be a twinhome there would be two connections. Mr. Knoedl indicated the • property owner is willing to look at this as either a twin home or as a duplex with one connection. Commissioner Falk wondered if a twin home would fit into the buildability of the land. Mr. Knoedl stated the shown drawing fits in well. With a twin home, it makes the layout a little different and takes up more land so he did not know if it would fit the property. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this was to become a twin home, would they have to have two separate lots with a lot split. Mr. Bednarz indicated they would either have to have two separate lots that conform to the MI requirements or they would need a variance or PUD review. He thought they were looking at the latter because the site is not large enough to meet the Ml requirements for two properties. Chairperson Daninger asked how much the lot is worth without a structure on it. Mr. Knoedl stated the initial appraisal was at the $95,000 to $110,000 range but it is hard to say in this market with the view across the road. It is a very large lot but is not desirable to high priced single - family homes because of the view. Chairperson Daninger stated he saw a sketch plan of one house in the packet but Mr. Knoedl brought a sketch plan of a twin home. He wondered which plan they were supposed to look at. Mr. Knoedl indicated the plans were the same as what is in the Commissions packets. He presented different building elevations to the Commission. �J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 27, 2007 Page 4 Chairperson Daninger asked if they were looking at two driveways with two separate • entrances. Mr. Knoedl indicated there were two driveways but they could be connected for one entrance or remain separate. Commissioner Falk wondered what the square footage would be per unit. Mr. Noble stated the upper unit would be approximately 2400 square feet and the lower unit would be approximately 1400 square feet. Commissioner Holthus asked if they do this the way the applicant is requesting, they would have to rezone and do a comp plan amendment along with a lot split with variances. Mr. Bednarz indicated they could do it that way. Commissioner Cleveland wondered how the square footage of this home compared to others in the neighborhood. Mr. Noble stated the homes along Osage were built in 2001- 2002 and most are split entries and the upper level square footage is approximately 960 to 1,200 and it would be doubled underneath. Mr. Steve Butler, 14430 Crosstown Boulevard NW, stated with his disability, he planned on putting a handicap accessible home where it is wide open because eventually he will be in a wheelchair. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if a single family home could be modified for a person • with certain needs. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and a mother -in -law apartment scenario was something they spoke with the applicant about. The key is that the structure is open through out and does not have separate entrances but in this case the applicant wants separation between the units. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they could have a door that could be closed. Mr. Bednarz stated that would not qualify as a mother -in -law apartment. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they could have two different levels, one for each person. Mr. Bednarz stated that would be ok as long as there was not a door or wall that separated the two areas. Chairperson Daninger understood where Commissioner Kirchoff was getting at but he thought the concern of the owner was if the other person was not a relative so he would want separate units. Commissioner Walton wondered what connection fees would be for sewer and water. Ms. Bednarz stated that would need to be determined. Other connections along Crosstown Boulevard have approached $30,000. Commissioner Walton stated in his experience he thought a larger lot anywhere in Andover is a desirable lot and in this case there was a possibility to make a very nice single family home here. He disagreed with the idea of not being able to build a high • priced bome because he was not sure what "high" really meant. He somewhat agreed Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 5 that being on Crosstown Boulevard is not as desirable as a lot down Osage Street but it is a larger lot than the others. He thought if the home were built closer to the neighboring house they may have a lot and product that could be more desirable to a resale situation. He thought with the increased traffic on that street, two driveways would not be desirable to him and he did not think a twin home would fit into the neighborhood. He indicated he was not in favor of the sketch plan for those reasons. Chairperson Daninger asked if a park dedication fee be included. Mr. Bednarz stated if a new lot is created then park dedication would apply. Chairperson Daninger asked what the regulations were to renting out a room in a single - family home. Mr. Bednarz stated the City does not regulate this because they only regulate two or more units, not single - family homes. Chairperson Daninger stated there was a discussion on a special PUD and he wondered what the Council's decision was on that. Mr. Bednarz stated the Council did approve a redevelopment PUD ordinance at their last meeting. He indicated that while this proposal may qualify for this new provision it still would require a rezoning and a land use change. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he was not comfortable with changing the character of the neighborhood. This is a single- family neighborhood and he felt that spot zoning should • not be enacted here because it would be setting precedent elsewhere in the City. He stated this is the first attempt to do something with this lot and he did not feel this is the way to go. He thought the idea of modifying the house to accommodate the owner's needs would have value for others if sold later on. Commissioner Holthus thought the applicant was wise to get a reaction from the Commission but she thought it was too far of a reach from their City Ordinances to have to do a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment and then a lot split with variances. She thought it was too far away from what the neighborhood is now and it should stay a single - family neighborhood. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 6, 2007 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION. A. Consider Amendment to City Code 12- 14 -6A.5 Discretionary Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Cross stated the City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to simplify the attached proposed amendment to the City Code regarding Conditional Uses. • Mr. Cross discussed the proposed amendment with the Commission. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 6 n U Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the City Attorney felt this was too open ended. Mr. Cross stated the City Attorney thought it was too ambiguous. He stated the paragraph has never been out of the code but the City Attorney has recommended it be deleted. Commissioner Falk asked how the City Attorney felt about the revised paragraph number five. Mr. Cross stated he has not seen the changes yet but he did not like the original paragraph five and thought it should be deleted. Commissioner Walton wondered what version of 14 -6a.5 the Council looked at. Mr. Cross stated they looked at staff s new proposed changes. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it was their understanding that the last time they looked at this, they wanted to leave the paragraph in to allow some leeway for the Council to be able to grant conditional use permits. If the paragraph was not in there, it may limit them. Commissioner Holthus thought originally it was too open ended, so their directive was to tighten things up and make it so the decisions could be more consistent. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. They were asked to make more criteria_ Mr. Cross explained what the Council requested the Planning Commission try to do with the paragraph. Mr. Bednarz stated when the Council and Attorney reviewed this with the • six criteria, they found it to be too loose and open ended. The attorney did comment that they have a footnote in the uses table that does allow them to consider a use based on the similarity of others allowed. The City Attorney felt the flexibility already existed in the footnote. The six criteria are predicated by a commercial or industrial district, which is pretty open and could be any use. The footnote in the table allows them to compare similar uses strictly within the same zoning district. Mr. Cross indicated the proposed changes were meant to replace paragraph five. Commissioner Cleveland did not think it was a really good idea to rely on a footnote to a table if he was an applicant. He would not be looking at footnotes to tables; he would be looking at codes. He noted he would be more comfortable if this were in the code instead of a footnote in a table. Mr. Cross stated one important thing is that the table is an official part of the code. Commissioner Falk wondered if the Valley Pools and Spas applicant was confused by the existing language in the Code. Mr. Cross stated he was not and saw very clearly an opportunity to present his proposal under paragraph 5. Chairperson Daninger sensed they were trying to find that one idea to move this forward. He thought maybe Commissioner Cleveland's idea to move some verbiage and delete the paragraph would work. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 27, 2007 Page 7 • Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they should repeat the footnote elsewhere in the ordinance and leave the footnote where it is. Chairperson thought that might work and delete paragraph five along with items one through six. Commissioner Kirchoff stated anyone coming in for a Conditional Use Permit may want to look at the table to see if their proposal would apply and then later look at specific .language. He thought this may be an easier way to do this. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in looking at the table footnotes, where else would footnote one exist besides the table. Mr. Cross stated that is the only place it exists. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it did not stand out very well and thought they could bring it forward in order to find it easier. Commissioner Holthus wondered if when an applicant comes in, does staff help them with questions regarding the code or do they look at the code by themselves. Mr. Cross stated staff helps them as much as they need. Commissioner Cleveland asked if they eliminate paragraph five, what they will do with the six criteria. Mr. Cross stated the criteria were meant as a full replacement to paragraph five. • Commissioner Walton thought they needed to restructure the line regarding Christmas tree sales to include other outside sales. He stated conditional use sales are the only thing that is ambiguous but that is the flexibility they need. He wondered if they reiterated footnote one under permitted conditional and prohibited uses before they get to any of the boxes. Everything else is pretty much black and white. Permitted uses have discretion by the Council and there is flexibility but the Council has the final decision. Then they could delete paragraph five. Councilmember Holthus thought they should keep all the footnotes together because people know what a footnote is and will go to the footnote when needed. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Commission was in agreement with taking out paragraph five and leaving the six proposed changes. Commissioner Walton thought they decided at the first meeting they wanted to leave paragraph five in but wanted some changes to it but now that the City Attorney has thought the language works for him and there is some flexibility they want. He thought as long as they agree with the City Attorney and they find something to replace it, they could delete paragraph five. Chairperson Daninger would rather leave this as a footnote and make them more visible such as highlighting them or an easier path to find. The Commission discussed how they could make the footnotes more prominent such as reformatting the text to make it more readable. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 27, 2007 Page 8 Chairperson Daninger thought the Commission was in agreement to delete paragraph • five. He indicated staff could look at how they could simply this or make it more readable to the public. OTHER B USINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items and decisions by the City Council on previous Planning Commission items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they will have a Joint Worksession with the City Council in April. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, • Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. L� CNDb Y O F OW 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: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of single family rural residential property to be known as Smith Addition located at 17919 Tulip Street NW. DATE: March 27, 2007 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat that will create one additional lot and adjust the property line of adjacent property at 17987 Tulip Street NW. The lot line adjustment enlarges the lot addressed as 17987 Tulip Street. This plat includes all the land of both 17919 Tulip Street and the lot it surrounds (17987 Tulip St.). The third lot in the plat (the new lot) will have its access to a public road via Quay Street. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans The proposal is consistent with the Rural Residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) Zoning District that exist on the subject property. Access and Potential Future Development Access will continue to be provided from Tulip Street for the two existing homes. It is the applicant's intent to create a lot for their existing home at 17919 Tulip Street NW and to sell the residual parcel. Access to the residual parcel will need to be provided from Quay Street to the south. Sixty -six feet of combined right -of -way and easement exist for this street as shown on the attached plat. However, the street has not been constructed north of 178 Lane at this time. Further development of this parcel will need to be reviewed as a part of a future plat proposal. A sketch of future subdivision potential, including a street extension through the residual parcel and to the east property line, is included on the attached plat. Quay Street will be required to be constructed from where it presently exists when the property is further subdivided. In the event that a building permit for one house is requested prior to further subdivision of the residual parcel and that house would be more than 150 feet from existing Quay Street NW, an access drive that conforms to the requirements of City Code 9 -3 -4 will be required. The access drive would ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to reach a new home. If this occurs, a portion of the driveway will be removed at the time that Quay Street is constructed. City Code • 12 -5 -4 will allow the city to ensure that a new house would not obstruct future extension of Quay Street. 3 Lots Each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. Buildability Requirements The site contains no wetlands or floodplain and has soils that are suitable for home construction. A site that meets the buildability requirements of City Code 11 -3 -3 has been demonstrated for the proposed vacant lot. If further subdivision of this lot is proposed in the future, each new lot will also be required to demonstrate buildability. Additional Right -of -Way The east half of Tulip Street right -of -way is presently 33 feet wide. The plat indicates that an additional 27 feet of right -of -way will be provided for Tulip Street NW. This will satisfy the typical county road right -of -way requirement (120 feet total, 60 feet on each side of the centerline). It should also be noted that the surveyor has found that the title of the subject property includes a 0.53 acre residual parcel along 181 " Avenue NW to the north of Tracts B -E of R.L.S. No. 7. This area will also be dedicated to Anoka County as right -of -way for 181" Avenue as shown on the attached plat. Existing House is existing house at 17919 Tulip Street NW will be below the 50 foot minim building setback from a county road after the additional 27 feet of right -of -way is dedicated to Anoka County. As shown on the plat, the existing home will be 27 feet from the new front property line. As a result, the home will be considered legal nonconforming. This means that it can continue to be used as it presently exists. However, if the home were to be damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value, it would be required to be removed and a new home constructed in compliance with the 50 foot front yard setback as provided in City Code I2 -10-4 B. It should be noted that with legal nonconforming_ status, the city will not be able to issue a building permit to expand the existing structure as provided in City Code 12 -10 -3 B. In light of this, the applicant has requested and staff recommends that a variance be granted to the front yard setback to allow the existing house to be expanded in any direction that would not encroach further toward Tulip Street NW. The variance should stipulate that if the house is damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value that it would be required to be removed and any new home constructed in compliance with the 50 foot front yard setback. The extra right -of -way and additional setback constitute an "undue hardship" and should be used as findings to grant the variance as requested. Tree Protection Plan The site has been farmed for years. Trees exist around the two houses and near the south end of the property. No trees will need to be removed as a part of the proposed plat. �J . Easements Typical rural lot easements (ten feet around the perimeter of each lot) are proposed to be provided. Park Dedication A park dedication and trail fee will be required for the residual lot. Additional park dedication and trail fees will be required for new lots if the vacant lot is subdivided further in the future. Anoka County Highway Department A copy of the plat and a request for review comments was sent to the Anoka County Highway Department on December 28, 2006. No comments have been received. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Preliminary Plat ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed plat and make a recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, i Courtney Bednarz Cc: David and Helen Smith, 17919 Tulip Street NW • 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "SMITH ADDITION" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17919 AND 17987 TULIP STREET NW AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1 /4 ofNE1 /4) except the following portions of the said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1/4 of NE1/4) to -wit: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW1 /4 ofNEI /4) thence South along the west line thereof 14 rods, thence east 12 rods, thence north 14 rods, thence west 12 rods to the place of beginning; all in Section Five (5), Township Thirty -two (32), Range Twenty -four (24) according to the United States Goverment Survey thereof, AND EXCEPT That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1/4 of NE 1/4) of Section Five (5), Township Thirty-two (32), Range Twenty -four (24), Anoka County, Minnesota described • as follows: Commencing at a point on the North line of said Northwest 1/4, of the Northeast 1/4 distant 198 feet East from the Northwest comer of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence East along said North line to a point 852 feet East of the Northwest comer of said NW 1/4 of the NEIA; thence South and parallel to the West line of said NW 1/4 of the NE I A a distance of 300 feet; thence West and parallel with the North line of said NW1/4 of the NE1 /4 to a point 198 feet East of the West line of said NW 1/4 of NE1 /4, thence North and parallel to the West line of said NW1/4 of the NE1 /4 a distance of 300 feet to the point of commencement. AND EXCEPT That part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1 /4) now known as Tracts A, B, C,D, and E, Revised Registered Land Survey No. 7, files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Anoka, AND EXCEPT The South 69 feet of the North 300 feet of the West 198 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW1/4 ofNEI /4) of Section Five (5), Township Thirty-two (32), Range Twenty -four (24), Anoka County, Minnesota, as measured along the West and North lines of • said quarter - quarter. rd • Tract A, Revised Registered Land Survey No. 7, files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Anoka. Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 47, files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, the applicant has petitioned to vary from City Code 12 -4 -5 to allow a variance to the required 50 foot front yard setback from Tulip Street NW; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that a variance be granted to allow the existing home at 17919 Tulip Street NW to be expanded in any direction that does not further encroach toward Tulip Street NW. If the existing house is damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value it shall be required to be removed and reconstructed in compliance with all applicable setbacks. The variance is based on the following fording: • 1. The additional 27 feet of right -of -way dedicated as a part of this plat causes the front yard setback of the existing home to be reduced below the required 50 feet, through no fault of the owner. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds ; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation and finds that the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare or values of the surrounding properties. The extra right -of -way and additional setback constitute an "undue hardship" and are appropriate findings to grant the variance requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. The Preliminary Plat shall conform to the plans revised February 21, 2007 and stamped received by the City of Andover on March 6, 2007. 2. Park dedication and trail fees shall be paid for one lot. Additional subdivision of the • subject property in the future shall be subject to addition park dedication and trail fees. 5 3. A variance is granted to allow the existing home at 17919 Tulip Street NW to be • expanded in any direction that does not further encroach toward Tulip Street NW. If the existing house is damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value it shall be required to be removed and reconstructed in compliance with all applicable setbacks. 4. The lot line between 17987 Tulip Street and 17919 Tulip Street shall be adjusted as shown on the plat. 5. Quay Street NW shall be required to be constructed north from 178 Lane NW at the time Lot 3, Blockl is further subdivided. Any driveway existing within right -of -way or easement for Quay Street NW shall be removed at the time Quay Street is constructed. 6. Dedication of additional 27 feet of right -of -way for Tulip Street as shown on the plat; and compliance with all Anoka County Highway Department requirements. Also dedication of a 0.53 acre residual parcel along 181` Avenue NW to the north of Tracts B -E of R.L.S. No. 7 shall be dedicated to Anoka County as a part of this plat approval . 7. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines and a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this _th day of , 2007. • CITY OF ANDOVER FET WUM Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor i 0 LIMIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- AT 3638 3639 1 30TH AVE (N Co Ce) LO Co CD Co 3627 110 3350 Co Ce) 17987 51-m 17919 17924 3561 CD - N to IRt C co D k F 3568 17757 17731 7700 3521 3520 17752 17726 3445 3415 3385 3345 3315 U) 3384 E 3426 (-) w 3395 0 17753 17 TW AVE H AVE VI: 33" 17733 17702 17680 17� 1776 Map and Data Sources: City ofAndover GEND Eigineering 1 in& 350 feet Hi Planning Public Works CD C*,q C,4 A[ C." CD I Lo 03 SES 5-:1 Co Ln LO 19t C** C\j Co 0 CO Co ce) M 'RT "t Co m m 110 3350 Co Ce) 17987 51-m 17919 17924 3561 CD - N to IRt C co D k F 3568 17757 17731 7700 3521 3520 17752 17726 3445 3415 3385 3345 3315 U) 3384 E 3426 (-) w 3395 0 17753 17 TW AVE H AVE VI: 33" 17733 17702 17680 17� 1776 Map and Data Sources: City ofAndover GEND Eigineering 1 in& 350 feet Hi Planning Public Works GIs 1:4.200 A[ 400 200 0 400 SES 5-:1 Feet JO: ~ ~ I , ' , . I 14 "'~~'''''ii'T L 'I ~ ~"'~"'=" . 1 __', --'. ! - I 1 , p i , .' i \ - I. ~ ' " . . ' Z , . ~~.- ~ - ,. - ; ~, ; ~ ". , K _' __ .__'_ C";;, --, ,-- r"', -- '! - . , -- - , -- . . . "'. ,1 ',-"", \ -' , I I - I ' -'- ' - -1 \ ~ ' , I - ' I I. 1~" : I I ~ . l , " .. , . \ ~/ '.', . i ' ; " i;: i " ,+l\ ,I ,J~ ! 4--. 13: !. \' ',. I., \~~;,.i1flO l_ , I 1'- , -- . '.~! 'I " - i ~~- 1 '. \. I - I I - - I 1'.1+ 1 1 1: ! " t ' ". '... . , >,-. I I j?J.~ "~.,-- - , ""';~'.l".':MSi;~~ . -.' - ,"",~ - ----- ~- ; , j L_-- ! -- ---- --- , , i i ~ z W i''''' ~, _ ' '.... 1---- ,- -" ~. { ,. "16! \ - . - -:..,j:Q ; , ,.rl "" ... .,_..~.- - , -I , ." . Preliminary Plat 01 Smith Addition SW UOT CAVF1C?(1'W16*9 0 -1 181ST Avenue N.W. -------------- 180th 3 - 77 -- lit %771 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIJ z U lit 0 15 - --------- L-j $7k 4 Ile 6 L P.1r.-in-Ot K.- 1p l� A.4 N&'32'54 AnA -- — -------- ----- -- IZ7 zMs 180th 3 - Ave. N.W. -- -- -- - - - - -- O - --------- l I -C� • i - z fD ------------ 6 L P.1r.-in-Ot K.- 1p l� A.4 N&'32'54 AnA -- — -------- ----- -- IZ7 zMs ----------- 3 LnA 17M .14 1 Lane N.W. --- — -------- ---------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - O-L 'I --- lan Hak( L { ANLb 6 W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner "PC CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (07 -05) to allow a farm winery for property located at 3482 165"` Lane NW DATE: March 27, 2007 INTRODUCTION Mark Hedin has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to run a farm winery on his property. DISCUSSION The Council recently adopted Ordinance 339, which regulates Farm Wineries (see attached). Under these new provisions, Mr. Hedin has come forward with an application to start a farm winery on his 2.5 -acre lot. The new regulations control lot size and zoning requirements, retail operations, and production limits for farm wineries. Production limits must be specified for each farm winery application and included as a condition on all permits. The applicant's property meets the requirements for zoning district, lot size, and setbacks. Mr. Hedin indicates he is comfortable with a production limit of 1,000 gallons each year. As such, the attached Resolution contains that condition. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request, subject to the applicant following the provisions of Section 12 -9 -12 of the City Code. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the farm winery application for a CUP and make a recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submi , Andy Cross �Cr Cc: Mark Hedin, 3482 165` Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 Attachments • Resolution Location Map City Code re. Farm Wineries (Ord. 339) Letter from Applicant CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA , STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FARM WINERY AT 3482 165` AVENUE NW, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Lot 3, Block 4, Timber Meadows Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Mark D. Hedin has requested approval of a conditional use permit for a farm winery on the subject property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of City Code 12 -14 -6 Conditional Uses and 12 -9 -12 Farm Wineries, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS. The Planning 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 Commission and approves the Conditional Use Permit for a farm winery, subject to the following conditions: 1) The farm winery shall have an annual wine production limit of 1,000 gallons. 2) The farm winery shall comply with all regulations listed in City Code 12 -9 -12. 3) The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code 12 -14 -6. 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 • -- - CD b z 1 a: w (!) a:: ~ !!l 0 '" Ul ~~~ti :g !<l!2~ c. ~ "!t a:: .- a:: c)u> ~1I0~ II t; UJ a:: U) ~ 0 ~ we( ,_ l!l f- 6~ .- ~ () OZ .' f") 0 z~ 0> .l!i.! <(0 ~ m aI ..u Ii ~ ~ ~~ - :;: :;: ~ al~ - ! , , .. i - I ! - , - - CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 339 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2,12-9 AND 12 -12 OF CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS (strike -outs shall indicate sections to be deleted, underlining shall indicate sections to be added): CITY CODE TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS CHAPTER 2: RULES AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS Farm Wineries - A rural residential property that is a minimum of 2 %z acres in. size, where the owner is engaged in making of table sparkling or fortified wines from grapes, grape iuice, other fruit bases, in conformance with State Statutes and Federal Laws. CHAPTER 9: HOME OCCUPATIONS • 12 -9 -12• FARM WINERIES: The following provisions shall apply to all farm wineries that are considere d . home occupations under the Conditional Use Permit process: A. Farm wineries which shall be allowed on 2 '/z acre or larger parcels in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Zoning Districts. B. Farm wineries shall follow the standard building setbacks for the applicable Zoning District. C. Whether conducted in a principal or accessory structure a farm winger shall not be oQerated as a retail store (i.e. no retail displays will be allowed). D. Farm wineries shall be allowed only six on -site customer sales per day. All other sales will need to be made by the internet/teiMbone and mailed or shipped to the buyer. E. Fans wineries shall be subieect to production limits on the amount of wine produced on -site each year, as specified in the Conditional Use Permit. F. Other Requirements including but not limited to: All provisions of Section 12 -9 -2 and 12 -9- 7 of this chWkr. G. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property: Upon sale of the premises for which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate. • 0 CHAPTER 12: PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND PROHIBITED USES Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 20` day of February, 2007. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Is Vicki Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 Zoning Districts Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses R -1 R -2 I R -3 R-4 I R -5 I M -1 I M -2 GR 'LB NB I SC GB I Farm Wineries C C C (subject to City Code 12 -9 -121 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 20` day of February, 2007. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Is Vicki Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 Mark D. Hedin White Rabbit Vineyards & Winery RECEIVED 3482 165 Lane NW Andover, MN 55304 IJ; r 7 2007 March 7, 2007 CITY OF ANDOVER Dear Planning and Zoning Commission and Council members, Enclosed is my application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a licensed Farm Winery under Andover City Ordinance Home Occupations 12 -9 -12. I currently operate a vineyard with over 350 grape vines, 250 feet of raspberry bushes, 100 feet of rhubarb, and 5 apple trees growing on my property. I grow these to make up to 200 gallons of wine each year for family use and gifts for friends and clients. I have come to the point where more people would like to obtain my wine than I can manufacture under Federal law as a home winemaker, 200 gallons /year. Nor can one bottle be sold without Federal licensing and State regulation. • Having made wine since 1988, and with many blue ribbons at the State and County Fairs, I would like a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Farm Winery as defined and regulated by Federal and State statutes, as regulated by Andover city code. All Federal, State and City laws will be followed. Most sales will be by internet, phone, or word of mouth. There will be no "office hours ", and only incidental sales on site. I expect my neighbors will not see any evidence of a business in the neighborhood. While signage is allowed, I don't expect to have any. If the city feels it must regulate the number of gallons of wine produced each year, I would be comfortable with 1,000 gallons, with the understanding that this could be reviewed in the future by city staff if need be. Sincerely, / --*I /) U �- Mark D. Hedin Enc: Plat map of neighborhood Satellite photo of surrounding area Neighbors' Acceptance petition 'ON H Y'S'Ol al ! ' - OAIB 3N 0'1 d ONOOtl i ____. __ SoL - - i r ___ TC �_____ - ____ -- za nz_. _ :, u.as a• s :.. I i_ 8�. ° 1 r °r., :.'1 w.•vr= .. ilw , ° ti$ � •. ° � N. =t • _ a5 ` I r J�•'a• � f • 4. \ ♦ ' S a � ° • y J > ♦ _ A .5• -\ 9 _ ter; � . ♦��,.$ .. I �` c• — ---- s_Saa C lyi • °, '' 1 5 Ff S I V ;� . - "^ .per.•- �8 •r .ry 1 C h 9MN_ lb I ` \ v , mae i ce• _ _ _ _. 7A � fir/ I gp c�5 .� 3.'• - -- Qn A No 15 SOtl 9 AO ' . . oo ..� ¢ S SP . + I:rz : ;g _ >: 6 1 ^ • 'ip _ a t . � S .S.o' - _ ° i s tY - _ - -- I a =e \� v• w •^': ` a + ......��iF . BEET .._ - _= _ 150951 �_ -- Z7Q HI a•2553 w We have no objections to Mark Hedin operating a licensed Farm Winery out of the existing buildings at 3482 165t" Lane NW, Andover, MN. Name Address 5q3& kc� P • ---P Gykd-a--, M 4tA/ ( I V i A z'� A L T Y O F Dt�VE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -6923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner ,, 4X CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to delete Section 12-14 - 6-A-5 of the City Code and revise Section 12 -12 "Permitted Uses ". DATE: March 27, 2007 INTRODUCTION This Code revision summarizes the discussion that took place at the February 27 Planning Commission Workshop. DISCUSSION Two options were presented to the Commissioners and the recommendation was to delete the paragraph 12- 14 -6 -A -5 regarding discretionary Conditional Use Permits. Staff will rely on the footnote that resides on the Permitted Uses Table in Chapter 12 -12 of the City Code. It was further recommended that staff make the footnoted information on the table more accessible to the general public. To this end staff has inserted a comment in the Legend of the Permitted Uses Table that directs readers to the footnotes at the end (see attachment). ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the proposed amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Andy Cross J Attachments Resolution Planning Commission Minutes — 2.27.07 Workshop CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 12 -14 -6 "CONDITIONAL USES" TO DELETE SECTION A -5 AND AMEND TITLE 12 -12 "PERMITTED, PROHIBITED, AND CONDITIONAL USES" TABLE 12 -14 -6: CONDITIONAL USES: A. General Provisions: 1. Conditional Use Permits may be granted or denied in any district by action of the City Council. 2. The Community Development Director shall maintain a record of all Conditional Use Permits issued including information on the use, 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 Perniit 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) 9 • A N s. 4+ Cz U O y y 7 � � y � � ° o C U C a a C .a a ca S � o � U m a U X XU � 0 U � �rL a 0 0 0 bD cd UazQ0 UXXU U U A pp O by z a U X X U U � a '- a v) a � c �d o C/) CIO � .� za4 N M UXX N "~ a Qn a F �C7 a, UXX W W ti N O � O � A" � UXX U UU c a; N �Ua� 0 a a:at��cws •r A � , y y 7 r-iU a UXXU o,U a U U a U X XU U a UXXU U U z a U X X U U � a UXX a a �C7 a, UXX A" UXX U UU c •r A � , N" UXX U UU a U X X U U U GY p, UXX U U M a P. 9). UXX U UU N 9 C40. I UXX U I I UU r, a p U X X U U U U U I� .0 .0 p t cF U o Lv 0 r� m c U o 0 0 a oj po c a _ a U y •, a ' b cd cy i••� p u d N ° C b y cd .a y 3 C ° r N O G o d) U'� L) M y 3 ..+ E 45 .� y y o ti O v i C U a� A .. �. O C O w a� ,. G 0 N O a., VO) y aV+ 0 � ^� y 4 U 5 1 E O 0 U T p i o 0 �MUC�UuU y y 7 m m .E .a ^y G 0 a a 0 Q n Q W O R4 x O W z W H r W O a U U x H 0 O N 0 0 ro 1 0 m N O C w 0 U N O 0 U U U -o Y 0 2 > Q w � O U N U O c 0 r ta • • 0 r, ai ' o c m •C CD `m >, c m o_ E U �O O ca ca L '0 p m Q �'a a) n w 'o L o :y rn C) a) 0 m a) c_ y L O N N N O a) E y m m O O O CD 'O W ' O N 0 C > , :.. C m C m U m N N m `m a) Y Y 0 L a CY a r E c ° t -0 m cn a �pw0 C.) (D -� N t w "O N E - U .ti O c .fA L a) ` U j c . O V C 3 1 - '. N U - r 7 0a co . > a CN CO 2 to O U 7 0. Q b N N 0 in U .0 p om�" - - (Drn rn v a) U p L j 0 N 0.0 c O O 0 L N a) U .OQ ? N EaLX u U Oo Loo LNU)�CLwa) N o L a a) L L 3o O 09 0 o C) O M O ) 0�ca a) °) .: — E U m O m ) vi w y m X a) L L O_ r c o O a) O "O a) Vl m 0 L U a) O a) O_ > O �) 0) O - 0 ° . y O + L " O c c m O. N N .. a) U N N L N O O c" 0 7 0 a) O o 0o 2�w c 0 ^� M 0 O' .- N'0 O L a ID C R. � cn O U E p 0 E 00 a) 00 ,4 U ti c c a) c 0 m 0 C N •p k ti 'b = m m 2 0 m 0 � .. L a i--, a) N � � CEO U �+ a) . 0 N M CO a O U) ` Cl C — � a)m 0 Noy 00 E� N ....L 'D L N L . L + O 0 N 0 '� 00 .... b t/1 -� c N N t OO of > C O m `� O ;� v1 ' E ��m c v 0 L N V7 a) u V — T � U d 0 7 Vl N .G 0 wp O_'0 N� U� ""' p 0 N 1� ETm3N23vE >E a .x a) 0 .� y Q•u °c r 3 a)= .c O �N p fM a) M M Nt .E 0 .5 00 00 ++ C c CL •C C pt :3 c 0 C "d ^o 0 Iq 3: m cm m a ' 00 yc p:; - a� en u -a := oYmmca;c Lc o m 3 to 0 oLX >o�?a) oac a N CD aE U p a)a`= QQ. m 5 � ¢ to w 0 a a 0 Q n Q W O R4 x O W z W H r W O a U U x H 0 O N 0 0 ro 1 0 m N O C w 0 U N O 0 U U U -o Y 0 2 > Q w � O U N U O c 0 r ta • • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 6 • WORK SESSION: A. Consider Amendment to City Code 12- 14 -6A.5 Discretionary Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Cross stated the City Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to simplify the attached proposed amendment to the City Code regarding Conditional Uses. Mr. Cross discussed the proposed amendment with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the City Attorney felt this was too open ended. Mr. Cross stated the City Attorney thought it was too ambiguous. He stated the paragraph has never been out of the code but the City Attorney has recommended it be deleted. Commissioner Falk asked how the City Attorney felt about the revised paragraph number five. Mr. Cross stated he has not seen the changes yet but he did not like the original paragraph five and thought it should be deleted. Commissioner Walton wondered what version of 14 -6a.5 the Council looked at. Mr. Cross stated they looked at staffs new proposed changes. • Commissioner Kirchoff thought it was their understanding that the last time they looked at this, they wanted to leave the paragraph in to allow some leeway for the Council to be able to grant conditional use permits. If the paragraph was not in there, it may limit them. Commissioner Holthus thought originally it was too open ended, so their directive was to tighten things up and make it so the decisions could be more consistent. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. They were asked to make more criteria. Mr. Cross explained what the Council requested the Planning Commission try to do with the paragraph. Mr. Bednarz stated when the Council and Attorney reviewed this with the six criteria, they found it to be too loose and open ended. The attorney did comment that they have a footnote in the uses table that does allow them to consider a use based on the similarity of others allowed. The City Attorney felt the flexibility already existed in the footnote. The six criteria are predicated by a commercial or industrial district, which is pretty open and could be any use. The footnote in the table allows them to compare similar uses strictly within the same zoning district. Mr. Cross indicated the proposed changes were meant to replace paragraph five. Commissioner Cleveland did not think it was a really good idea to rely on a footnote to a table if he was an applicant. He would not be looking at footnotes to tables; he would be looking at codes. He noted he would be more comfortable if this were in the code instead • of a footnote in a table. Mr. Cross stated one important thing is that the table is an official part of the code. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 7 • Commissioner Falk wondered if the Valley Pools and Spas applicant was confused by the existing language in the Code. Mr. Cross stated he was not and saw very clearly an opportunity to present his proposal under paragraph 5. Chairperson Daninger sensed they were trying to find that one idea to move this forward. He thought maybe Commissioner Cleveland's idea to move some verbiage and delete the paragraph would work. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they should repeat the footnote elsewhere in the ordinance and leave the footnote where it is. Chairperson thought that might work and delete paragraph five along with items one through six. Commissioner Kirchoff stated anyone coming in for a Conditional Use Permit may want to look at the table to see if their proposal would apply and then later look at specific language. He thought this may be an easier way to do this. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in looking at the table footnotes, where else would footnote one exist besides the table. Mr. Cross stated that is the only place it exists. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it did not stand out very well and thought they could bring it forward in order to find it easier. Commissioner Holthus wondered if when an applicant comes in, does staff help them • with questions regarding the code or do they look at the code by themselves. Mr. Cross stated staff helps them as much as they need. Commissioner Cleveland asked if they eliminate paragraph five, what they will do with the six criteria. Mr. Cross stated the criteria were meant as a full replacement to paragraph five. Commissioner Walton thought they needed to restructure the line regarding Christmas tree sales to include other outside sales. He stated conditional use sales are the only thing that is ambiguous but that is the flexibility they need. He wondered if they reiterated footnote one under permitted conditional and prohibited uses before they get to any of the boxes. Everything else is pretty much black and white. Permitted uses have discretion by the Council and there is flexibility but the Council has the final decision. Then they could delete paragraph five. Councilmember Holthus thought they should keep all the footnotes together because people know what a footnote is and will go to the footnote when needed. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Commission was in agreement with taking out paragraph five and leaving the six proposed changes. Commissioner Walton thought they decided at the first meeting they wanted to leave paragraph five in but wanted some • changes to it but now that the City Attorney has thought the language works for him and Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —February 27, 2007 Page 8 • there is some flexibility they want. He thought as long as they agree with the City Attorney and they find something to replace it, they could delete paragraph five. Chairperson Daninger would rather leave this as a footnote and make them more visible such as highlighting them or an easier path to find. The Commission discussed how they could make the footnotes more prominent such as reformatting the text to make it more readable. Chairperson Daninger thought the Commission was in agreement to delete paragraph five. He indicated staff could look at how they could simply this or make it more readable to the public. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items and decisions by the City Council on previous Planning Commission items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they will have a Joint Worksession with the City Council in April. s ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.