Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/070 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 September 25, 2007 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — September 11, 2007. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split to create a new lot from property located at 3210 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage at 3118 162 Lane NW. 0 5. Work Session: Discuss Transportation Plan Update 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment E C I T Y O F NDOVE. 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 - September 11, 2007 DATE: September 25, 2007 Re uest The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the September 11, 2007 meeting. 1'1 1.J • X C I T 1 06 VqE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —SEPTEMBER 11 2007 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on September 11, 2007, 8:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kircho$ 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 OFMINUTES. August 28, 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 REARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR ANOKA INDEPENDENT GRAIN AND FEED DEALERS, INC AT 3121161 AVENUE NW. Mr. Vrchota stated the applicant wishes to operate a retail feed store in an existing building located in an industrial zoning district Mr. Vrchota reviewed the staff report with the Commission and noted condition four should be stricken from the recommendation if a motion is made to recommend approval, because the Fire and Building departments determined that sprinkling would not be needed. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Mimaes — September 11, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Casey wondered if the land is owned by the same person as the liquor store. Mr. Vrchota stated that was correct Commissioner Casey wondered if they could share the parking with the liquor store to make up for the space needed. Mr. Vrchota stated they could have an agreement for that and there is also room directly south of the store space. Chairperson Daninger stated there is an additional light on the subject property so there are two lights covering the parking area. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct Motion by Walton, seconded by Kircho$ to open the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated his only concern was that the site also Temains in Anoka because that is the one he likes to go to. He stated he was also glad to see them come to Andover. Commissioner Walton asked if they will have to see a landscaping plan. Mr. Vrchota indicated they will need to submit a landscaping plan if that is one of the performance standards the Council includes in the resolution. Commissioner Walton stated he would like to see a little more landscaping but the interim standards in the proposal are adequate. 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, striking Item Four. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 18, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELBMVARYPLAT OF WOODLAND HILLS, A RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAU SACREAGELOTS Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Co mmissi on is asked to review a plat containing five rural lots. The Commission previously reviewed a sketch plan for this project on June 13, 2006. 0 Mr. Bednarz reviewed the case with the Commission. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 11, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Holthus asked if the south street connection the City is asking for, will ever connect to the existing driveway on Ward Lake Drive. Mr. Bednarz stated the driveway can be eliminated if the street were extended to the south with both lots fronting on the cul-de -sac. If the street is not extended to the south, they would assume that the gravel driveway would continue to be used for the existing lot. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the property owner to the south needed to demonstrate this is a buildable lot. Mr. Bednarz indicated that is staffs' recommendation. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if there has been any contact with that property owner to see if they wanted to build. Mr. Bednarz stated a letter was sent by that property owner requesting a street extension and he did speak with them about staffs' recommendation so they are aware of it Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the street to the north would end as a cul-de-sac and would the developer escrow those initial costs to get the road up to the property line at some future date. Mr. Bednarz stated the way it is structured in the resolution is they would determine those costs and would collect that through the development contract. At this point they are not aware of what those costs area. • Commissioner Holthus wondered if their discussion about the south street connection is a little premature because they do not know if those two lots are buildable or not Commissioner Holthus wondered if page 12 was the wetland mitigation plan and if it is could the mitigation plan be explained. Mr. Bednarz stated it was and reviewed the mitigation plan with the Commission. He noted it was reviewed by the Lower Rum River Watershed District and they have recommended approval with several conditions. He stated FEMA has also approved the adjustments to the flood plain boundary. Commissioner Walton asked if the property to the south develops buildability of the two lots, is the extension of the road then paid for by that property owner. Mr. Bednarz stated the way this is structured in the resolution the Woodland Hills developer would eliminate the culde -sac, extend the street to the property and provide a temporary cul-de-sac at their expense then sometime in the future when the lot split would occur, the property owner to the south would remove the cul-de -sac, extend the street slightly and build a permanent cul-de -sac. Commissioner Walton asked if the developer will need to incur more costs because someone wants to develop in the future. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct He noted that this requirement of their city code is more typically applied when they have a larger area that can develop in the future. It is a little different than they would typically use this requirement Commissioner Holthus stated if the south street connection is made, the cul-de -sac is built on the upland area so will there need to be a lot of wetland mitigation occurring in Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 11, 2007 Page 4 order to make the two lots buildable or is the floodplain further out from those two lots. Mr. Bednarz stated they do not know for sure if they can achieve those two buildable sites so that is why they would ask they go through and do soil tests, etc. Commissioner Holthus wondered if there will need to be a variance for another cul -de- sac that will be over five hundred feet. Mr. Bednarz stated they would grant one variance for the limits of this entire cul-de -sac. Commissioner Walton stated on the road on the end, they are asking the developer to contribute towards the firture development of Ward Lake so the anticipation is all of this is a paved area but the mouth of the development at Ward Lake is to remain gravel until the future. Mr. Bednarz stated that is correct He stated it would not make sense to pave half of the section of this street at this time. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the person to the south would have to do in the next sixty days. W. Bednarz stated they would have to get an engineer out there to do some soil borings in the drainfield and building pad locations. • Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if they needed to table this item for sixty days or do they need to get a resolution in place for the clock to start ticking. Mr. Bednarz stated the way it is structured in the resolution is that they would have sixty days from the date of the preliminary plat approval to demonstrate they have the two buildable sites and if they either don't do that or do not find there are two sites, they would revert to the plan as it exists now. Motion by Falk, seconded by Walton, to open the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Dave Nash, MFRA and Joel Larson, Select Companies, Inc. were at the meeting. Mr. Nash stated the cul-de -sac to the north is talked about in the report but is mentioned they end the street before the creek and they extended it as far north as they could until they hit a four to one slope going down to the creek so they were not going into the creek bed and disturbing it Based on that distance, their cul-de -sac became short enough that they do not have to put in a cul-de -sac. He stated the Planning Commission received a letter from Mr. Larson objecting to the street extension. A couple of other items not discussed are when they look at extending it to the south, it cuts their lot two in half and takes away from the area lot two. There is a loss of value on that lot going from 2.5 acres down that their client would not want If that road did have to go through they agree with what they have heard so far as they would like to see the property owner to the south bearing that cost, there is no benefit to their client extending that road. He stated they would like to see this approved as it was approved in the concept plan but if not, they would ask that the owner to the south be asked to bear that cost. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • Minutes —September 11, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Nash stated the owner is also opposed to the Ward Lake Assessment. He has never heard of a project having to pay for a future road improvement. He thought they should assess it to the current property owners that buy into this development when the road is improved. If the Council asks for this payment, he requests the City Attorney review it He stated the way he understands assessments is that it would be illegal to even try to assess this property as it is right now. The Watershed and FEMA have approved the wetland mitigation. They plan to work with Mr. Bednarz as to whether they will have to actually do a CUP or not He stated they are mitigating some wetland at a rate of 211 and they also as a part of FEMA, they are impacting floodplain but they are mitigating that at a rate of 1/1 and that is taken care of on their plan. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered what the sixty days for the property owner to the south does to this project, he wondered if this would require them to get back into the FEMA process and maybe not be as lucky. Mr. Nash stated they .could not answer that because they have not looked into the property to the south. If they were going to be impacting floodplain, they would have to go through their own application with FEMA and it would be separate from theirs. The sixty day delaying, they are assuming, they get approval from the Planning Commission tonight, Council next week, they could start grading right • after that and the goal is to at least get some grading done this year. The sixty day delay is going to push everything to next year. Chairperson Daninger wondered how many trees they were planning on taking out of the area because it is a pretty heavily wooded lot. Mr. Nash stated there is a tree preservation plan on there and they actually tried to save the trees they could. He thought it was around fifty percent of the trees but were trying to save the significant existing trees around the site. Mr. Bednarz stated several of the lot pads that have the CG notation on them means they will be custom graded so the lot pad might shift if there are desirable trees for a firture builder/homeowner. Commissioner Falk stated on page nineteen, if the extension goes through, the secondary septic system on block one southwest comer, what is the requirement to have that next to the road. Is it common to have them next to the road or further off the road? Mr. Bednarz stated it would need to be located outside of the right -of -way and outside of the ten foot wide drainage utility easement. It would need to be shifted from where it is shown now. Motion by Kircho$ seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Holthus wondered where the gravel starts on Ward Lake Road and where • the tar ends. Mr. Bednarz showed on the location map this area. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 11, 2007 Page 6 • Commissioner Walton wondered if this is a paved road with curb and gutter or is it a flat rural tarred road. Mr. Bednarz stated the road is crowned with a county ditch type design. There are no curb and gutter presently. Commissioner Walton asked how far beyond the entrance to this development would it extend. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map where the tar ends. Commissioner Walton thought the discussion was they did not want to pay for their half of the road development for now because it may be developed in the future, wouldn't they see increased desirability if they helped pay for the paving of the road from the dead end spot to the entrance of their development. Then their development becomes that much more desirable because everything else beyond that development is gravel but if it was paved all the way from Hanson out to the development it would be something they would want to work out Chairperson Daninger stated road improvements are not just for the property but for the surrounding area. Mr. Bednarz stated it is benefiting more than just the property but generally when they apply the requirements it is to address the safety of the people entering and exiting the development in this case they are not asking for turn lanes . because it is not a busy road. Because it is a gravel road surface and because it is part of an overall area that will develop further, staff feels they should pay a share of that overall improvement. . Commissioner Walton agreed and thought there was also a benefit to the people already living on the tar road. Commissioner Kirr thought the developer would have more for their $10,000 otherwise the money could sit there for a long time before the road is developed in the future. Mr. Bednarz stated there is no movement afoot to pave the road. Chairperson Daninger stated the road to the north was actually a road without an end and not a cul-de -sac. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the developer needed to escrow for the undeveloped piece so the road can be brought to it in the future. Mr. Bednarz indicated that was correct. They would collect th amount that would be determined to bring the road to the property line as proposed. Chairperson Daninger stated one of the variances they are assuming they will grant is the length of the cul-de -sac but what if they said five hundred feet only, that would change the whole scope of this but how does that affect the neighboring property to the south if they said they are not granting the variance, does that mean the land would be landlocked. Mr. Bednarz stated it would. He showed where the road would end at five hundred feet and stated it would also affect the potential for the connection to the north. The Commission further discussed the road connections. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 11, 2007 • Page 7 Chairperson Daninger stated because the sketch plan is a high level overview, that is why they did not see quite the details of issues they are seeing here. Mr. Bednarz stated if the City was going to recommend that the street be connected to the south, that should have been raised during the sketch plan but when they reviewed it at the time, there was a driveway to the site, agricultural use, no anticipated change to that, limited amount of high ground, from the staff level, they left it alone at that time. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered where they are going to go with the property to the south. This may sit for many years but it materially changes the proposal they have before them with a couple of variances, stubbed roads, an official cul-de -sac but this is a fairly descent development. He wondered where the people to the south are really motivated or will they sit on it Commissioner Walton agreed and felt sixty days was too long and thirty days was maxim after Council approves it He would like to see it shortened to thirty days and either move forward or don't because it does impact grading plans, the timing of the entire development so the sooner it gets approved and moves forward, the better it is for everyone. The sooner it gets moving forward is the better for everyone and better for total development than to approve it and make it sit for six months or longer. Commissioner Falk stated they did not know if the south portion is even buildable. Mr. • Bednarz stated there is an area outside of the floodplain and that is why they are considering the idea but they do not have the concrete information that they could say this can be done. Commissioner Falk stated he would like to have the information if that were the proposal, he would like to have that brought to their meeting so they would know what they were up against, now they do not know. Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Nash about the road development. Mr. Nash thought that if the road were paved today, $10,000 would be worth it to give them a better entrance but that is not what the City is asking of them. The City is asking for them to give $10,000 and the road may be paved sometime in the firture. Their point is to not make them pay for the improvements right now, when the road is improved and the people living there get the value of the road improvement, assess them at the time like they would any normal street improvement project Commissioner Walton asked Mr. Nash, as the developer, see added value to the acreage lots to talk with the City about bringing the paved road all the way down the development and connect it to the currently paved road Mr. Larson agreed to what Commissioner Walton was saying because it would bring value to his development, he would agree to pay the money to get it paved but he does not want to wait until a future date to have it done. Chairperson Daninger asked if the $10,000 was for just improving the intersection. Mr. . Bednarz indicated that was the estimated cost of curb and gutter and one half of Ward Lake Drive adjacent to their property. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 11, 2007 Page 8 • Chairperson Daninger stated he would like some more variables filled in before they move forward with approval. He did not know if that was reasonable or prudent because a lot of things will go away if the property owner to the south says no, then they can redefine, because if the property can be built they would have to look at the variance to the couple of lots plus the cost sharing. In addition, the cul-de -sac in the north, something is different, it was a cul-de -sac and now that has changed. He cannot approve this in his mind without more variables filled in. Councilmember Kirchoff asked if the result to the south clear up a lot of this. Chairperson Daninger felt in order to approve this, there are too many what if's for him to b comfortable with approving this. If they knew a definite that there are two buildable properties, then he could take and look at the variance of the lots. He could feel more comfortable for the assessments on the road improvements. He is willing to take one point at a time and work through that. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to table this item until the next meeting with the caveat that they ask the homeowner to the south for soil borings to bring back to the next meeting and get an answer to whether or not they are going to extend and also ask the developer to come back with modified sketch plans, both A and B with anticipation that it is going forward to the south and another not going forward to the south with the corrections discussed about the dead end road and cul-de -sac. • Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the Commission and Council could put the homeowner to the south on notice to come up with an answer. Mr. Bedn= stated they could table the item for more information but there is another item at play and that is the length of time it has taken to get through the watershed and FEMA and to get to this point. The developer has been gracious enough to extend the review period and that extension goes through September 30, 2007. The schedule they are on is to go to the Council next Tuesday and have a preliminary plat approved or denied within the time frame so if they do table it that would push the Council review out to October and they would either need the developer to consent to extend their review period into October or they would need to act in approval or denial at the Council next Tuesday. Chairperson Daninger sensed they should discuss this further before they make a motion. The Commissioner discussed the reasons for tabling, approving or denying this item. Chairperson Daninger asked for a vote from the Commission. Motion failed on a 2 -ayes, 5 -nays (Cleveland, Falk, Kircho$ Daninger, Holthus), 0- absent vote. Commissioner Holthus asked if they are supposed to come up with a cost sharing plan • tonight and are they supposed to make a recommendation on a cul-de -sac over five Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 11, 2007 • Page 9 hundred feet. Chairperson Daninger stated they can discuss a cost sharing plan and they are supposed to make a recommendation regarding the five hundred feet. Commissioner Holthus stated the developer should pay their proportionate share, five lots worth, of the paving of Ward Lake Road and she thought if the south lots are buildable, the developer should pay their proportionate share or 5/7 of the south street connection. She would also agree with the variance for the over five hundred foot cul-de -sac. Chairperson Daninger thought the cul-de -sac to the north should have the preliminary plat changed to reflect that it is not a cul-de -sac. He wondered what they should have done with the $10,000. Commissioner Holthus stated she would like to see that the asphalt continue on from where the asphalt ends on Ward Lake Road to the development and this is an issue that outreaches this agenda item. If that asphalt is continued, then other residents would have to pay their share as well. Chairperson Daninger asked if the cul-de -sac and the two lots are buildable would Commissioner Holthus be acceptance to the variance of the two lots of the five, meaning they would be something smaller than 2.5 acres. Commissioner Holthus stated she would agree with that variance. Chairperson Daninger stated he could concur with that to move it forward. • Commissioner Holthus thought it would be less expensive if the road was paved now up to the development rather than paving the entire Ward Lake Road section because it is a shorter distance and more individuals to share the cost of it But in the future, it Ward Lake Road was going to be paved the rest of the way, there would only be a few residents to share in the cost of that pavement unless there were further developments built in there. Chairperson Daninger stated if the two lots were not buildable to the south, they would end the cul-de -sac and there would not be any cost sharing and no variance to the lots and the variance would be to the length of the cul-de -sac and the change to the north, instead of a cul-de -sac it would be a shorter road. Commissioner Holthus stated they are suggesting that the owner of the two south lots provide buildability evidence within sixty days and she thought that was too long. Commissioner Walton thought two weeks was long enough. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Falk, to recommend the variance of the cul-de -sac of over five hundred feet, if the south lots are buildable, the developer should pay their proportionate share of the south street connection and the developer should also pay their proportionate share of the paving of Ward Lake Road and the cul-de -sac to the north is no longer a cul-de -sac, it is a shorter street and the section of street coming out to Ward Lake Road would be paved and not escrowed and the owner to the south would need to provide 0 soil borings proving buildability within'ten business days. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting lfinutes —September 11, 2007 Page 10 • ommissioner Cleveland asked if they want to pave both sides of the road immediately C adjacent to the intersection itself or up to where the gravel road is. Commissioner Casey indicated there is curb and gutter from the proposed project to the current curb and gutter of approximately 100 feet. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 18, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC SEARING: CITY CODEAMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQU[REMENTS OF CITY CODE 5-11 ANIMAL CONTROL Mr. Vrchota stated this item was tabled at the August 2e Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional public input. Staff has not received any additional inquiries, comments or information from the public since the August 2e meeting. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 9:31 p.m. Motion • carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- 3bsent vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson, 2705 134 Lane NW, wondered what the next step will be for this item. She wondered what they will be basing their decision on, will it be the problems she is having or do other cities have the same problems. Chairperson Daninger explained the process going forward. Motion by Kirchof� seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Walton stated when he reads through the other cities details and what they already have written; electronic fencing is not mentioned in other cities, not mentioned in their code, already indicates that it is not considered a reasonable restraint. It is not mentioned or addressed however it is an assumption and the only way to clear up an assumption is to put it in black and white so either they add a note that electronic fencing is not considered a reasonable constraint or do not address it at all. Commissioner Kirchoff liked what they heard before and that is if an animal is restrained, it is restrained and if it gets away, it is not being restrained regardless of whatever technology is being used. He thought in reading the other cities ordinances, they do not care what you do to make sure your animal is restrained but the moment it breaks its barrier, it is no longer restrained, it is in violation. He stated he likes that versus trying to • regulate electronic fences. The moment it is off your property it is no longer restrained. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting • Minutes —September 11, 2007 Page 11 Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to approve everything presented except for restraint which has not been presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 18, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODEAMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE TITLE 11 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Mr. Cross explained for the last six months, City staff has been revising the Subdivision ordinance, the section of City Code that determines the requirements and review criteria for new subdivisions. Much of the language dates back to the original 1974 ordinance, so staff has attempted to simplify the Subdivision Ordinance, remove outdated material, and update it to conform to policies and regulations that are currently being used. The staff report summarizes the issues identified as significant changes related to the Subdivision Code update. The Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed and comments on the changes at two workshops. • Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 9:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 9:41 p.m Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Walton stated he felt pretty comfortable with what they did and how staff presented this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to approve the item as submitted. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 18, 2007 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: • a. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Update i. Land Use Plan ii. Wastewater and Comprehensive Sewer Plans Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 11, 2007 Page 12 • Mr. Bednarz reviewed the amendments with the Commission. Commissioner Cleveland asked what non - metallic metal was. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not have an example for the Commission and they are not facing this issue in the community. Commissioner Cleveland thought they might want to use minerals instead. Commissioner Cleveland stated on page 25, second paragraph, last sentence should read ``...eeaed attributed to the increased size of new homes." Commissioner Falk wondered if they should add black dirt in the section with extracting. Mr. Bednarz stated this is not what the Met Council conceives under that type of land use so that would not be covered under that item Commissioner Falk wondered what Capital Improvement Plan meant. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan with the Commission. Commissioner Holthus stated on page one, chapter one, second paragraph, third line states "The result has been consistently strong occupancy in previously existing commercial centers like the downtown center". She thought instead of "like" it should read "such as ". • Commissioner Holthus asked on page S, fourth bullet down, ensure new development and redevelopment, would it be more proper to say "ensure that new development and redevelopment has a positive impact." Commissioner Holthus asked on page 17, under Rural Residential, the land area identified in four communities, Ham Lake, Andover, Inver Grove Heights and Credit River Township", she wondered if there were only four communities developed at one unit per two to 2.5 acres or less and why are those four communities mentioned. Mr. Bednarz stated this is a definition of that rural residential category from the Met Council. This is taken from their language. What they have done is applied planning area designations and Rural Residential is one of those designations and those four communities are the only ones they have identified as two to 2.5 acres or less without urban infrastructure, such as sewer and water. Commissioner Holthus stated in the next paragraph, existing land use map, at the very end it refers to figure 2.3 and she could not find it Mr. Bednarz indicated it was a list of the land use designations. Commissioner Holthus stated figure 2.7, a Met Council Net Residential Density Worksheet table, the column stated "acres of public parks and open space" it says there are only forty acres and she wondered if that was correct. Mr. Bednarz stated what the • graphic is showing is of the areas of the staging plan that will develop out to the year 2030, there are a number of acres divided by each of those land use categories and the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 11, 2007 is Page 13 preliminary planning they have done for the Rural Reserve has indicated about thirty acres of public park land within that area, additionally the ten acres of additional park land they arrived at with a discussion with the Parks Coordinator and looking at areas that will develop inside the MUSA over those stages. Commissioner Holthus stated on the Waste Water and Comprehensive Sewer Plan she was wondering on the third page, Item C, Capacity and Plans for Future System, in the first paragraph, second line from the bottom reads "The City currently does not have plans to extend Municipal Sewer to the area designated in the MCES system statement as potential service', she wondered what MCES means. Mr. Bednarz stated it was Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and would add the full language to the acronym. Commissioner Holthus stated in the third paragraph, second line, she wondered what WWTP meant. Mr. Bednarz stated it was Waste Water Treatment Plan and would be added. Commissioner Holthus stated on the page where "D" begins, Privately Owned Treatment Facilities, the ending of the previous paragraph refers to figure 4.5 and she wondered what that was. Mr. Bednarz stated it was the proposed sanitary system. Commissioner • Holthus suggested this be labeled as figure 4.5. Chairperson Daninger thought this was a good discussion. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary 7imeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 V C I T lr O F � ND OVE . • 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 CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannei FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner' DATE: September 25, 2007 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split (07 -03) to create two lots on a 14 -acre property located at 3210 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. INTRODUCTION The pastor of the Riverdale Assembly of God church has applied to split the church's lot into two parcels. The new lot will be used by Bunker Hills Academy, which currently operates inside the church. • DISCUSSION Both lots conform the City Code's requirements for the R -4 zoning district. The attached survey illustrates the proposed lot split. Lot details are shown in the table below: Lot Design The church is splitting off the rear 8.5 acres of its lot, which is currently an open field. The driveway along the west property line will be a part of this new lot, providing the required access to a public street. The driveway helps Parcel B meet the required lot width of 80 feet at the front yard setback. Access The existing church will remain on Parcel A, but the driveway that services the church will be on Parcel B. The applicants will be required to provide a cross - access agreement so the church has permission to use the driveway in perpetuity. • R -4 Requirements Parcel A Parcel B Lot Width at setback) 80 feet 105 feet 390 feet Lot Depth 130 feet 618.73 feet 618.89 feet Lot Area .26 acres (11,400 sq. ft.) 5.5 acres 8.57 acres Lot Design The church is splitting off the rear 8.5 acres of its lot, which is currently an open field. The driveway along the west property line will be a part of this new lot, providing the required access to a public street. The driveway helps Parcel B meet the required lot width of 80 feet at the front yard setback. Access The existing church will remain on Parcel A, but the driveway that services the church will be on Parcel B. The applicants will be required to provide a cross - access agreement so the church has permission to use the driveway in perpetuity. • Easements • The applicants have indicated they will create a driveway easement on the property to allow the church permanent access. This can be accomplished with a cross -access agreement, which the City is requiring as a condition on this lot split. Utilities The property is currently served by municipal sewer and water. Capacity exists to serve the proposed school on the new Parcel B. Trail Fee A Trail fee in the amount of $612 will be required for the new property. Park Dedication The City has the option of collecting a park fee as indicated in the attached section of the City Code titled `Optional Park Fee'. The applicant has provided the attached letter requesting this fee be waived. The amount of the park fee is determined by the zoning district. In this case, the property is zoned R -4, Single Family Urban Residential. As a result the applicable park fee would be one lot unit for each of the proposed lots ($2,515 per lot for a total of $5030). ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to form a recommendation to the City Council on the lot split. • Respectfully submitted, l�s Andy C ss Associate Planner Cc: Larry E. Hale, Riverdale Assembly of God Church, 3210 Bunker Lake Blvd NW, Andover, MN 55304 Attachments Resolution Location Map Letter from Applicant Certificate of Survey Optional Park Fee Park Dedication Amount Determined • —7- 1 CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR RIVERDALE ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO PARCELS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3210 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW (32 -32 -2441 -0002) LEGALLY AND DESCRIBED AS: The East 495.00 feet as measured along the north and south lines of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. To be divided into properties to be described as; PARCEL A: That part of the East 495 feet as measured along the north and south lines of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 390.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 • minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 90.96 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 28 degrees 57 minutes 18 seconds; thence South 29 degrees 24 minutes 18 seconds West tangent to last described curve a distance of 46.48 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 152.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 65.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 83.00 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds East along said east line a distance of 698.89 feet to the point of beginning, Anoka County, Minnesota. PARCEL B: That part of the East 495 feet as measured along the north and south lines of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows Commencing at the northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds West assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 390.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly a distance of 90.96 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 28 degrees 57 minutes 18 seconds; thence South 29 degrees 24 minutes 18 seconds West tangent to last described curve a distance of 46.48 feet; • thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 346.07 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 152.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance for 65.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 —.Y- seconds East a distance or 200.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 00 seconds East a distance or 83.00 . feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds West along said east line a distance of 618.73 feet to the southeast corner of said East 495 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 47 seconds West along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 450.00 feet to the southwest comer of said east 495 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 00 seconds East along the west line of said East 459.00 feet a distance of 1318.73 feet to the northwest corner of said East 495.00 feet; thence south 89 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds East along the north line off said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 105.00 feet to the point of be Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to City Code Title 13 Chapter 1, located at 3210 Bunker Lake Blvd NW, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of City Code Title 13 Chapter 1; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and; • WHERAS, the applicant has requested that the park fee be waived, and: WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request to waive the park fee and determined _, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested, and; 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 lot split on said property with the following conditions: A cross - access agreement shall be recorded with Anoka County to give the Riverdale Assembly of God Church permission to use the driveway on Parcel B in perpetuity. The applicant shall provide the city with a copy of this agreement. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a Trail fee in the amount of $612. 3. 4. The applicant shall record the lot split with Anoka County. 0 5. The new deeds for the property shall contain the legal descriptions included in this • resolution. 6. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code Title 13 Chapter 1. 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 is I* —3— µµ d; osoz L!R /M a f' UOZ 8 LEM N !LK W sc6 9 uYKK p � W K teK ZbK z ZLS �iIn, I LD2 CLa Ua LLZE . (o..zti � J eea 1 951 eea oea seze I rezE a uo6 WK e[ 2L6 LL6 m6 . w6 . eo6 LM LY6 1 N 926 Lz6 i F26 zzm L26 O&M a26 LE6 K6 tE6 sE6 u6 EE¢ roa c� a6 t� osa eL6 eS6 3� _ � 006 296 BO6 806 806 ' CM I ke [OK LZK S a 7 Bf/[ eEK 19CL6 0Elf 0 8 gy = UK aK 'm ^ rK WK W, em LOK C teypLt i `s �� -- o°e C y am / / SILVEROa rrt s Y i Y z 191E WK e[ .I rK L e C4A LY6 — Oft L NNSO 3�4 U W �*a, A bN ' 6 kF um r \ p aosa nsa y d f, OMA xxK L R t l dOd o W � r 0 1 LL 0 ZOK [EK o �� 8 81c �• UK 4/E ZLK %K Zrc UK ale LM me yy K KK L#K zi ZZK LM i OBI[ 3K 86K zEK ZL* EEK Zoe [LK 7E� Sao ELtE zm WK zm cm zm e0K BeL0 "M L q � S Q LK J OOK I spa 20K t0S ZON LOK ZON StC OM c = ff�SE ZLK %LSE UM LLK ME Z65C WV&rdale ,nidgeto� 3210 Bunker Lake Blvd NW Andover. MN 55304 761421.8080 www.rlverdalechurchandoverorg August 27, 2007 Mayor Mike Gamache and City Council City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Dear Mayor Gamache and City Council: Riverdale Assembly of God has applied for a lot split to sell property to Bunker Hills Academy at 3210 Bunker Lake Blvd. NW [The East 495.00 feet as measured along the north and south lines of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota]. See accompanying Sketch Plan for Bunker Bills Academy Exhibit B. It is our understanding the City of Andover can assess a park fee regarding sale of property. Because of the nature of the project —a school to be built with playground and ball fields —we are requesting that any park fees that may be assessed by the City of Andover be waived. Thank you for your consideration of this waiver. If you have question regarding the lot split, please call me at 763.421.8080. You may also wish to speak with the Bunker Hills Academy Administrator Gary Peterson at 763.421.3530. Courtney Bednari has a sketch of the property and what is proposed in the lot split Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Yours truly, tvf -� Pastor /CEO c: Courtney Bednarz & Gary Peterson presenting LIVING PROOF of a LOVING GOD to a WATCHING WORLD -17- • • 9 L 6 / � / r r. e N 8 \ 5 smYnvfe -: scr -aa-nn CSAPHC SCffi IYY_ ffL . \ , aoosswv ®sfsea \ \ \ \ \ \\ fsfcnfn re slseyf �> ®�i KIDS (land Su Yo & OvH Abou"rs. Ina Oal�ru r.o�.wy.�r -ryw r... M rm .um arrr v r I scn_ra.er. It f I !W I Y 1. \ 2 N ► r I,fw Htl I � L 6 / � / r r. e N 8 \ 5 smYnvfe -: scr -aa-nn CSAPHC SCffi IYY_ ffL . \ , aoosswv ®sfsea \ \ \ \ \ \\ fsfcnfn re slseyf �> ®�i KIDS (land Su Yo & OvH Abou"rs. Ina Oal�ru r.o�.wy.�r -ryw r... h a s h b I w I w RECEIVED SSEP 1 2007 ClQWE.AUaOVER M � W 9v.ryn Yr lYr Iw M M SMf MaOUI I4 l44s�r sy w lewa fa. rf-a1 Mitt f -aw -u [wr f.w.e a -a-w -n.r rY f.rs.: e_'e_w wY.Yf sir MWf! f_n_w J.grs/ lY.l MvbIM M I !W I Y e 2 N ► r I,fw Htl I � h a s h b I w I w RECEIVED SSEP 1 2007 ClQWE.AUaOVER M � W 9v.ryn Yr lYr Iw M M SMf MaOUI I4 l44s�r sy w lewa fa. rf-a1 Mitt f -aw -u [wr f.w.e a -a-w -n.r rY f.rs.: e_'e_w wY.Yf sir MWf! f_n_w J.grs/ lY.l MvbIM O p - n o ^r* L D oq-d - 4 - . subject property. E. Current zoning and legal description. F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3) years. G. A list of the property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350) of the lot split. H. Such other information as may be required to fully represent the intent of the lot split (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16 -1977) 13 -1 -5: FEES: A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application. —�j B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for park fees (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16 -1977; amd. 2003 Code) 13-1 -6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The proposed lot split shall first be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended Ord. 40, B-16 -1977) B. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of an application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350) of the property of the date of the review of such lot split (Amended Ord. 40, B -16 -1977; amd. 2003 Code) C. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and . does not nullify the intent of this chapter. — 7— ' See subsection 1 -7 -31-1 of this code. j Ol C4 770a �'fMOc+ DL-T ' ►+r try The Park and Recreation Commission shall further recommend changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Park Development Plan to reflect • changes in the usage of land which may occur, changes in zoning classifications and concepts and changes in planning and development concepts that relate to the development and usages to which the land may be put. 3. Park And Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Park and Recreation Commission shall, in each case, recommend to the City Council the total area and location of such land that the Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the development for playground, open space and public use purposes. C. Cash Contribution In Lieu Of Lands: 1. Amount Determined: a. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the owners or developers in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land for park, playground, open space or public use purposes, the Park and Recreation Commission shall recommend to the City Council the amount of cash said Commission feels should be so contributed. Such recommendation shall be based on the market • value of the undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. �j b. In lieu of land dedication, the City may require from the developer or owner a cash contribution which is based on a fee per lot/unit basis for the development of residentially zoned property. In the case of the development of commercial/industrial zoned property, the City may require a cash contribution from the developer or owner which is based on ten percent (10 %) of the market value of the land. These fees' are established and adopted by the City Council and are effective for any plat that has not received preliminary plat approval after the date of publication of this title. The fees would also apply to plats that have received preliminary plat approval, but have not received final plat approval by the City Council within twelve (12) months of the publication date of this title. If an extension is requested of the preliminary plat beyond the twelve (12) months, the fee that is in effect at the time of the extension is the fee that is to be contributed. Park cash contributions are to be paid to the city prior to the recording of the final plat at the county. The City Council may require the payment at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by See subsection 1 -7 -3G of this code. • �d - I ANDOVE • 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: - September 25, 2007 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage at 3118 162 Lane NW. INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for outdoor storage on their property. This would allow a roll -off dumpster business that has been run on the site since 2005 to remain in operation. DISCUSSION Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the Industrial zoning district. This allows the City to review the site and set conditions to ensure that the storage will not have a negative impact on neighboring properties. • The attached letters from the property owner and manager of the roll-off business lay out their proposal for the storage of the dumpster boxes on the site. They state that there will be a maximum of 13 boxes on the site, with at least 10 of them being empty, that all boxes that have material in them will be covered while on the site, and that full boxes will remain on the property for no more than 3 days. These stipulations have been included as conditions in the attached resolution. A condition requiring that boxes not be stacked higher than the fence that provides the required screening has also been included. Site improvements for this property will be reviewed under the newly adopted interim performance standards for the Hughs/Westview Industrial Park area. Upon reviewing the site, staff recommends the following improvements. • Paint the Exterior of the Building- The sheet metal exterior of the building is starting to rust. A coat of paint would enhance the overall look of the property. • Pave the Driveway and Front Parking Lot- the driveway onto 162 Lane and part of the parking lot are gravel. This results in gravel and dirt being tracked onto the street, as shown in the attached photographs. • Stripe the Front Parking Lot - The front parking lot area is not striped. Striping would allow for more orderly parking and help ensure that the required number of parking stalls are being provided. • Landscape the Front of the Building- Landscaping should be provided in front of the • building to provide some screening and a more attractive view from the street. A detailed landscape plan will need to be provided. • Dust Control in Rear Lot- Dust control measures should be used in all unpaved areas in the rear storage area. • Additional Fencing - The applicant has proposed placing a new wood or concrete fence at the entrance to the rear storage yard. This would provide additional screening from the street. • The Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine what site improvements will be required, using the interim performance standards as a guide. 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. 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. 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 Letters From the Applicants Site Photographs City Code 12- 13 -23: Interim Performance Standards ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Respec y Sub�tted, l/ /J C s Vrchota Cc: Rick Lindquist, 3118 162 Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 Dave King, 613 11 l Avenue NW, Blaine, MN 55434 • 0 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF RICK LINDQUIST FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3118 162 " LANE NW, (PIN 16- 32 -24 -23 -0023) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The east 250 feet of the west 650 feet of the south 433 feet of the north 2184.99 feet of the west 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township, 32 Range 24, except road, subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, Rick Lindquist has requested a Conditional Use Permit for retail trade and services in the industrial zoning district, 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 retail trade and service in the industrial zoning district on said property with the following conditions: 1. The following site improvements, as determined by the City Council, shall be made: a. Painting of the exterior of the building. b. Paving of the driveway and front parking lot. c. Striping of the front parking lot. d. Landscaping in the front of the building, in conformance with an approved landscaping plan. e. Dust control measures used in the rear storage yard. f. Construction of a new fence to screen the rear storage yard from 162 " Lane. 2. All dumpsters stored on the site shall be screened from view from adjacent properties. 3. No dumpster or material shall be stacked above the fence line. 4. A maximum of 13 dumpster shall be allowed on the site. 5. Dumpsters with material in them shall not be stored on the site longer than 3 days. . 6. Dumpsters with material in them shall be covered at all times. 3 7. 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 • • f- .. c. ~. al(\l ....., ~:E '0..- C.s:; ~Ol -en 00 ~ ~'> _ 0 ._'_ QJ ,... en U () J!! g cn'" ~ ~ 5~ ('I') ,.... N en 0.. liON 0:::<( 0- w z ti N ~ >~ W ~ .5 01 '" gz J 1;3 ffi '" tl -:-: ~ ~ Z6 . ...J I- (l: cr. .!! .. iD <0 ,;. a.. ~. ~ ~ l! ~ OJ ;,; ..: , <(.. en c C ~~ ::;:IIIi!lIDD a.a.l!! ,,0 ~ :e ~ ~~ / / I 69t9~ II ~ J I 911ll: ::;: / 8 { I C 7~/-'< ~ r~~ ~ ~ ", I "- I ~1E9 ~ ',,- 1 9161: 9161: , "- , ~tot ~OI: ~~OI: 1ll:0I: ~ ~OI: ilOl: 01'01: ~ ~OI: '" l!I 9LOI: '" I ~ 0 ~ 9601: ~ zl g 9O~E ~ 9O~E ~ -li c; ~ '" I all 9HE"- .. 0:: .LS llnONor ~ Ill:~E ~ 1'- :!l V!:~E 13 ~ 6E~E I ~ ~ ~ = SZ09L. ;:; 13 6P~E OS~E ~6~9~ ! (>~ 4f' \ \ 9!:tE o~~ I iJ, ~ ' 1~c:Y~~ ~EtE ~ ~ ~ \ .. E~ I ~~ ~.. \ '< :s - I "'"" ./ . ......... z / IJ~VN OStE ......... ...-I // e ~ ...-I ~ Iz . r.l t:: ~ - I- '...-I la 1lI _ :! l:; 0 - \ N i z'" ~ ~ ~ to .. \ ll) 'a N ..... Ii \ \ fa t CD .- \ ~..- 0 \ <0 stEt '.- 6~EE nSSI:Jt:lVN -------_ 1< $' O 0 (n CD i l p f` O " ` O O of (A) Cb NZ =p CL ;L r ZCD C Z:3 Q C < 2 CD CD CD N Z CJt cn w O sse.lo wl,,, pasoaoaj 162nd Lane NW A e ..0 .t5 ► GIVE OP!M , lZ r v cx z D 7.. e r 'e z •{ ..9 .or ► r = 7 r n ai r' v '4..O .9S ► r r • � ,N1 ° ° r�- 9;.O1. 0 T 3J� dy, ",`L ?u4t 3oyaJ ,Nl S ul > JIM r m r O 0 O or A C. 0 0 d C CD 0 C) m 0 • A North E - 7 c A • r T 0 NORTHERN CYLINDER HEADS 3118 -162ND Lane NW Andover, MN 55304 June 4, 2007 Mayor and Councilmembers City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Conditional Use Permit for 3118 162 Lane RECEIVED JUN 5 2007 CITY OF ANDOVER Please consider this letter as my request for your consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of outdoor storage of roll -off dumpsters on the above referenced property in an Industrial Zoning District. I was not aware of the City Code requirement for such a permit as the property was being used for this purpose at the time of my purchase in 2005. An inspection by Mr. Cross advised me of the requirements to be in compliance with City Code. Following is general information relating to my permit application: 0 • No garbage will be in containers on -site. • Containers will hold construction waste only. • Containers, if full, will always be covered. • Plan is to relocate containers pursuant to site plan. • Total maximum containers on -site will be 13 of which 10 will be empty • Full containers will remain on site no longer than 3 days. • LePage & Sons have designated trucks and trailers to pick up full containers for disposal, however, due to holidays, weekends, Saturday pick -up and equipment breakdowns the maximum 3 days storage are required. Proposed property improvements: • Paint Building • Landscape Front Yard • Wood or Concrete Front Fence It is my understanding that I am to be in attendance at the City Council Meeting as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will be available for anyone to contact me at 612- 810 -6098 to answer any questions or provide additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rick D. Lindquist Northern Cylinder Heads CC: Planning & Zoning Commission Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Will Neumeister, Community Development Director • Courtney Bednarz, City Planner Andy Cross, Associate Planner T 613 -1 11th Ave. NE Blaine, MN 55434 763.757.71 763.772.0633 www.LePageandSons.com web June 4, 2007 Mayor and Council Members City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit LePage and Sons Inc. would like to respectfully request the consideration of the Mayor and City Council of Andover in the issuance of a conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property located 3118 162nd Lane NW. Mr. Lindquist's letter will outline the conditional use permit request as it pertains to Title 12, Chapter 12 "Outdoor display, Storage, and Sales" of the city code. We have operated from this location since the fall of 2005 and not until recently did we discover that we were in violation of City code. Knowledge of similar operations from this industrial zoned location prior to our arrival lead us to believe our business would be compliant with code. We are a family owned locally operated business with a successful past and bright future in the community. We take a great deal of pride in our work and our contributions to the communities in which we work and live. We would like it to be known that we would never knowingly violate city code. The primary focus of our business is to supply waste solutions to local contractors, business and residents. We are strictly a Rolloff business with primary focus centered on the construction industry, with many of our customers and clients living and working within the city of Andover. We are committed to working diligently with Mr. Lindquist to make the necessary improvements outlined in his request in a manner that is both fiscally and timely prudent. We would look forward to the opportunity to review the requirements necessary to bring the property with in compliance to continue our operations from this location and remain a part of Andover's' strong business community. Sincerely, Dave King General Manager Lepage & Sons Inc. Ph: 763-757-7100 CC: Planning & Zoning Commission Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Courtney Bednarz, City Planner Andy Cross, Associate Planner 0 • g Locelty Owned and FaMAY Operated r r� u 0 �� � \ . \� \� �� */ � } ; a %¥ \ � � : \ \� � � �� » ° ^ \\ : � \� )�d �� . . , . :� $� \ . _ :� \ . \ � � `. � � �� . / a \ �� �� `` � � < / }§ �� \ - � � � j� / #� � y »2« �� .��� */ � } 12- 13 -23: INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: • A. Purpose: Interim performance standards are intended to establish an alternative level of site improvements for properties located in the rural industrial area generally referred to as the Hughs/Westview industrial park area. The City acknowledges that the lack of municipal utilities limits the development potential of these properties. These performance standards are intended to allow continued use, expansion and redevelopment with a level of site improvements that is commensurate with the development potential of the properties. B. Applicability and Scope: This section shall apply to any expansion of use requiring a conditional use permit or commercial site plan on all properties generally described as the Hughs/Westview industrial park area and legally described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota and the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. C. Procedure: Applications shall be processed under the Conditional Use Permit procedures described in City Code 12 -14-6 except as follows: 1. Application: The property owner or designee shall submit a complete application to the Community Development Department. A complete application consists of the following: a. A completed Conditional Use Permit form and fee as described in City Code 1 -7 -3. b. A site plan that describes all of the existing and proposed site improvements, including the dimensions of the property, buildings, parking, landscaping and storage areas and distances from property lines. c. A letter describing the existing use of the property, the proposed use of the property and all of the proposed site improvements. d. Other information deemed necessary by staff to review the request. 2. Council Determination: The City Council shall approve or deny the application based on the factors established in this section. The City Council may attach such conditions as they determine necessary to provide the appropriate level of site and building improvements to accomplish the purpose of this section. The level of required improvements shall be determined on a case -by -case basis. Applications shall be reviewed based on the following factors: a. Existing appearance of the building and site; . IL • b. Compatibility of the proposed site development plan with the other industrial properties in the area; c. Effect of the proposed use and the proposed site development plan on the adjacent residential neighborhood, including traffic, noise, glare, buffers, and environmental impacts; D: Deviations to the performance standards will be considered in the following areas: 1. Parking and Impervious Surface Areas: a. Screening, landscaping, visual appeal, and lighting of parking lot areas. b. Paving of parking areas for customers. c. Dust control measures for unpaved parking and storage areas. 2. The amount, type, location, and screening of exterior storage requested as a part of any Conditional Use Permit. 3. Screening of mechanical equipment and trash bins /dumpsters. • 4. Other factors related to the new development proposal, as the City Council may deem relevant. E. Term of Approval: Interim performance standards approved under this section shall endure until City sewer and water are extended into the area affected by this section. At that time, any future expansion or redevelopment of the affected properties shall be required to fully conform to the regular performance standards of City Code 12 -13. F. Other Requirements: Proposed improvements or changes in use will be reviewed by the Building Official and Fire Chief. They will make a determination of whether or not the building(s) on the site need to be brought into compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Site improvements must also be made to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). No portion of this section shall be used to vary from these requirements. • 13 �4 C I T Y \ NDO W E -A • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planned SUBJECT: Work Session: Discuss Transportation Plan Update. DATE: September 25, 2007 INTRODUCTION Staff will make a presentation of the plan that was distributed at the September 11 m meeting. Please bring the Transportation Plan to the meeting. DISCUSSION Please bring any questions, comments or concerns to the meeting. ACTION REQUESTED This item will be discussed at the meeting. j ��iS' it : • • � •