Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/091685 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 July 14, 2009 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — May 12, 2009 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (09 -05) to allow a used car dealer at 3075 162 Lane NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code 12 -12 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to add car washes as a permitted accessory use to automobile service stations. 5. Other Business a. Fence Height Discussion 6. Adjournment A C I T Y 0 F NDOVEA 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 - May 12, 2009 DATE: July 14, 2009 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the May 12, 2009 meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 12, 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on May 12, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Valerie Holthus. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Angie Perera Director of Public Works /City Engineer, David Berkowitz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. April 14, 2009 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent ( Holthus) vote. PUBLICHEARING: VARIANCE (09 -02) TO VARY FROMMINIMUMLOT WIDTHREQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -3 -5 FOR FUTURE LOT SPLITAT 17285 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the applicant would like to divide their 9.69 acre parcel into two lots at some point in the future. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not understand what the applicant was trying to do with the property because the long narrow strip looked to be only a road. Mr. Bednarz clarified with the Commission what the applicant proposed to do. Commissioner Cleveland asked if an easement was granted where the potential property would be located at. Mr. Bednarz stated it is yet to be determined and staff will work Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 2 with the applicant on this, if approved, to make sure the home is not located in an area that would obstruct the road from being extended. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Harvey Mathies, 2857 172 "d Avenue, stated he talked to the owner of the other property and was told he was not going to sell the land or divide his property. He stated there will be one road coming in there and will go into a cul -de -sac and he wondered if these lots will be 2.5 acres. Chairperson Daninger believed the area was zoned for 2.5 acres. He also wondered if a cul -de -sac was placed on the property if someone will take some of his land for a second access to the area. Chairperson Daninger indicated they were only looking at the variance at the meeting and everything else will be looked at in the future. Mr. Keith Larson, applicant, 17285 Round Lake Boulevard, stated they never intended on putting in a cul -de -sac or anything else. They just want to have access from 173` into their property so they could someday possibly build a house in the back. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Casey stated he thought in this situation it is a unique property considering the length of it and access is limited by other private properties it is landlocked and presents a hardship for him. He stated he was in favor of approving the variance and did not see any other alternatives in developing the back of this property. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the variance request. Commissioner Walton stated there is a neighboring property to this one and they will land lock this property if they approve this variance because they would never have access to 17247. This landowner will then control the road that will have access to the back half of both of the lots. Mr. Bednarz stated to clarify the intent at this time is to provide a driveway access to the subject property. The applicant did express to him some interest in another lot there at some point in the future, which would also be served by a driveway. The City would make sure that the location of that home would not conflict with the extension of a future street. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (09 -04) TO ALLOW A USED CAR DEALER AT 3149162 LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Code requires Council approval of a conditional use permit and a city license for used vehicles sales in the Limited Industrial Zoning District. The applicant is obtaining a dealer's license from the state. This license requires commercial office space. The applicant proposed to have a small office in the existing building and one display vehicle in the existing parking lot. The applicant's letter also indicates that he would provide brokering services for clients. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the proposed building was what was currently there. Mr. Bednarz indicated that was correct. Chairperson Daninger indicated an email was received by Dan and Nancy Prescott indicating they were against this Conditional Use Permit application. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Joe Brabant, 16191 Round Lake Boulevard, stated he was not opposed to business but his question was the parking situation and if it was indeed a legal parking lot because he understood that a permit was never given for this parking lot so in reality it could not be considered adequate parking for a business. Mr. Bednarz did not think Mr. Brabant was ever told there was not any parking at this site and shows parking in the aerial photo. He stated he was not privy to all the details or history of this site. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the parking lot was bituminous. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if a permit was pulled for this parking area. Mr. Bednarz explained he could not answer that but there was a parking lot on site at this point in time. Mr. Frank Sudd, 15956 Drake Street, stated he was looking for the opportunity to start this business. He noted he planned on having an extremely small operation and looking to get his dealers license. He also noted there will be minimal impact to the area. Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd planned on having only one display vehicle on site. Mr. Sudd indicated he did because he mostly needed to CUP in order to get his dealers license in order to broker. Commissioner Falk asked if Mr. Sudd would consider looking into consignment of vehicles. Mr. Sudd stated that is something he may look into and would like to keep his business somewhat diverse. He would not keep a vehicle parked in the lot trying to sell it but may help others use his resources to sell their vehicle on consignment. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 4 Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd did this anywhere else. Mr. Sudd stated he did not. Chairperson Daninger asked if Mr. Sudd was comfortable with staff suggestion with the vegetation and upgrade of plantings. Mr. Sudd stated he has not seen those plans yet but did talk to the owner of the building but was not aware of the requirements. Motion by Walton, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would support this item as written. Chairperson Daninger agreed and wanted to make sure it was also fair to the existing businesses and have staff follow up on the parking area that was discussed. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to approve as written and following up with staff to see if the parking lot is legal. Chair Daninger stated the resolution was read and restated and the concern with the one vehicle was understood by the applicant. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays (Casey), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING: REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OFHANSONBOULEVARDAND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz stated BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. This item follows from the sketch plan reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 10"' meeting. The applicant requested a full movement access to Crosstown Boulevard at that meeting. The Planning Commission recommended a right - in/right -out access only. The Council appeared in favor of a 3 /4 intersection. The Council also discussed the speed limit along Crosstown Boulevard, the potential for development of the Holasek property to the south and staging roadway improvements over time. Mr. Bednarz turned the discussion over to Mr. Berkowitz who reviewed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated Crosstown is currently separated by a concrete median up to the point where this access would begin and he wondered if the concrete would be tore Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 5 up through the whole intersection area. Mr. Berkowitz indicated it would be torn up through the intersection to prevent any left movements into and out of the development and then create a safe area for those left turning vehicles. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if staff felt the three quarter access will work. Mr. Berkowitz stated as long as the safety improvements are adhered by as identified in their review of the plan. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there would be adequate space on the road for this improvement. Mr. Berkowitz stated there will need to be some widening needed on the roadway to facilitate the hard canalization. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there was sufficient room to widen the road. Mr. Berkowitz stated there is as long as the improvements are made towards the north side of Crosstown Boulevard. He noted there is no right -of -way on the south side of the road. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Tom Roberts, 6484 Pinnacle Drive, Eden Prairie, Chief Manager of BDT Holdings & Mr. Darren Lazan, Landform Engineering and Manager of BDT Holdings were at the meeting for discussion. Mr. Roberts stated the issue really becomes a cost issue. He thought everyone has agreed that a' /a should work and their engineer thought they should have a full access because it operates at level service A. They felt in the future something will have to happen, such as when Mr. Holasek's property gets developed or they develop the other outlot and the traffic justifies it, he thought putting in additional access will make sense. They would like to build a' /4 today with painted lines and a pork chop concrete at the access point but adding concrete medians and turn lanes adds too much to the cost for something that will be ripped out at some point when other properties are developed and does not make sense to spend that money for that now. Mr. Roberts stated one of the big issues is the speed limit and would recommend instead of requesting a speed study between Bluebird and Hanson, the speed study was done east of Bluebird, and by putting this access in they should request a speed study in a shorter time frame. Mr. Winslow Holasek stated he owns the property across the road from this development and he believed access to Clocktower Commons will be good for them and the City and he thought it seemed reasonable to have a 3 /4 intersection there at this time. Chairperson Daninger asked if a full intersection was constructed how it would be built. Mr. Roberts stated the traffic does not justify that at this time. The only reason they suggested a 3 /4 intersection is because they have the ability at Bluebird to turn left. He Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 6 thought the two big issues are staff would like a fairly large right turn lane into the property which they did not think was necessary at this point and the concrete medians going from both directions to designate the left turn in and so people cannot make a left turn out. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he supported the City Engineer's recommendation for this. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the City was going to make any adjustment to the speed limit on Crosstown. Mr. Berkowitz stated they were not and would remain at 50mph. Commissioner Walton stated in these economic times they need to figure out a way that makes economical sense to local businesses to help them thrive. He stated there needs to be another outlet because the parking area is hard to navigate. He was not sure he was in support of this or not. Chairperson Daninger thought the Commission agreed on the' /4 turn and he wondered which recommendation everyone wanted to use. Commissioner Cleveland stated he was sympathetic to the Cities safety concerns. Both engineers have the same facts and drawn different conclusions for the intersection. He thought anything that will help the businesses out is a reasonable exercise to take. Chairperson Daninger stated he would not be in favor of what the applicant proposed but would agree with staff s recommendation. Commissioner Walton stated he was comfortable with the 3 /4 but was unsure of the expanse and expense of it. Mr. Berkowitz stated staff has to look at this as more of a permanent condition because they do not know where they will be at in five years. This does meet a level of a full intersection at this time but they go back to identifying safety concerns. To support something less than a median out there will be a safety issue. Commissioner Walton stated he is struggling with this and based on discussion he would vote no just to send a message to Council that they need to make sure they are making the right decision. Commissioner Falk felt they were making the right decision. He stated they cannot put a price on safety. He stated he was in favor of the staff recommendation because of safety reasons. Commissioner Casey stated he would be fine with staff recommendation. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 7 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to move the resolution as written and include the staff memo including the engineer recommendation. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays (Walton), 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE 4: PUBLICHEALTHAND SAFETYPERTAINING TO THE ABATEMENT PROCESS. Ms. Perera stated this item was first introduced at the April 14, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held and is being continued. Staff has found some inadequacies with current language in Title 4 of the City Code, mainly pertaining to abatement. With the number of foreclosed and rental properties rising due to current economic conditions, this is a good time to bring forward these amendments. Ms. Perera reviewed the staff report with the Commission. The public hearing was continued from the April 14, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Cleveland asked if the hearing examiner was an official position or was it whomever was available to hear the person's issues. Ms. Perera thought it was the City Administrator who took that role and it was more of an informal process. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to approve as written. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE TITLE 9: BUILDING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8: RENTAL HOUSING DWELLINGS TO ESTABLISH REG VIA TIONS FOR RENTAL LICENSING OF SINGLE FAMIL Y D WELLING UNITS. Ms. Perera stated the draft amendment incorporates changes to the Rental Housing Dwellings, Chapter 48 of the City Code. The intent of the amendment is to facilitate a single family market value preservation initiative by including rental license requirements for single family dwelling units. The most prominent change proposed in the draft amendment includes the requirement of a rental license for single family dwelling units with the addition of Section 9 -8 -12. The City Code currently only requires rental licenses for multi - family dwelling units. Staff has worked with other departments, the City Attorney, and the City Council on drafting this amendment so that it provides as little change to other sections within Chapter #8 while keeping all rental ordinances in the same chapter. Ms. Perera discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked how big of a problem is this, single family rental properties. Ms. Perera did not think the City had a grasp on it yet but there were a number of violations. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not really support this unless they see a real problem they are trying to solve that cannot be solved by existing ordinances. Chairperson Daninger asked if the basis of the fee was based on other cities fees. Ms. Perera stated their current application is $52.00 for the multi - family per unit and other cities are around $100.00 but they do interior inspections also. She stated they did look at neighboring cities for the fee along with involving their City Attorney and other staff members from other departments. Chairperson Daninger thought this was a proactive approach to take some initial steps and get feedback to make sure they do not have any issues and other cities are doing this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson stated she has been a landlady for seventeen years. She indicated she is really upset about this entire thing because she has a triplex. She did not think that it was fair that multi - family units need to have so much more than the single family dwellings. The single family dwellings do not do any of these things. There are no inspections for safety, etc. She did not think a drive by inspection would be adequate for these types of rentals and felt they should have the same rules as the multi - family Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 9 dwellings. She did not understand how this ordinance will protect the renter or the neighbors. She wondered how the City will enforce this. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Commissioner Walton asked if staff has looked at other cities in regards to this type of ordinance. Ms. Perera indicated they have, she listed some of them. Commissioner Walton stated he has seen a lot of foreclosed homes and people are buying them to rent them out but to what level will these be fixed up to rent them. He thought there needed to be inside inspections done. He agreed that they needed to step up both the expense of the inspection for inside inspection. He thought they needed to get input from other cities on what they are doing for inspections along with what problems are they finding. Commissioner Falk asked if other cities have the same fee as proposed and are they doing the same extent for inspections. Ms. Perera stated most other cities are doing interior inspections as well and are reflected in the fees to cover the cost of administration. Ms. Perera stated the Council wanted to try this as a two year trial period and get updates from staff monthly. Single family rental dwellings would not be exempt from any building codes, city ordinances or any other rules they have in place, they would just not be inspecting the interior. She thought this was a baby step forward from what they are currently doing. Commissioner Cleveland asked if there was a complaint from a tenant would the City go in to inspect the building. Ms. Perera stated they would not unless there was an issue of health or safety. The Commission agreed there needed to be more than just a drive by inspection but they were all not in favor of going into the dwelling to inspect it. They also thought the initial fee was adequate if they were going to just do a drive by inspection. Commissioner Walton thought they needed more than what is proposed. He would like to see an inside inspection. Commissioner Casey thought they should be going into this slowly because once they start inside inspections they will be dealing with tenant's property rights and landlord property rights. Commissioner Falk agreed and thought the inspection according to the staff report looked like a foot inspection of the property and not a drive by inspection. The Commission discussed inside inspections and issues involved with them. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not want this because he did not see a problem yet. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 12, 2009 Page 10 Chairperson Daninger stated he did not see a difference between multi - family and single family rentals. He thought they should both be inspected the same but they need to ease into it to begin with. Commissioner Cleveland did not think there needed to be a different standard for these and also did not think they needed to move slowly on this. He did not think this was fair to multi- dwelling rental owners and thought they needed the single family rentals to be treated the same. Chairperson Daninger indicated the Commission liked what they saw with something more than a drive -by inspection and have a larger fee for inspections. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 19, 2009 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT, Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Holthus) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Planned PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit (09 -05) to allow a used car dealer at 3075 162 " Lane NW July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION The applicant from the recent application for used vehicle sales at 3149 162nd Lane NW has withdrawn that application and submitted a new application for used vehicle sales at 3075 162nd Lane NW. The minutes from the Council meeting are attached. DISCUSSION The City Code requires Council approval of a conditional use permit and a city license for used vehicles sales in the Limited Industrial Zoning District. The applicant is obtaining a dealer's license from the state. This license requires commercial office space. The applicant proposes to lease approximately 2,400 square feet in the existing building for this purpose. As previously proposed, no more than one display vehicle will be in the parking lot at any one time. The attached aerial photograph shows the location of the office space and area where parking would be assigned to the applicant. Site Cleanup As the attached aerial photograph shows, the site has been encumbered by a lot of exterior storage and junk vehicles in the past. The applicant and property owner have since cleaned up the site. The difference can be seen between the aerial photograph and the attached site photographs that were recently taken. Comparison to City Code As with all conditional use permits, the existing site must be compared with current regulations to determine if there are deficiencies that need to be addressed. A comparison of the site to the performance standards of the City Code is provided below. In addition, the Council has adopted interim performance standards for this area of the city to balance required site improvements with the appearance of the existing site and proportionate to any proposed expansion. The Commission and Council will need to apply the interim development standards to determine the level of improvements that will be required for the site. City Code 12 -13 -22 Interim Performance Standards is attached for your review. City Code 12 -13 -9 Off Street Parking Requirements A total of 13 parking stalls for the proposed business are required using the formula established in the City Code, as shown in the table below. As previously discussed the applicant is required by the state to have space for five vehicles. It is unlikely that they will need all 13 stalls required by the City Code. Use Parking Stall Requirements Required Notes: Surface Stalls The surface of the parking area is paved. Employee Parking: 3 stalls plus 1 per 400 sf beyond the first 1,000 gross floor area 7 Sales ales Sal 50 Building Perimeter ( 2X00 Customer Parking: 5 stalls plus 5 stalls per acre above the first acre 5 15 stalls are striped in front of the building. The remainder of the paved area has no Total Required Plant Material 20 markings. Vehicle Display Parking: (as proposed by applicant) I Rest of Bld requirements Warehousing: 1 stall per 2,000 sf, per employee and per vehicle' 3 (5,520 S.F.) TOTAL REQUIRED STALLS 16 EXISTING There are 7 striped stalls at the front of the site and room for approximately 20 additional stalls STALLS behind the gate 1 The property owner has indicated that the building is used for storage of product. The office, business vehicel storage, and other active parts of the business take place on other properties he owns in the industrial park. Parking Area Performance Standards Item Conforms? Notes: Surface Yes The surface of the parking area is paved. Curb No The parking area does not have curb and gutter as would be required for a new parking 50 Building Perimeter area. Striping No 15 stalls are striped in front of the building. The remainder of the paved area has no Total Required Plant Material 20 markings. Dimensions Yes The parking stalls that are striped and the drive lane between them meet the dimensional requirements Setback No The joint parking area with the building to the west extends to the curb of 162 d Lane along the m ority of the properties. Parking areas are required to be screened from public right -of -way to a minimum height Screening No of three feet. The lack of landscaped area between the paved area and street prevents this from being possible. Landscaping Requirements City Code 12 -13 -6 Measurement Ratio Required Trees Required Shrubs Area Site Perimeter 1,006 feet 1 tree /50 feet 1 shrub /20 feet 20 50 Building Perimeter 476 feet 1 shrub /10 feet NA 48 Total Required Plant Material 20 98 Total Existing Plant Material 17 0 2 City Code 3 -8 Vehicle Sales Businesses This section of the code provides additional regulations for vehicle sales businesses. It is attached for review. Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards The interim performance standards have been applied to two sites in this area of the city. A summary of each site is attached. Staff Recommendation As proposed, the limited scope of the proposed business would not be noticeable on the site. A significant effort has been made to clean up the site as shown in the attached photographs. Staff has added the conditions of approval discussed by the Council and City Attorney to the attached resolution. Additionally, staff recommends the following site improvements: 1. Striping of stalls to meet the required minimum number of parking stalls listed above. 2. Seeding of the area north of the building that was recently cleared of vehicles, debris and weeds. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation to the City Council, including the level of site improvements that should be required. Attachments Resolution Location Map Aerial Photograph Site Photographs Letter from applicant City Code 12 -13 -22 Interim Performance Standards Summary of Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards Timeline of Interim Performance Standards Council Minutes r (JUN Cc: Frank Sud 15956 Drake St NW Jim Larson 3149 162 Lane NW 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USED VEHICLE SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3075 162' LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 1 HUGHS INDUSTRIAL PARK, ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OF RECORD WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a conditional use permit for used vehicle sales on the subject property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning 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 Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit request, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves used vehicle sales on the subject property subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a vehicle sales business license from the City Council. 2. The applicant shall be required to obtain a used vehicle dealer license from the State of Minnesota. 3. The applicant shall comply with all state and local laws, including but not limited to, those applicable to used motor vehicle dealers. 4. The applicant shall not engage in the business of buying or otherwise acquiring vehicles for dismantling the vehicles and selling used parts and remaining scrap materials. 5. The parking area shall be striped in conformance with the city code to provide a minimum of 16 parking stalls. Thirteen of these stalls shall be designated for the used vehicle sales business. 6. The applicant shall have no more than one display vehicle in the parking area at any one time. 7. The site shall be kept free of trash, debris and junk vehicles. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk M NDOVER Incorporated 1974 ' 3105 CD 16340 -------------- - - - --------- (D 163RD LN Z D 16315 3126 3100 ry 0) 0 0') '0 '0 U*) ' 0 M C:) C) Cr) (Y) M M ilk C) O CO 00 CY) CY) CO O v- 16157 16125 Condirional Use Permit Used Vehicle Sales 3075 162nd Lane NW 3121 3055 LO LO C) C) M M 3017 C1q ti CY) 16351 M CO N NI = Subject Property Location Map N W- E S 5 }„r P xe r I AR Y A i i i I, f V L SITE PHOTOGRAPHS View of north end of site after site cleanup View of proposed used vehicle sales office from west ^g y r� i i :i .. vT . ;i Interior of proposed used vehicle sales office SITE PHOTOGRAPHS City of Andover 4/20/09 RE: Dealer License I'm in the process of getting my Dealer License. State requires I have an office. I'm leasing existing office and parking space from Jim Larson. This is a small business; I plan to have one car for sale and broker for other clients. Sincerely, Frank Sud Sud Superior Auto Sales Inc C. Single- family dwellings other than approved earth sheltered homes shall have at least a 4:12 roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles. This requirement shall not apply to three - season porches, four - season porches, greenhouses and solariums, provided they meet the State Building Code and are approved by the Building Official. D. All single - family dwellings shall have roof overhangs that extend a minimum of one foot (T) from all the walls of the structure unless the style of the house dictates otherwise and said plan is approved by the Building Official prior to any permits being granted. E. All single - family structures must be built in conformance with Minnesota statutes sections 327.31 to 327.35 or the State Building Code as adopted in Section 9 -1 -1 of this code. F. Any metal siding upon single - family residential structures shall have horizontal edges and overlapping sections no wider than twelve inches (12 "). Sheet metal siding shall not be permitted in such districts. G. All exterior construction, including finish and the final grading, shall be completed in accordance with plans and specifications within one year following date of permit issuance. All existing buildings not meeting the provisions of this title shall comply within one year following adoption of this title. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970; amd. 2003 Code) 12- 13 -22: 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 HughsMestview 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; 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. (Amended 9/18/07; Ord. 353) Summary of Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards 3131161" Avenue NW CUP for Retail Farm Store Approved September 2007 What was Required: 1. Striping of parking stalls 2. Minimal landscaping 3. Trash containers to be stored to the rear of the property What was not Required: 1. Additional parking area lighting 2. Curb for the existing parking area 3. Trash Enclosure 4. Full compliance with landscaping requirements 3118 162 Lane NW CUP for Outdoor Storage Approved October 2, 2007 What was Required: 1. Painting of the exterior of the building. 2. Paving of the driveway and front parking lot. 3. Striping of the front parking lot. 4. Landscaping in the front of the building, in conformance with an approved landscaping plan. 5. Dust control measures used in the rear storage yard. 6. Construction of a new fence to screen the rear storage yard from 162 Lane. 7. Removal of the radio tower on the front of the building. 8. All dumpsters stored on the site shall be screened from view from adjacent properties. 9. No dumpster or material shall be stacked above the fence line. 10. A maximum of 13 dumpster shall be allowed on the site. 11. Dumpsters with material in them shall not be stored on the site longer than 3 days. What was not Required: 1. Curb or pavement for parking area/storage yard behind the building and fence i 2. Turf establishment or landscaping behind the building and fence 16191 Round Lake Boulevard CUP for Used Vehicle Sales Approved September 5, 2006 Note: this site preceded the interim standards but was the catalyst for their creation What was Required: 1. Pavement and curb for new parking area 2. Storm water pond for drainage from new parking area 3. Some trees and shrubs What was not Required: 1. Parking area dimensional standards for vehicle display area 2. Parking area screening requirements 3. Appropriate size and number of trees and shrubs Timeline of Interim Performance Standards City debates ordinance amendment for vehicle sales in the Industrial Zoning District. It January-April 2006 is determined that performance standards are necessary and these are discussed over several meetings. April 2006 City approves ordinance amendment to allow used vehicle sales in the Industrial Zoning District City approves conditional use permit and business license for Twin Rivers Auto Sales to allow September 2006 used vehicle sales at 16191 Round Lake Boulevard. City approves variances to reduce to the level of required site improvements. City discusses ways to encourage cleaning up and improving Hughs Industrial Park. Interim July - September 2007 performance standards to reduce the level of required site improvements for expansion of businesses are discussed along with increased code enforcement. Council approves interim performance standards (City Code 12- 13 -22). Code enforcement September 2007 policy for this area changes from reactive to proactive. At the same meeting the interim performance standards were approved, Anoka Grain and September 2007 Feed, Inc. received approval for a retail farm store at 3131 161st Avenue NW. City approves conditional use permit for outdoor storage at 3118 162nd Lane NW. The October 2007 interim standards are used to reduce the level required improvements Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — June 2, 2009 Page 4 CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/USED VEHICLE SALE13149 — 162 LANE NW (CONTINUED) Mr. Neumeister stated this item was previously tabled to allow the applicant and staff time to address items discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Neumeister reviewed the information with the Council. Councilmember Trade stated the reason she brought up the question of one parking stall is that the State license application indicated five and she thought they should limit the permit to the number they have on the drawing so the applicant can bring it forward to the State indicating he only wanted one parking space and the City was ok with that. Mr. Neumeister stated another item was in regard to the hours of operation. He stated the applicant indicated the hours of operation would be by appointment only. If the City wanted to set office hours they could do that. Councilmember Trade stated generally they write the hours into the permit when they review them. Mr. Dickinson noted the State is requiring in their application that hours of operation and contact information be included. City Attorney Baumgartner reviewed the restrictions and conditions in the City Code related to this. Councilmember Trade asked if they could put into the permit the hours of operation is by appointment only. City Attorney Baumgartner stated they could do that but it would be very broad. Councilmember Trade wondered if they could put in the permit the hours of operation that would be permitted. Mr. Neumeister reviewed the landscaping plans with the Council. Councilmember Trade stated generally they make sure that landscaping is installed within a certain amount of time and they have never recognized seed as landscaping and wondered if they should change it to sod since generally they have required sod, even in new residential developments. Mr. Dickinson stated a time frame for this would be appropriate. Mayor Gamache asked.in Chapter 8 -3 -83, he wondered what "regular" meant. City Attorney Baumgartner thought it meant something that is done on a day to day basis and how they earn a living. Mr. Frank Sudd, 15956 Drake Street, was at the meeting to answer questions. Councilmember Jacobson asked if office hours would be by appointment only or what was his intention. Mr. Sudd stated being that his home is a few miles from this office and he could have business hours from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. but he would post his hours. Councilmember Trade preferred to have set hours because once they grant the permit if this applicant moves out the next one that comes in could have unreasonable hours. City Attorney Baumgartner thought it could read "office hours between and , by appointment only." Councilmember Trade thought they could have it read "office hours 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. M- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —June 2, 2009 Page 5 S." She asked if everything is acceptable to the applicant after talking to the owner of the property. Mr. Sudd stated he is acceptable to all the improvements. Mayor Gamache asked how much office space he is leasing. Mr. Sudd indicated it is very small with a separate outside door. Mayor Gamache stated he is under the impression that there are other businesses in the development and there might be a concern with enough room for everyone. He wondered if Mr. Sudd knew how many businesses are currently there. Mr. Sudd thought there were three. Mayor Gamache asked if there would be room for a fourth business. Mr. Sudd thought there would be. Councilmember Trude wondered if there would be enough parking area for the number of businesses. She stated she talked to staff and was told it met City Code since the parking requirements are based on building square footage. Mayor Gamache wondered how Mr. Sudd would perform his business with only one car on site at a time. Mr. Sudd stated he would be purchasing vehicles and selling them right away to clients that were looking for certain models. Mayor Gamache asked if this will be an online business and advertise the one car. Mr. Sudd stated this is to satisfy the State and he did not think he would even have a vehicle in the one parking slot. He is doing what he needs to do in order to get his license. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the addition of the provisions discussed in minutes. Councilmember Jacobson stated in the Resolution, line Item 3 of the it should read "the areas of bare ground on the subject property shall be sodded and maintained to establish a lawn." He did not think seeded should be in there. He stated an additional Item 5 should be "office hours should be between 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and by appointment only ". An additional Item 6 should read "signage should be per City Code" and an additional Item 7 "one display vehicle permitted at a time ". Councilmember Trude stated on Item 2 it talks about the vehicle display parking and she wanted to clarify "vehicle display parking, customer parking and employee parking shall be signed and limited to the nine spaces at the locations described in the June 2, 2009 staff report to the Council." She wanted to make sure that the business parking is for this business only and not for other businesses to use. City Attorney Baumgartner recommended adding a provision such as "the applicant shall be required to obtain a used vehicle dealer license from the State of Minnesota ". He would also recommend adding a provision "the applicant shall be required to comply with the State and local laws including those applicable to used motor vehicle dealers ". In looking at the State law versus their City Code, the City Code does not allow dismantalling of vehicles but the State does and in order to avoid that he would recommend they include in the permit the following wording: "the applicant may not engage in the business of buying or otherwise acquiring vehicles for Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —Tune 2, 2009 Page 6 dismantalling vehicles and selling used parts and remaining scrap materials." Councilember Knight agreed to the additions to his motion. Councilmember Jacobson agreed. Ms. Jennifer Aus- Sherman, stated she is leasing space at the 3149 building. She stated she wanted to bring to the Council's attention that her lease and information that Mr. Larson has sold this building to Mr. Bob Yonkee. Her lease and that of the other two tenants is with Yonkee and Associates. She stated the building currently has three suites with long term leases and she has never met Mr. Sudd before. She stated she was very concerned when she learned of the proposed auto dealership. She reviewed the lease information with the Council regarding all three businesses at the property. Ms. Aus - Sherman stated she contacted the City to gather information and was later told by the Mayor she should come to the meeting to discuss this with the Council. She reviewed her concerns with the Council and indicated that when she talked to Mr. Larson he asked her not to bring this up at the Council meeting. She stated she is adamantly against the auto dealership and that Mr. Larson did not have a right to lease any space to the auto dealership or anyone else. Mr. Jim Larson, Larson Plumbing & Heating, stated he pays the taxes on the building and the building is sold on a contract for deed to Mr. Bob Yonkee who has put a down payment on it but needs to qualify for a loan. He stated his is a non - signed agreement with Mr. Yonkee. He agreed all leases are with Mr. Yonkee. He stated he did meet with Ms. Aus - Sherman today. Mr. Larson stated Northern Asphalt is the company that put the parking lot down. He put asphalt there so vehicles could turn around on it. Councilmember Trude wondered if the fenced in area is being leased by the irrigation company. Mr. Larson stated they are leasing part of the building and using the parking area, the fence is for security for their vehicles. Mr. Larson showed the Council the building layout. Mr. Larson indicated on the drawing how the space could be converted to meet the state licensing requirements. Ms. Aus - Sherman indicated the leases do not allow subleases. Councilmember Jacobson asked if Mr. Larson is currently the owner of the building. Mr. Larson stated he is currently the owner of record and has a contract for sale with Mr. Yonkee. City Attorney Baumgartner asked if Mr. Yonkee has assumed the lease with Mr. Sudd. Mr. Larson was not sure about that. Mr. Larson stated the irrigation company would be subleasing to Mr. Sudd. Councilmember Bukkila asked if Mr. Larson's name is on any lease of the building. Mr. Larson stated his name is on Mr. Sudd's lease and they have an agreement to lease the 41h bay. Councilmember Jacobson stated he is withdrawing his second. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — June 2, 2009 Page 7 Councilmember Knight stated he is withdrawing his motion. Motion by Jacobson to table this item for two weeks until staff and City Attorney Baumgartner can review this item for legal issues and to report back to the Council with any results found. Councilmember Trude thought they could also deny this application since it seems like every time they review this application they are being misled. Mr. Larson thought he was the property owner of record until it closes, and name transfers. He believes he is the current property owner. City Attorney Baumgartner stated Mr. Yonkee would need to assume the lease because he does have a contract and an interest in the property regardless of ownership. There was discussion about who had a legal interest in the property. The motion was not seconded or voted upon. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Bukkila, to deny the CUP. Mr. Larson asked if Mr. Yonkee should have the right to cancel the lease. City Attorney Baumgartner explained the process the Council needed to follow before approving the CUP. There was discussion regarding the reason for denying or tabling this item. Councilmember Bukkila withdrew her second. Councilmember Trude withdrew her motion. Councilmember Jacobson renewed his motion to table this item to get a legal opinion on if this can proceed or not. Councilmember Knight seconded the motion. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to table this item until City Attorney Baumgartner and Staff can review this item for legal issues. Councilmember Jacobson also made a motion to table Item 8. Mr. Dickinson stated they need to confirm the dates for extension and ask the applicant to extend the application or it would need to be denied. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Jacobson asked if Mr. Larson and Mr. Sudd would grant an extension to the application of thirty days. Mr. Larson and Mr. Sudd indicated they agreed to a thirty day extension on the Conditional Use Permit application. Councilmember Trude stated she wanted to know the following when this item comes back to them. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — June 2, 2009 Page $ Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to table this item until City Attorney Baumgartner and Staff can review this item for legal issues. Councilmember Jacobson also made a motion to table Item 8. Mr. Dickinson stated they need to confirm the dates for extension and ask the applicant to extend the application or it would need to be denied. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Jacobson asked if Mr. Larson and Mr. Sudd would grant an extension to the application of thirty days. Mr. Larson and Mr. Sudd indicated they agreed to a thirty day extension on the Conditional Use Permit application. Councilmember Trude stated she wanted to know the following when this item comes back to them. • Ownership of the property • Location of the business • Potential business of body shop repair shop • Sublease information with MN Irrigation • Control of the fenced area CONSIDER BUSINESS LICENSE/USED VEHICLE SALES13149 — 162' LANE NW (CONTINUED) Mr. Neumeister stated the ordinance for vehicle sales requires Council approval of a business license. The applicant has paid the application fee and a motion is required to act on the business license application. Mr. Sudd agreed to a thirty day extension of the business license application. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to table this item with the extension from the applicant, Mr. Sudd. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER CITY CODE AMENDMENT /CHANGES TO CITY CODE TITLE 4 /ABATEMENT PROCESS (CONTINUED) Mr. Neumeister stated this item was first introduced at the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held and continued to the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Staff has found some inadequacies with current language in Title 4 of the City Code, mainly pertaining to abatement. With the number of foreclosed and rental properties rising due to current economic conditions, this is a good time to bring forward these amendments. I C I T Y 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 FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code 12 -12 Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses to add car washes as a permitted accessory use to automobile service stations. DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION The proposed amendment is intended to clarify where car washes are allowed in the city. DISCUSSION At the time the code was updated in 2005, it was presumed that car washes would be allowed as part of a conditional use permit for automobile service stations as they are a common component of modern forms of these facilities. However, the definition of automobile service station does not specifically include car washes, so there is room for other interpretations. The table below shows the zoning districts where automobile service stations and car washes are currently allowed. The car wash (automated) and car wash (self service) line items are principal uses of a property. These types of car washes would be the primary use of the property and would not include a gas or service station. ° Provided a minimum of 25,000 square feet of retail floor space is constructed, except as otherwise approved as part of a Planned Unit development. 7 After a minimum of 2,000 square feet of retail floor space is constructed, provided the site is two acres or larger. Prior to the update of the City Code in 2005, vehicle wash establishments and service stations were allowed as follows: LB NB SC GB I Automobile Service Station C' C 4 C C Car wash (automated) rRPA C P P Car wash (self service) Car wash (automated) P P ° Provided a minimum of 25,000 square feet of retail floor space is constructed, except as otherwise approved as part of a Planned Unit development. 7 After a minimum of 2,000 square feet of retail floor space is constructed, provided the site is two acres or larger. Prior to the update of the City Code in 2005, vehicle wash establishments and service stations were allowed as follows: To clarify that car washes are allowed as part of automobile service stations the following adjustments to the City Code are proposed: LB I NB I SC LGB I Service Station C 7 C 4 P P Vehicle Wash Establishment rRPA PA P P To clarify that car washes are allowed as part of automobile service stations the following adjustments to the City Code are proposed: LB NB SC GB I Automobile Service Station C4 C C Car Wash, accessory to Automobile Service rRPA PA PA PA Station Car wash (automated) C 4 Car wash (self service) P P With these changes, car washes can be reviewed as part of an initial conditional use permit application for new automobile service stations or as an amendment to existing conditional use permits for expansion of existing automobile service stations that wish to add a car wash. It is important to note the proposed changes add car washes as an accessory use for automobile service Stations in the Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District. The principal use car washes are not allowed until the more intense Shopping Center or General Business Zoning Districts. The Commission may want to discuss whether the NB District is appropriate for this use. There are currently two automobile service stations in the NB District that do not have car washes. Other Car Washes in the City It is important to note that car washes have existed for many years at existing automobile service (gas) stations in the city in the General Business, Shopping Center and Industrial Zoning Districts. The table below shows how the city has processed these applications in the past. Survey of Other Cities As commonly provided when code amendments are contemplated, an attachment illustrates how car washes and service stations are regulated in other communities. Attachments Proposed City Code Amendment Survey of Other Cities ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, discuss the proposed amendment 4 and ak a re o endation to the City Council. t bmitted, e ar Year Car Name Location Wash Method of approval Constructed Commercial Site Plan Spur 13650 Hanson Blvd 1994 (permitted use in 1 District) 3633 Bunker Lk CUP for car wash in SC Local Oil (redeveloped as CVS) Blvd 1994 District Commercial Site Plan (permitted use in GB Super America 13727 Hanson Blvd 1996 district) 14041 Round Lk CUP for car wash in SC Bill's Superette Blvd 1996 District CUP and PUD approval for Clocktower Commons in SC Marathon 15246 Hanson Blvd 2003 District Survey of Other Cities As commonly provided when code amendments are contemplated, an attachment illustrates how car washes and service stations are regulated in other communities. Attachments Proposed City Code Amendment Survey of Other Cities ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, discuss the proposed amendment 4 and ak a re o endation to the City Council. t bmitted, e ar CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO ADD CAR WASH AS AN ACCESSORY USE FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: CITY CODE TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS CHAPTER 12: PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND PROHIBITED USES Permitted, Permitted Accessory, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses Zoning Districts R -1 R -2 R -3 R -4 R -5 M -1 M -2 GR LB NB SC GB I Car Wash, accessory to PA PA PA PA Automobile Service Station Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of , 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Survey of Other Cities City Use Zoning District Blaine B -1 B -2 B -3 B -4 Planned Business District Planned Commercial & Office i erent Industrial Districts c ar wash no CUP CUP no no no no gas station cup cup cup no CUP no no Champlin C -1 C -2 C -3 NC Highway Commercial Car washes related to gas stations and convenience grocery stores no no no PA PA Gas stations no no no cup cup Coon Rapids O NC CC GC I Motor Vehicle Washes no no cup P no Service Station no cup cup P no Lino Lakes NB LB GB LI GI car wash no no cup no no gas station no no cup cup cup Maple Grove Freeway Frontage B PUD I gas station no P no no car wash no p no no 5 ND OVE 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 Plann SUBJECT: Other Business: Fence Height Discussion DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION Staff has received a request to review the maximum fence height in side yards. DISCUSSION The current code allows a maximum height of six feet behind the principal structure (home) and a maximum height of four feet in front and side yards. The resident requesting a review of the side yard fence limitations lives on the corner of Crosstown Boulevard and Xeon St NW as shown on the attached drawing. Their concerns are described in the attached letter. Fence Ordinance History The fence ordinance was revised with the Zoning Code Update in 2005. These changes are shown in the attached 2005 Fence Height Changes. Prior to the update fences were allowed in all portions of a yard with the following limitations: • A maximum of four feet in height in the front yard (except ornamental fences on rural lots) • Fences greater than six feet in height were required to meet building setbacks. With the 2005 update, the height limitation of four feet was expanded to include not only front yards, but side yards as well. There are two reasons why this change was made. 1. Aesthetics. By limiting the fence height in side yards, the house remains the dominant feature on the lot as viewed from the side street on corner lots and from down the street on interior lots. 2. Additional traffic visibility at intersections with comer lots. Even though front yard setbacks are typically 35 feet or greater and additional boulevard area exists between the street and the property lines, limiting fence height in side yards on corner lots was thought to provide additional traffic visibility. As regards traffic visibility, it should be noted that the fence ordinance also prohibits fences within a clear view triangle (a triangle with two sides at 15 feet in length beginning at the intersection). Other Cities A survey of other cities is attached with highlighted sections that apply to this discussion. Although each is slightly different, all allow fences up to six feet in side yards. Attachments Resident letter Site drawing Survey of other cities 2005 Fence Height Changes Current Fence Handout ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the resident request and determine if changes to the City Code are warranted. Respectfully submitted, o y arz Aaron and Andrea Jarson 15434 Xeon Street Northwest Andover, MN 55304 June 18, 2009 Andover City Council Andover Planning Commission Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Boulevard Northwest Andover, MN 55304 Members of City Council and the Planning Commission: RECEIVED J U N 19 2009 CITY OF ANDOVER We are residents of Andover, and are writing to express our concern about existing City Code section 12 -7 -3. Section 12 -7 -3 limits the height of fences "in side yards adjacent to the street on corner lots" to a height of 4 feet. While we understand the section and we believe we understand the original intent, we feel that our yard presents a somewhat unique situation. We do not reside on a typical corner lot. We live on the NW corner of the intersection of Xeon Street NW and Crosstown Blvd NW. There is a paved bike path and a (approximately) 20 foot ditch between our lot line and Crosstown Boulevard. The corner of the proposed fence closest to the intersection is approximately 49 feet from the edge of Crosstown Boulevard and 54 feet from the edge of Xeon Street, and would also be completely out of the clear sight triangle. We purchased this property in 2006 with the intent of raising our family here. We have always planned to erect a fence around our property to shield our yard, both for privacy, and to protect our young children and property from the adverse effects of the extremely busy intersection. We have been looking forward to a fence providing a definite sense of home to our backyard that we just don't have right now. We want to exclude as little of our yard from being fenced in as possible. Stopping the fence at the rear of the house would mean that we would have substantially less yard that we would deem "useable ". A transition to a four foot tall fence at the rear of the house would allow anyone using the bike path a clear view into our lower level window, as well as a clear view into the rear yard where we plan on storing our pop up camper, and decreasing our privacy, where a six foot tall fence would prevent that. We regularly have to pick up debris that has blown across the highway and frequently we have to pick up trash and beer bottles/cans that have been dumped in the treed area in the SW corner of our lot. We also hope that by having a six foot tall fence it will decrease the amount of garbage placed onto our property. We have seen many fences in Andover and neighboring communities recently that are similar to what we would like to do with our fence, so we know that this would not be a first for the city. We are simply asking for your understanding concerning the situation at hand so we can start enjoying our yard as much as we hope we will. Sincerely, iv r� i / 4, wee. zi, f wp. i g, N. UKVLY ST BlEl Ci 14 Be ss S',T E l9x� R FOOTING INSPECIHON, . 3_ TAT Sr 0'^ tot- 0 � IMM 10 74 10- 0- o , x e, A sir -rot XA 'o LLJ / WE ik: Aw VAO O-Ao f 103 T41'riud L egot 7496A94 101 4 0 op V I r h 4 ' 54 �1, l y i 1 3 I � Survey of Other Cities (1 of 2) Champlin (1) Fences and walls in front yard. In any residential district on any corner lot, no fence or accessory structure or planting shall rise over three feet in height above the level of the public street within 20 feet of any street corner, so as to interfere with traffic visibility across the corner. No fence or wall or shrub planting of more than three feet in height above the level of the public street shall be erected on any interior lot within ten feet of the front property line where it will interfere with traffic visibility from a driveway. See section 126- 382(d). (2) Fences in side and rear yard. No fence or wall, other than a retaining wall, along a sideline of a lot in a residential district, shall be higher than six feet unless any part above such a height has at least 50 percent of the surface uniformly open and unobstructed or unless the adjoining lot is not in a residential district. (8) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes. and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the planning commission and city council. Findings shall be made that the fence is necessary to protect, Coon Rapids (4) Height Maximums. (a) Front Yard Setback: Four feet, except as provided in subsection (4)(f). (b) Street Side Yard, Single Family or Two - Family Residential Uses: Four feet; provided, if the front of the house faces the front yard, six feet between the rear lot line and the front of the house. (c) Interior Side Yard: Six feet. (d) Rear Yard: Six feet. (e) Side and Rear Yards where a Residential District abuts a Commercial, Industrial, or Office District: Eight feet. (f) Front or Street Side Yard, Commercial, Industrial or Office Districts: Four feet, except in an approved site plan. Lino Lakes 6. Residential District Fences or Walls. All residential district fences or walls shall be placed within the property a. Fences or walls may be located in any yard up to a height of four (4) feet. b. Except as prohibited by Subd. 4.R.6.c below, a fence or wall up to six (6) feet high may be erected from a line extended from the front facade of the principal building to the side lot lines, and then along the side lot lines c. Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear or side lot equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot shall not be fenced or walled to a height of more than four (4) feet. For the purpose of this section, the front and side yards of the abutting lot shall be as d. Residential Fences or Walls Height Exceptions. 1) Fences for sport courts may be up to twelve (12) feet in height with ten (10) foot setback. 2) Residential boundary line fences or walls may be erected to a height of eight (8) feet along a property line abutting a commercial, industrial, or semi - public use or zoning district. Survey of Other Cities (2 of 2) Blaine (f) In all single and two - family residential districts, fences, except as allowed for Special Purpose Fences, shall have the following setbacks and height limitations: (Amended 9 -4 -97. Ord. 97 -1672. Amended 08/07/08. Ord. 08- (1) Front yard — Maximum height of four (4) feet above ground level in front of the front face of the residential (2) Front corner sideyard - (a) Maximum height of four (4) feet above ground level when placed at the property line. (b) Maximum height of six (6) feet above ground level when placed with a minimum setback of one (1) foot (3) Sideyard along interior lot line(s) — Maximum height of six (6) feet above ground level. (4) Rear yard — (a) Maximum height of six (6) feet above ground level for fences along rear yards not adjacent or fronting on (b) Fences adjacent or fronting on public right -of -way shall have a maximum height of four (4) feet above (c) Fences adjacent or fronting on public right -of -way that are placed with a minimum setback of one (1) foot shall have a maximum height of six (6) feet above ground level. (5) The required front yard of a corner lot shall not contain any fence which may cause danger to traffic on a street or public road, by obscuring the view. On corner lots, no fence shall be permitted within the intersection (h) Special Purpose Fences: (1) Fences for special purpose and fences differing in construction, heights, or location, may be permitted in any commercial or industrial district in the city, only by issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the City Council after a recommendation by the Planning Commission, and upon evidence that such special purpose (2) Residential fences, higher than 6 (six) feet and up to 10 (ten) feet in height, built for screening and noise attenuation, that are placed on private property adjacent to county, state or federally designated roadways, shall be allowed in the rear and corner side yards, only by issuance of a conditional use permit. (Added 08/07/07. (3) The approval of special purpose fences may include stipulations as to the material, height, construction detail, or location of such special purpose fences. (Amended 08/07/08. Ord. 08 -2164) Maple Grove (c) Residential districts. In all parts of the city zoned residential and not a farm, one or more fences no more than six feet in height may be erected or maintained on a lot subject to the following: (1) No fence on a corner lot shall be erected within the triangular area described in section 36 -818. (2) No fence may extend closer to the street than the front yard setback line, except as follows: a. Decorative fencing is allowed in the required front yard if no higher than 3 1/2 feet and not designed or serving as an enclosure. Decorative fencing includes such things as split rail, picket, and brick b. A fence may be placed in the front yard of a corner lot which abuts an arterial street, but not within the triangular area described in section 36 -818. c. A fence may be erected along any portion of a side lot line which also serves as the rear lot line of a (e) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit approved by the planning commission and city council. Findings shall be made that the fence is necessary to protect, wetlands Fences shall not be placed in easements that provide vehicle access for the maintenance of drainage ponding, or wetland areas. 4. No fence shall be constructed so as to enclose, hinder, or restrict access to utility boxes fire hydrants or any other above ground utilities. 5. Fences on corner lots shall not encroach upon the Clear View Triangle as defined in 12 -2 -2 of this code. B. Any fence placed in violation of this section shall be the liability of the pr operty owner who constructed it The City, or anv other agency having author to work in a right -of -way or easement area shall not be liable for repa or replacement of such fences in the event they are moved damaged. or dest by virtue of the lawful use of that area Any damage caused by the illegal placement of a fence shall be the responsibility of the property owner who constructed it. 12-7-3: R—EGULATIONS RELATED TO FENCE HEIGHT • B T -MaCTIONS A. Any €enee, h edge, it of s fie+ ..>. height _,__r, m ee t + II o l3req uired building sethaek for the waing s.t;,.+ i Whi it i 1 a t e d In the side and rear yards behind the principal WWAV structure, fences up to a height of six (6) feet are allowed. B. Any €epee, hed Wmg, or -smear barrier- leeated-ift the ninimum Fequked fro yaf + 1 t. 11 t b e v er f our- F e t /4>1 i he o obstraet vi and the d, exeept for- the €ellewia W ` as defim`' in see 12 2 7 o f th ifl i Ek u t t r t ...1 _ s i e an n ---2 single- F •1 t t - b di t: t > r .t .1 ' th f ., M& MB with t,...ffis requ irements and -is not greater- flian sbk get (6 ; in4e g ` Fences located in front of the principal structure or in side yards adjacent to the street on corner lots, shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. In the R -1 Single-Family Rural Residential and R -2 Single - Family Estate zoning districts, "ornamental fences ", as defined in section 12 -2 - of this title, of up to six (6) feet in height are permitted provided the fence ecanf -te trmme —Asib ; Fequkenwats does not encroach upon the Clear View Triangle as defined in section 12 -2 -2 of this code and is t gFe th s ix feet 12 -7 -4: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: h F 1, a 11 s i w Al ff b ..,t.;..1. i fi et pr-eper4y maiatained Be > b > > + nuisame shall be removed a ired t ' 1 - .1•t:.. _:V— DO 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Residential Fencing Requirements This handout is provided to assist property owners in the process of constructing a fence on their property. It is important to become familiar with the standards for fences to ensure that they are properly located. If you have any questions related to fence location or construction, please contact City Hall at 755 -5100. BEFORE YOU START: • Permits- A permit is required to build a fence or retaining wall that is in, on, or near any property line, easement, or wetland. The fence permit application is available at City Hall or on the City's website. Contact the City's Natural Resources Technician for details. • Covenants- The City of Andover does not enforce private fence covenants. You should contact your homeowners association or the developer to determine if there are private covenants regulating fencing in your neighborhood. • Property Lines- It is the property owner's responsibility to determine property lines prior to installing a fence. You can locate your property lines using a survey of your property and a metal detector to find your property irons, or a private surveyor can locate them for you. • Gopher State One Call- Before you start digging, you must contact Gopher State One Call to determine if there are any underground utilities or private utility easements on your property. This can be done on the web at www.gophetstateonecall.com or by calling 651 - 454 -0002. Maximum Fence Height (See diagrams belowl: • Rear yard and side yard- 6 feet. • Front yard and side yard adjacent to a street- 4 feet. FOrttYa fWntla gOEJ L_EVAF2D PLACEMENT: • Where you CAN place your fence: on your property, up to the property lines, except as listed below. • Where you CANNOT place your fence: in utilized public easement areas (see the " Easement Restrictions handout for more information), in wetlands, in ponds or open water, in the boulevard and in the case of corner lots- inside the CLEAR SIGHT TRIANGLE. (See the " Boulevard Restrictions handout for more information.) • You cannot place a fence so as to block fire hydrants, utility boxes, or other above ground utilities. • NOTE: If your property is adjacent to a County road, MNDOT site distance standards are used to determine the location of your fence. Contact the ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT at 862 -4200 to determine how this affects your property. You will need to provide: • Name, address, and telephone number • The proposed location of the fence • The speed limit of the adjacent street CONSTRUCTION: • All fences must be constructed in a workman like manner. • All posts and braces must face inward, with the "finished" side facing adjoining property or streets. • All fences must be constructed of materials widely accepted in the fencing industry. No plywood, canvas, plastic sheeting, metal sheeting, barbed wire, chicken wire or similar material shall be used for any fence construction. No fence shall have planks, panels, or boards wider than twelve inches (12 "). If you are unsure, please call the City and ask. • Chain link fences must be constructed so as to have the barbed end at the bottom of the fence. MAINTENANCE: • All fences must be maintained in good condition and vertical position. Any missing, incomplete, or deteriorated sections of fencing material or structural elements must be replaced in a timely manner with the same material and workmanship. • All wood surfaces, other than decay resistant woods, must be protected from the elements and decay by a protective covering or treatment. If 25% of the surface is peeling, cracked, chipped, blistered, grayed, or weathered beyond effectiveness, the exterior surface must be refinished. (This applies to both sides of the fence- if this means going on someone else's property, be sure to get their permission first!) OTHER THINGS TO REMEMBER: • This handout is an interpretation of the City Code. If there is any conflict between this handout and the City Code, the City Code shall prevail. • If you fail to meet the requirements for fence construction or maintenance; you may be required to remove your fence at your cost. You must submit a fence permit application and receive approval BEFORE you begin work on your fence. Please call City Hall at 755 -5100 if you have any questions.