Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 8, 2005 / C-&>v\D:L (L.()./ LV~ 3-~'-{')5 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8,2005 The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 8, 2005, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Jonathan Jasper, Michael Casey and Valerie Holthus. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Rex Greenwald and Dean Vatne. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 25, 200S Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, I-present (Daninger), 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (05-03) TO CREATE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14124 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARDNW. Mr. Bednarz explained the property contains an existing house and detached garage. Two accesses to Crosstown Boulevard presently exist. One of the accesses is used as a farm access road. The farm access road crosses the property and two outlots on route to the farm fields to the west. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated payment of a park dedication and trail fee will be required for only the new lot and needs to be added to the Resolution. i Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 2 , / Commissioner Kirchoff stated he appreciated Mr. Bednarz looking at getting one or both ofthe driveways off of Crosstown. He wondered if they could use the dedicated easement for 140th Avenue, could there be something where the driveway would be a temporary driveway until140th went through. Mr. Bednarz stated it would be a possibility. 140th Avenue shown on their transportation plan would be designated as a collector street and it would require a variance to have a driveway on that street. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Commissioner Holthus asked if they could add Trail Fee to the Motion. The motioner noted the request. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval or Resolution No. _, approving the lot split subject to the conditions of the attached resolution including item number 9, park dedication fees and a Trail Fee for one lot be added. . / Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at.the February 15,2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (05-05) TO ALLOW EXISTING GARAGE TO REMAIN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14124 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained as discussed in the previous lot split report, City Code 12-6 requires a conditional use permit to allow a detached garage on a residential property prior to construction of a principle structure. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Ken Slyzuk asked the Commission what the feeling would be ifhe came in for a ) variance because of the size limitation on the garage. He stated the garage has been there Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 3 " since before Andover was a City and these are larger size lots than normally what the restriction is put on. Chairperson Daninger stated the variance tool is there for a reason and he would be of the opinion that he would not grant the variance at this time. Commissioner Kirchoff concurred. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Commissioner Jasper stated the way the resolution is written it says the house would have to have a footprint of 1536 which is double the size of the existing detached garage and then it says any future garage should not be more then 432 feet which when added to the original garage would give them the 1200 feet maximum garage space. To add the additional 432 feet, that would increase the size of the house to 2400 feet. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a total of 1200 square feet that is allowed per R4 property and then beyond that, any detached structure cannot be more than half of the foundation size of the house. Commissioner Jasper stated if any additional garage were attached, it would not be subject to the restriction that half of the size of the footprint but if it were detached, then the house size would have to increase. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct, but the limit of 1,200 square feet would stilI apply. / Commissioner Kirchoff stated if the house had an attached garage; the existing garage could stay there if the footprint of the house was at least 1,536. Commissioner Jasper stated what he understood was there would be up to an additional 432 feet of garage allowed under the ordinance assuming it is attached, if detached the size of the principal structure would have to bigger because the detached cannot be bigger than the half the size of the principal structure. Commissioner Jasper stated the resolution should be amended in paragraph two to indicate that".. . any future attached garage..." Mr. Bednarz stated the resolution can be worded to make it more clear. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if a person could make a long tunnel to attach the garage so there is no limit. Mr. Bednarz stated they have explored that situation before and there are some criteria under which you can consider a garage attached versus an outdoor canopy or long tunnel. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of the attached resolution with the following changes: , 1. Paragraph three renumbered to Paragraph four. / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 4 , 2. New paragraph three would state: The future house shall have a footprint of at least twice the size of the total area of any detached garage(s). Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 15,2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (05-04) FOR DRIVE THROUGH AT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER MARKETPLACE EAST. Mr. Vrchota explained the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a drive-through window on the north side of their proposed multi-tenant retail building. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. Chairperson Daninger asked if staff felt comfortable with the landscaping to shield the headlights of cars. Mr. Vrchota stated the building will be surrounded by commercial and wetland so there should not be a problem with shielding. , Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not have a problem with this because it is in a commercial area. Mr. Vrchota stated this will be a coffee shop but he did not know which one. Commissioner Jasper stated the approval is not dependant on what the type of business is. Mr. Vrchota stated this was correct. Mr. Jim Merchlewitz, Ryan Companies, stated the tenant is planned to be a coffee shop and they are in the process of signing a lease with them. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Holthus, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 1, 2005 City / Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (05-04) TO CREATE A RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT AND RESIDUAL PARCEL AT 264 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW Mr. Cross explained the applicant has applied for a lot split that will divide an 8.9-acre property into two Rural Residential lots. The existing house will remain on one of the lots. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated it was a good idea to get the driveways off of Andover Boulevard but that changes the internal roadway system they are looking at now. Mr. Cross stated this is a rough plan, and the sketch plan is subject to change. Commissioner Jasper asked if there were existing homes on the property and what is the orientation of those. Mr. Cross stated they both face north. Commissioner Holthus stated as she drove by the houses, she wondered how a driveway coming from any other direction could work with any different orientation. Mr. Cross stated the plans are very preliminary. He stated one thought was if a road approaches from the south, they would run into the orientation of the garages and a septic drainage in the back. Another idea is to have a road adjacent to the properties which would allow a driveway to the side. He stated there are options. Commissioner Jasper asked if the lots being split are owned by two different people. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated one of the conditions of approval is the two residual lots be combined. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper asked how they would combine the properties if they are owned by two different owners and being purchased by a third. Mr. Bednarz stated that the intent of the split is to allow the homeowners to sell the residual properties to the developer. The City would require the developer to combine those properties when the lot split is recorded with the County. Commissioner Holthus asked ifthe intent was to start the process as soon as possible. Mr. Bednarz stated that was his understanding. Commissioner Holthus asked why they cannot do the lot split at the time or after the lot split occurs. Mr. Bednarz stated the intent is to accommodate the requests of the applicant and agreements between the homeowners and developer to allow them to close and sell property several months before the plat would be approved. / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger asked if staff felt comfortable with this process. Mr. Bednarz stated there are some concerns but staff feels they can be addressed at the time the properties are platted with the addition of a condition that requires the properties with homes be involved. Commissioner Jasper asked what would be the affect of approving this resolution as written. The lot split gets recorded and then the residential urban development doesn't take place. Mr. Bednarz stated in the event the lot splits are approved and the plat does not take place in the short or medium term, the existing structures would remain with their existing well and septic systems until sewer and water is extended north of Coon Creek to serve this area. Mr. Bednarz stated they are asking at this time for sewer and water charges as part of the lot split. The general taxpayer is paying for the oversizing of the lines that has created the value that the homeowners are now capturing and they may not be there when the area is platted and sewer and water charges are typically paid. It is appropriate for them to pay their share at this time. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Jerry Hanlin, 199 142od, stated they are on the south of Coon Creek and he has seen there is a development going in. Is there going to be notification ofthat because he has seen the land is going to be sold to a developer. He wondered if there was any notification to the homes that have their land butt up to Coon Creek of this developer or the plat for the new roads, new lots that was going to be given to the homeowners. Chairperson Daninger stated they are only looking at the lot split at this time. Mr. Hanlin stated the lots will be put together and sold to a developer. Chairperson Daninger stated when it goes to a sketch plan, there will be a public hearing process for the neighbors to be involved in. Mr. Hanlin stated there is not really anything for the residents on the south side of Coon Creek to hear about until the developer has the land to develop. Mr. Bednarz stated this is correct and not dissimilar from the way development occurs in other areas. Mr. Hanlin stated if the lot split goes through, after the lots are split, they will be sold together to the developer and it is one step to the developer putting in roads and to start development. Mr. Hanlin wondered ifthere is a flood plain on the north side of Coon Creek. Chairperson Daninger explained the development process to Mr. Hanlin. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 7 " I Mr. Dwayne Bates asked if it was possible to get a copy of the plat. Chairperson Daninger stated he could get a copy from staff. Mr. Cross reminded that this is a draft sketch plan so it is pretty rough and only gives an idea of how the area could be developed. Ms. Carmen Molenkamp, 140th NW, Andover, stated she wanted to say something about the tree situation because this area is a highly wooded area of Andover. She stated she did not want to lose the trees. She wondered if there was another road coming in from the south, where would it be coming from. Chairperson Daninger stated this will also be part of the review for the sketch plan. He stated what was shown at the meeting is not definite. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Commissioner Jasper stated condition seven discusses the payment for urban services and that would be the payment attributable to the remaining parcel with the house. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated upon development additional payments would be due for the larger lots being split off and combined when platted. Mr. Cross stated this was correct \ and the amount of payment would depend on the number of lots that are put in the new area. Commissioner Jasper thought the resolution should be changed to clarify that the payment only applies or is attributable to the smaller amount that contains the house. He stated the new number eleven should be changed to say".. . and driveway access shall be transferred to an internal street and taken off of Andover Boulevard" Mr. Bednarz stated the transfer of the driveway from Andover Boulevard mayor may not occur immediately with the development of the plat. He stated they will need to work with the developer, residents and County to determine how that will be handled. He stated they will ask that the plat be designed so that eventually that will happen but it may not happen when the plat is approved. Commissioner Jasper asked if some sort of revision should be made to clarify the reason for it being there. Mr. Bednarz stated they could put that in the resolution. Chairperson Daninger asked if they should put this as a condition in the plat. Mr. Bednarz stated the intent of the condition is to require the two lots to be party to the plat. ; Chairperson Daninger stated there was a comment regarding trees and the area discussed was private property and the property owner owns the trees as well. Mr. Bednarz stated the City does have an ordinance for Oak Wilt specifically. He stated a person does have the right to remove trees on their own private property, however, once a property has Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 8 . , / been proposed for development, that right is suspended until a plan is approved for the property. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the lot split subject to the conditions of the attached resolution changing paragraph seven would be clarified to indicate that the payment for urban services in the amount of $8,409.20 would be attributable only to Parcel A and to include paragraph eleven from staffs supplemental report and adding a clause to paragraph eleven stating, "... and with that platting process, driveway access to Parcel A will be redirected from Andover Boulevard." Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 15,2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (05-05) TO CREA TE A RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT AND RESIDUAL PARCEL AT 308 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Cross explained this lot split is moving forward with the lot split at 264 Andover Boulevard. The applicant has applied for a lot split that will divide a 9.8-acre property into two Rural Residential lots. The existing house will remain on one of the lots. . I Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Cross stated there was a typo in the staff report, on the third sentence of the discussion paragraph, it mentions the adjacent lot to the west and it should be the adjacent lot to the east. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 8: 13 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Jerry Hanlin stated the developer for Bill's Superette was grandfathered in at sometime with the land and the developer went in there and mowed the trees down and for a period of time after, there was no development on that land. What the developer wanted to do did not happen. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried on as-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. / Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the lot split subject to the conditions of the attached resolution with the same changes as made in the previous item, specifically that Paragraph seven is clarified to indicate that the payment for urban services is attributable only to Parcel A and that paragraph eleven from the supplemental report be adopted with Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 9 the clarifying included with regard to the driveway. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 15, 2005 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF PARKSIDE AT ANDOVER STATION, AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL PLAT LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the Preliminary Plat with Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for the residential component of Andover Station North. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked what the spacing was on the eight-plex building, building to building. Mr. Bednarz stated there is on the preliminary plat a setback minimum chart, which will show the spacing. Chairperson Daninger stated this was similar to the project by Target on the south side of Station Parkway. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. The minimum distance is 21.3 feet for a private driveway to the common drive of the 8 plex's. Mr. Leon Opatz, RLK Kuusisko, stated they show 62.8 feet between the buildings as a minimum, some have more space between them. Commissioner Kirchoff asked when the rest of the street will go through the park. Mr. Bednarz stated it is his understanding that construction of the ball fields and the park facilities are tied to the sale of the property within Andover Station North. There is demand for the facilities even now and as properties are sold, that will create some of the dollars that are necessary to do that development. Chairperson Daninger asked where the identification sign will go and how many. Mr. Greg Schlink, Brugemann Properties, stated the entrance sign will be at Jay Street and the entrance to the project and there will only be one sign. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, a-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. There was no public input. , / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 10 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Commissioner Jasper asked if the development south of Target was selling well. Mr. Schlink stated sales are picking up. The sales in the fall were slow but that was what was happening around the Twin Cities. Commissioner Kirchoff asked ifthis will have one homeowners association. Mr. Schlink thought this will be split into two associations by housing type. Commissioner Holthus asked what the trail will be like. Mr. Schlink stated this will be 8 foot bituminous trail. Commissioner Holthus thought a PUD should leave open space and she did not see a lot of open space here but it is next to a park. She wondered if this met the open space requirements for a PUD. She stated that since the EDA (City) is the seller, there is a financial benefit for the residents of Andover so the more units in the area, the more financial gain for the City. She stated she was tom between the lack of open space or the potential for more income for the City. Commissioner Holthus stated another concern was the increase in added traffic and , addition of population. Is there a likelihood of future potential blight? / Chairperson Daninger stated as far as density, he looks for the right area to place townhomes and he thought this was a good spot for it. He stated they are always concerned about traffic and he thought this may be a better spot for this type of housing. Commissioner Jasper stated this looked like they are trying to cram too much onto a parcel of property. He thought there was very little green space preserved. In a PUD, they should be getting something back and he was not sure if they were getting something back. Commissioner Casey stated he is all for this. He stated that since the City is developing Andover Station North, if they look at the completion of Jay Street going through, the character of what Jay Street is against the south end of Jay Street right now, the Parkway will have greenery at added expense. With the City developing park and enhancing the existing wetland, as far as getting a feeling of open space, there will be a lot once this is all developed. He stated there will be more than adequate open space that will give it a nice look. Commissioner Holthus asked if this has gone before the Park Commission yet because she wondered if the Park Commission waived the trail fees because there will be internal trails. Mr. Bednarz stated Park Dedication and Trail Fees will be included. The trails will be constructed at the expense of the developer beyond those fees. Mr. Schlink stated Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 11 they will be paying the full park and trail fees and will seek credit for the amount of trail they put in that is a public trail that meets the City standard. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development with item eleven, a lot depth of 100 feet to be added. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 1, 200S City Council meeting. WORKSESSION: a. Zoning Ordinance Update 1. City Code 12-6-5 B. 2. Accessory Building Location Mr. Vrchota stated this section directs readers to section 12-3-4 (Minimum District Requirements). Part 2 requires that accessory buildings comply with all setbacks from section 12-3-4, contradicting part 1. The proposed change will be the reference to section 12-3-4 will be eliminated and the correct setbacks will be added. Chairperson Daninger stated they were talking about the continuation of the garage because it is attached. He wondered if this was part of this code. Mr. Vrchota stated this strictly deals with setback requirements for detached buildings. Mr. Bednarz stated in the R-4 District they are limited to 1200 square feet total. In areas where they have between one and five acres, you can match the foundation size of your house. City Code 12-6-S-F Mr. Vrchota stated this section addresses accessory structures located nearer to the front lot line than the principle structure. It currently requires that the finish materials to be similar to and compatible with those on the principle structure. The City has been applying a policy requiring the finish materials on accessory structures to match finish materials on the principle structure. The purpose of this is to ensure that a high visual standard is maintained along street site lines. I Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 12 , ./ Mr. Vrchota stated the proposed change is the code will be revised, requiring finish materials on accessory structures located in front of the principle structure to match those of the principle structure. Chairperson Daninger stated the concern would be if Oak Wilt would come through then the structure would be in full view so they should keep the structures the same finish. Commissioner Jasper asked if the revised ordinance include the attached examples. Mr. Vrchota stated this was to demonstrate some alternate scenanos. n. City Code 12-7-2 Fences and Walls Mr. Vrchota stated this section deals with fences and walls. The existing code is general, contains very few enforceable standards, and is vague and open to interpretation. The proposed change will be the entire chapter will be re- written. Specific, enforceable construction and maintenance standards will be included, and the language will be clarified, making the chapter easier to read, understand, and enforce. '\ ./ Commissioner Holthus asked if garden fence would be allowed in someone's backyard. Mr. Bednarz stated the wire fences are used for gardens and this would need to be noted as such in the code. Chairperson Daninger stated he would like to see wire fences allowed in rural areas but not in urban areas. Commissioner Jasper stated if there is a reasonable use of the fence, they should allow it. He did not think they should address this particular kind of fence. He thought the wording should be left at materials "generally accepted in the fencing industry". Commissioner Jasper stated in 12-4-7-a, delete the words "or similar material" because it does not serve the purpose at all. Chairperson Daninger asked if enforcement was addressed in 12-7 -4-b. What happens if a fence is leaning. Mr. Vrchota stated this would be handled as a normal zoning code violation. , / Chairperson Daninger stated in 12-7-3-b, fence height of six feet, front yard. How do they interpret this in the front yard. Mr. Vrchota stated if needs to be an ornamental fence and there is a specific definition of an ornamental fence within the zoning code. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 13 111. City Code 12-8-7 Bulk Liquid Storage Mr. Bednarz stated there is no clear definition of what constitutes bulk liquid storage as regulated by City Code. The Fire Department currently requires a permit before installation, repair, removal or alteration. It should be made clear in this section what is specifically regulated, and that it should be properly permitted by the Fire Department. Our Fire Department needs to have knowledge of special hazards that exist within the community and this Code section will enable that to happen. The proposed change will include a new definition since one does not currently exist. Under Part A, it is recommended that the threshold for what constitutes a liquid storage tank (that is to be regulated) shall be established. This should also be shown as a Conditional Use where appropriate in the uses table. The districts that this will be listed as a Conditional Use are R-1 (Single Family-Rural Agricultural Uses Only), NB (Neighborhood Business), SC (Shopping Center), GB (General Business), I (Industrial). There should also be a provision added that enables public agencies (school district, city, county, state) regardless of the zoning district they are located in to request a Conditional Use Permit. ? The Fire Department has reviewed the wording of this section and is acceptable to them. The code should also have a provision that a permit is required from the Fire Department to install, alter, repair or remove a tank covered under this provision of City Code. The section that established a sunset date (B.3.) should be removed from the City Code, since that five year grace period has long since expired (in 1975). Commissioner Jasper asked why one thousand gallons. Mr. Bednarz stated during research this was found to be a common number used. Commissioner Jasper stated he would like to see more information to allow them to make a rationale choice as to what that number is. Commissioner Jasper stated in 12-8-7-c, farm tank is under one thousand gallons and tanks of one thousand gallons or less for holding heating oil but as he read, does not apply to any tank under one thousand gallons so he does not know if any of the exceptions are necessary and not redundant and confusing. If they change this amount to 250 gallons then the exceptions may be valid. Commissioner Holthus asked if there was any verbiage in the code if the tank was not used anymore, is there anything the City requires them to do with the tank. Mr. Bednarz stated there are not really City regulations but they are / Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 8, 2005 Page 14 referenced under part D, number 1, in terms of referencing the International Fire Code. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Motion carried on a 5-ayes, O-nays, 2-absent (Greenwald, Vatne) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.