Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2012 WorkshopC I T Y O F ND606VE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Andover City Hall Conference Rooms A & B 6.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Discuss City Code Amendment to Establish Regulations for Interim Use Permits 3. Other Business 4. Adjournment ANLb 4�o� 6VE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: David L. Carlberg, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Workshop - Interim Use Permits DATE: May 8, 2012 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is requested to discuss the implementation of Interim Use Permit (IUP) regulations in the City Code. DISCUSSION The City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint workshop on March 27, 2012 to discuss IUP regulations. Attached are the minutes from the meeting for background information on the discussion. Based on the discussions from the meeting, staff has made modifications to the proposed draft language. Interim Use Permits (IUP) The purpose and intent of an IUP is to allow a use within any zoning district for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in a manner provided in the Comprehensive Plan and/or to allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or changes, will not be acceptable in the future. Attached for discussion purposes is a draft of language on IUP's that could be added to the City Code. Uses being considered as IUD's include mining, land reclamation, temporary classrooms, and other uses that the City as a condition establishes a sunset clause, a date of expiration. ACTION REQUESTED Review and discuss the draft provisions. Attachments Example Ordinance regulating Interim Use Permits Respectfully submitted, David L. Carlberg INTERIM USE PERMITS (A) Purpose. Certain land uses might not be consistent with the land uses designated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and may also fail to meet all of the zoning standards established for the district within which they are proposed. Some such land uses may, however, be acceptable or even beneficial if reviewed and provisionally approved for a limited period of time. The purpose of the interim use review process is to allow the approval of interim uses on a case -by -case basis. Approved interim uses shall have a definite end date and may be subject to specific conditions considered reasonable and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. (B) Application /Fee. The person applying for an Interim Use Permit shall fill out and submit to the Community Development Director an Interim Use Permit application, together with a fee as set forth by ordinance. The Community Development Director shall have ten (10) working days from receipt of the application to determine completeness. The Community Development Director shall refer completed applications to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (C) Procedures. The public hearing, public notice and procedural requirements for interim use permits shall be the same as those for conditional use permits as provided in 12 -14 -8. The City Council shall act upon the interim use permit application within sixty (60) days from the date of submission of a complete application, unless an extension has been provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99. Approval of an application shall require a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the entire City Council. (D) Standards. The Planning Commission shall recommend an interim use permit, and the Council shall issue such interim use permit, only if they find that such use at the proposed location: (1) Will not create an excess burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities; (2) Will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare; (3) Will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public; and (4) Will be subjected to, by agreement with the owner, any conditions that the City Council has deemed appropriate for permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures upon the expiration of the interim use permit. (E) Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events; whichever occurs first: (1) Five (5) years from the date of approval; or (2) The date or event stated in the permit; or (3) A change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use non- conforming; or (4) The use has been discontinued for six (6) months or more. (F) Revocation. The City Council may revoke any interim use permit upon a determination that the applicant's use is not in conformance with the conditions of the issued permit, or there is a continued violation of the City Code or other applicable regulations. (G) Renewals. If an approved interim use is to be continued beyond the date of its expiration, or if an expired interim use is to be reinstated, an applicant shall follow the above process for seeking a new interim use approval. (H) Reapplication after Denial. No reapplication for an Interim Use Permit shall be considered by the City Council for a period of one (1) year from the date of a previous denial of the same application. 12 -14 -8: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: A. Council Actions Requiring a Public Hearing: The following Council actions shall require a public hearing: 1. Variance 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 3. Rezoning and Text Amendment 4. Sketch Plan 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7. Interim Use Permits B. Public Hearing 1. A public hearing on an application for Council actions in this chapter shall be held by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Minnesota State Statutes. 2. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing. 3. Property owners and occupants within three hundred fifty feet (350') of subject properties located inside the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) (based on the City's most current version of Anoka County Property Records) shall be notified in writing. 4. Property owners and occupants within seven hundred feet (700') of subject properties located outside the MUSA (based on the City's most current version of Anoka County Property Records) shall be notified in writing. 5. The notification distance shall be measured from the perimeter of the subject property. Property owner notifications shall be sent by mail. Failure by any property owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. 6. Staff shall have discretion to expand the notification area on a case by case basis. 7. The hearing may be continued from time to time in the event the Planning and Zoning Commission needs additional information from the applicant or other sources to make its decision. 8. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be presented to the City Council 9. The City Council shall make the final decision on the proposed action. Andover City Council TVorkshop Minutes —March 27, 2012 Page 4 Acting Mayor Trude stated there would be a water and sewer prof n South Coon Creek Drive this year. This may result in residents requesting to be hook p to the City's sewer and water. Community Development Director Carlberg stat e City would see small residential projects come forward. The City's current lot inv is 80 lots with less than 40 of these being considered rural. He explained the . cts the City of Anoka would be considering for the parcels located near the libra ding retail and multi - family housing. Councilmember Ian''' stated Anoka is also moving Castle Field to the south side of the arena. Bunker Lake evard will also be upgraded to four (4) lanes all the way to 47 in Ramsey. INTERIM USE PERMITS Community Development Director Carlberg stated the EDA and City Council have discussed the operation of a U -Haul rental business at the Stop -N -Shop convenience store located at 13725 Crosstown Drive NW. Through these discussions the idea of allowing this type of use as an interim use was explored. The purpose and intent of an Interim Use Permit (1UP) is to allow a use within any zoning district for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in a manner provided in the Comprehensive Plan and/or to allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or changes, will not be acceptable in the future. He clarified Conditional Use Permits (CUP) would be attached to the property and an IUP could be tied to a specific business or use and include an expiration date. The City currently does not have Interim Use Permit provisions. The process would be similar to the CUP process with a review, public input and possible conditions added. A sunset clause with a CUP can cause legal problems for the City but an expiration date can be included with an 1UP without causing problems. Councilmember Knight asked if a business would have a claim if they had been approved for an NP, invested a large amount of money into the property, and then the fUP expired and was not extended. Community Development Director Carlberg clarified with an IUP it is understood up front that the use will not be permitted permanently. The IUP could be granted for situations where a short-term use of a property is needed. This would be similar to the tire chip storage on Hanson Boulevard that had been presented to the City a couple of months ago. An IUP would be used if a space could be used by a business that would otherwise not be able to operate in that area, until another option is available. Acting Mayor Trude asked if there would be a problem with businesses thinking an 1UP meant anything would be approved. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the process for an IUP would be similar to the Andover City Council Workshop Minutes —March 27, 2012 Page 5 CUP process. A business would need to meet criteria for approval and the IUP is for short-term use only. A CUP is a conditional amendment that runs with the property and is considered long- term as long as the conditions are met. . Planning Commissioner Holthus asked how the City had approved the tire chip storage on Hanson Boulevard with an expiration date. She also asked if this was the only situation in the City where a CUP had been issued with a sunset clause. Acting Mayor Trude explained with the tires on Hanson Boulevard, the City Attorney had included an expiration date and clarified this was due to the hazardous nature of the products being stored. The longer the hazardous materials were stored there the more likely they could become more hazardous. Community Development Director Carlberg stated there were other CUPs in the City that included sunset clauses and these include temporary classrooms. He stated the problem with a CUP is that it stays with a property and it can only be revoked if the conditions of approval are not met. Planning Commissioner Peterson stated there have been no cities sued for an NP but there have been for CUPS. The IUP is another tool available to the City to provide flexibility for businesses. He asked if the time period would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City Council. Community Development Director Carlberg stated a typical NP time frame would be one (1) to five (5) years but the applicant can request an extension at the end of the term. He explained an NP could be restricted to a specific business and location and conditions can be added but they would not be transferable or go with the property. All NPs would be looked at on a case -by -case basis. Planning Commissioner Olsen stated there was language in the draft NP Ordinance that tied back to the City's CUP Ordinance. He suggested this be reviewed to ensure the language is coordinated correctly. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the CUP language only contained a provision that if the CUP had not been used within 12- months of being issued then it would become void. Staff would review the language for both permit processes and ensure the language is clear and concise. Councilmember Bukkila asked if the IUP process would be opening the City to liability because this process was more liberal than the City's CUP process and did not have to meet the strict criteria of the CUP. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the City would need to exercise care. The IUP is to allow the short-term use of a property that may not otherwise be allowed. The City may Andover City Council Workshop Minutes —March 27, 2012 Page 6 be more open to reviewing a use for a property as a short -term use without allowing the use to be tied permanently to the property. The situation with the tire chip storage would be a good example. Under the CUP this use is tied to the property but with an fUP the City could set a deadline without any problems. The owner of the property where the tires are being stored will be coming to the City for approval of additional storage because he would like to use similar material on his property. The fUP is another tool for the City to use and does not circumvent the CUP but it will allow flexibility to allow things that make sense on a property for a short -term use. Planning Chairman Daninger asked if the City could terminate the IUP before the expiration date. Community Development Director Carlberg stated an IUP would terminate upon a specific date or event. This means if there had been a specific reason, such as the construction of a new facility, that was completed the IUP would be terminated. An event would be considered something the applicant said they would do under the fUP. Planning Chairman Daninger stated in the draft IUP language, Item A.1 should be reworded to make the language more clear. Acting Mayor Trude clarified the IUP process was not a way for applicants to bypass the City's zoning. She asked how staff would like to proceed with the draft NP. Community Development Director Carlberg stated if the Council and Planning Commission would like to see the language worked on, staff could bring a revised draft forward for consideration then the Planning Commission could hold a public hearing regarding it. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to see the language clearer and simpler. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the procedure would be spelled out clearly and there will be no connections to the CUP process, this way there would not be any confusion on the two (2) permits. Acting Mayor Trude asked if it was the consensus to have staff provide cleaner, simpler language for the Interim Use Permit and have this discussed at the next Council workshop. She suggested staff look at the language other cities use. Planning Commissioner Holthus asked when the next City Council workshop would be. Acting Mayor Trude stated the Council workshop is scheduled for the end of April but the Planning Commission will be having one on April 10. She stated she would accept the draft language going to the Planning Commission workshop prior to the Council workshop. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the U -Haul operation would continue to Andover City Council Morkshop Minutes —March 27, 2012 Page 7 operate until the City has reached a resolution regarding this matter. He pointed out there were other uses that would be expiring soon within the City and having this process in place would benefit the City. Planning Commissioner Nemeth asked if the renewal process for the NP would be the same as the application process. Community Development Director Carlberg stated an NP with an expiration of one (1) year would be unusual. Most are likely to be in the two (2) to three (3) year range and there would generally be none over five (5) years. An applicant can request an extension of an IUP and this would need to be approved by the City. He clarified there was no expectation that an fUP would be extended because there was an expected termination date set at the beginning. Acting Mayor Trude stated the League of Minnesota Cities recommends the use of Interim Use Permits. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the draft could be discussed at the May 8'h Planning Commission workshop. Planning Chairman Daninger stated the Planning Commission has not had a meeting since the new Planning Commissioners joined. At the next meeting the Planning Commission will need to swear in the new members and also vote on a Chairman and Vice - Chairman. Councilmember Knight stated he appreciates the work of the Planning Commission on these issues. Planning Chairman Daninger stated one of the goals of the Planning Commission had been to provide more discussions on the items brought forward for the Council to consider and this has been accomplished. He expects this to continue with the upcoming projects in the City. He stated the Planning Commission had not had workshops in the past but he has found these are helpful in providing additional information prior to the Planning Commission making a final decision. He would like to see these scheduled on the same evenings as the Planning Commission meetings. Planning Commissioner Olsen stated there were several projects coming up in the City and the Planning Commission should have no problems putting together an agenda for their meetings. Community Development Director Carlberg stated it is also important for the Planning Commission to understand where the City Council stands so that the Planning Commission is not spending time on a development or project the Council does not support. Acting Mayor Trude stated the Planning Commission is both planning and zoning and the Council needs their help and support in order to serve the community. She stated if there is information the Planning Commissioners would like to see included in their meeting packets they Andover City Council Morkshop Minutes —March 27, 2012 Page 8 need to let staff know. The Workshop with the Planning Commission adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The Council recessed at 7:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:07 p.m. 2011 -2012 COUNCIL GOALS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION City Administrator Dickinson provided a summary progress report on the 2011 -2012 goals and values. Council is asked to review and discuss the progress being made on the 2011 -2012 Council Goals and Values and discuss the process for developing 2012 -2013 Council Goals and Values. He pointed out the updates regarding the goals. He asked the Council to review the goals and determine if they were still true statements for the Council. Councilmember Knight stated he would not disagree with the Fiscal Value goals and this should be ongoing. City Administrator Dickinson stated as part of the Commercial/Residential Development/Redevelopment Goals he would like to add working with developers to find alternatives to Letter of Credit requirements. He stated developers are having problems accessing the amount of credit the City requires. Acting Mayor Trude stated this would fit in with the Commercial/Residential Development/Redevelopment Goals. She asked what options may be available to developers. City Administrator Dickinson stated the City could look at putting the variable fees such as aerial mapping of sites and staff costs for inspections into a smaller escrow or include these costs in the development agreement. At the time a building permit is applied for the City would collect all the fixed costs such as park dedication fees, water connection charges and sewer charges. The City would not issue a building permit until these fees were paid. Acting Mayor Trude clarified the fixed costs would not be collected as a total amount but would be paid in smaller portions as the single lots are developed. She asked how this would be set up and what the down side would be of doing this. City Administrator Dickinson stated this is an agreement that could be included in the development contract. This is a process that is used in communities outside of the Metro area. The City would still receive the fees but just over a period of time. Acting Mayor Trude stated she would agree with this approach. The only down side would be the park dedication fees would not be received as one payment and this could delay projects in the neighborhood or somewhere else in the City.