Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 10, 1984 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 10, 1984 AGENDA Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes 1. Comm. #2-84-5 2. Comm. #2-84-4 3. Comm. #2-84-4a 4. Comm. #3-84-5 5. Comm. #3-84-6 6. Comm. #3-84-7 7. Comm. #3-84-4 Wm. C. Rademacher Special Use Permit Public Hearing, Cont. Dog Ordinance Public Hearing Kadlec 2nd Addition Public Hearing Daniel Kociemba Special Use Permit Public Hearing James Refrigeration Rezoning Public Hearing Paul Bertils Special Use Permit Public Hearing Junkyard Ordinance Discussion, Cont. ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 10, 1984 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Spotts at 7:32 P.M., Tuesday, April 10,1984 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Apel; Bosell; Knutson; Jacobson; Perry; Rogers None City Engineer, James Schrantz; Andover Fire Marshal, Rich Larson; Harvey Kadlec; Max Alford; Mary Simcoe; John Prest; Daniel Kociemba; Dick Kvanbeck; others Approval of Minutes March 27, 1984 Page 3 - first paragraph, should read "He said the Council indicated that there...." Third paragraph, second line should read "they are not allowed to front onto Prairie Road." MOTION by Bosell, seconded by Jacobson to approve the minutes of March 27, 1984 as corrected. Motion carried on a 6 yes, 1 present (Apel) vote. Wm. C. Rademacher Special Use Permit Public Hearing, Cont. (Comm. #2-84-5) Chairman Spotts reopened the public hearing. John Prest, Bill's Superette - stated that Rich Larson, Mr. Rogers.and Del from'Texgas got together and went over the area to find the best site for the tank. He noted that there is a problem trying to come out into the parking lot to get the 50 foot requirement from the right-of-way. He asked if it would be possible to get a variance to put the tank in the front of the store. Commissioner Rogers asked if Mr. Prest was looking at a 16 foot variance. Mr. Prest replied that he is. MOTION by Rogers, seconded by Jacobson to close the public hearing. Motion carried un- animously. Commissioner Rogers noted that they looked in the back of the store for a spot and couldn't find any place that would be suitable. His recommendation would be to put it in the front where it is shown on the drawing. He would also be in favor of granting a variance for having it in the front of the building. Chairman Spotts then read the memo from the Fire Department, which states as follows: "1) All vehicles being fueled shall be shut off during the fueling; 2) Conspicuous Signs: NO SMOKING WITHIN 25 FEET OF CONTAINER. STOP ENGINES. LP-GAS FLAMMABLE; 3) Illegal to operate a self-service liquified petroleum gas dispensing operation which is open to the public. The dispensing shall be performed by a TRAINED QUALIFIED ATTENDANT; 4) Tank installation and dispensing equipment shall be inspected by the State Fire Marshal's office; Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes 'age 2 (Rademacher Special Use Permit, Cont.) 5) LP Gas container and dispensing equipment MUST BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICLES (steel posts); 6) Protection against tampering; Effectively prevent unauthorized operation of any of the container apparatus, system valves or equipment; 7) Loose or piled combustibles-materials and weeds and dry grass shall not be permitted within 10 feet of tank; 8) Adequate lighting shall be provided to illuminate storage container, container being filled, control valves and other equipment; 9) Container shall be kept properly painted." Chairman Spotts asked how often the State Fire Marshal's office would inspect the tank. Fire Marshal Rich Larson noted that this is for the initial inspection; they are more knowledgable on propane tanks than he is so he felt they should do the inspection. Commissioner Bosell suggested several changes be made to the requirements in the Fire Depart- ment's list. She also noted that the variance will be for 12 feet not 16. After some discussion, it was decided that the variance would be for 16 feet. Fire Marshal Larson noted that he would have no problem with the tank being allowed in the front with a variance being granted for the 16 feet and one because it is in the front of the store. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bosell that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit requested by Wm. C. Rademacher to install an LP fi11-and-go liquified petroleum tank at Bill 's Superette, 14041 Round Lake Boulevard. The Commission also recommends a variance from Ordinance 8 for the placement of the tank less than 50 feet from the edge of the County right-of-way(34') and a variance to allow an accessory structure to be placed in front of the main building. The Commission also proposes the following conditions be attached to the Special Use Permit: 1. Three signs: All vehicles being fueled shall be shut off during the fueling; No Smoking within 25 feet of container. Sopt Engines. LP-Gas Flammable; Dispensing must be performed by a qualified trained attendant. 2. The tank installation and dispensing equipment shall be inspected by the State Fire Marshal's office. 3. LP gas container and dispensing equipment must be protected from vehicles by steel posts set in concrete. 4. The facility must provide a security system which will effectively prevent unauthorized operation of the container apparatus, system valves and equipment. 5. Loose or piled combustibles, materials and weeds and dry grass shall not be permitted within 10 feet of tank. 5. Adequate lighting shall be provided to illuminate the storage container, container being filled, control valves and other equipment. 7. Container shall be kept properly painted. Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes Page 3 (Rademacher Special Use Permit, Cont.) 8. Applicant shall be required to meet all of the mandated requirements of state law in regard to the installation. Reasons for approval are: 1) The use will not have an effect on property values; 2) It will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 3) It will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on May 1, 1984. Dog Ordinance Public Hearing (Comm. #2-84-4) Chairman Spotts opened the public hearing. Mary Simcoe, 2929 - 142nd Lane N.W. - noted that they are trying to provide for small breeders of purebred dogs to enable them to have more than three dogs at one time. Chairman Spotts stated that Mrs. Simcoe and Max Alford, president of Minnesota Purebred Association, were here a couple of times and they came up with some ideas. Chairman Spotts noted that some of the problems are where a hobby/breeder kennel fits in with the zoning ordinance. At the present time kennels are only allowed in R-l districts. Commissioner Jacobson noted that there are a number of inconsistencies in the model ordinance and our present ordinance. He stated that he would have liked to have had some sort of document that was put together for this hearing. Mrs. Simcoe noted that the model ordinance was presented only to give the Commission some ideas; they didn't expect it to be adopted as is. Commissioner Jacobson felt that parts of the model should be integrated with our present ordinance to provide for hobby breeder kennels. Commissioner Bosell explained that the only item from the model ordinance the Commission was going to deal with was the definition of a hobby breeder kennel. Her recommendation was to amend Ordinance 8 to include these kennels and put in the definition and in Section 5.03 set out some criteria for the hobby kennel license. Her intention was never to do anything with the dog ordinance. Commissioner Knutson felt that the definition for a hobby/breeder has to be in the dog ordinance. Commissioner Bosell noted that the definition should be in Ordinance 8; we can't consider it at all if it's not allowed in the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Knutson noted that there has to be two changes made in Ordinance 53 and two changes need to be made in Ordinance 8. Commissioner Apel noted that the subcommittee should get together before the next meeting to get something together. Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes Page 4 (Dog Ordinance, Cont.) Commissioner Jacobson asked if the criteria listed has to all be met or just a few of the items listed. Commissioner Bosell stated that some of the items cannot be enforced by the city. Max Alford noted that most people v/ould meet all of the criteria; however, some people might not belong to an organization. Regarding the lot size, the applicant would require a Special Use Permit and the Planning Commission has the opportunity to turn it down if the lot is too small for the type of dog they are raising. Commissioner Jacobson felt that that criteria should be gone over very carefully. If you make the ordinance vague, you have problems all along the line. Commissioner Bosell noted that the definition should be in Ordinance 8 and a Special Use Permit has to be required with an annual review. Mr. Alford noted that it is common for someone to go out and inspect kennels before the license is renewed. Usually, it's the police department. Chairman Spotts recommended that this item be tabled to the next meeting and the subcommittee get together and come up with something concrete. Commissioner Perry noted that the ordinance should include the following items: Special Use Permit required with an annual review; which districts kennels would be allowed in; if kennels are allowed in all residential districts, some equalization must be worked out for space requirements; and something where only a certain portion of yard space can be used as a run area. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Perry to table this item to the April 24th meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Spotts will suit the city. also has show dogs. asked if the subcommittee is competent to come up with something that Commissioner Bose11 felt that the City Clerk should be contacted as she Kadlec 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat Public Hearing (Comm. #2-84-4a) Chairman Spotts opened the public hearing. City Engineer Schrantz noted that the Andover Review Committee met to review the plat. We still need to have the soil borings and comments from the Coon Creek Watershed. A letter has been received from the Anoka County Highway Department. Mr. Kadlec has petitioned for improvements. Mr. Schrantz felt that the property to the south needs to be platted also so that the sewer can be brought up along Quay Street. The soils map indicates that the soils are adequate. Mr. Schrantz also noted that on the east end of the plat is the floodway. Everything below 866 is in the floodway. The lowest building elevation allowed is 867. Mr. Kadlec's elevations are 872. Chairman Spotts asked Mr. Kadlec what he will do with the property shown as "park" if the Park Board does not accept it. Mr. Kadlec noted that those lots bordering it will be extended. Part of it could possibly be for ponding also. Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes Page 5 (Kadlec 2nd Addition, Cont.) Mr. Schrantz noted that the Park Board has requested cash in lieu of land on this plat. He also noted that the big issues on this plat are the right-of-way on the west and the property to the south. Jim Elling - noted that he spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Tressel and they have not yet been contacted regarding the right-of-way. Mr. Kadlec stated that according to the title company, there is a road easement across the Tressel property and the Volk property that would have to be quit claimed to him so that he can build the street. Commissioner Bosell noted that any areas that need fill have to be shaded on the plat; the corners need to be radiused and Lot 8 needs a dimension on it. It also needs to be shown somewhere on the plat that the water supply will be municipal and the road mileage needs to be shown. She asked what happens if the property to the south does not develop. City Engineer Schrantz explained that Mr. Kadlec would have to obtain an easement from Mr. Wallace in order to get the utilities in. This item will be continued at the April 24th meeting. Recess 9:00 - Reconvene 9:17 Daniel Kociemba Special Use Permit Public Hearing (Comm. #3-84-5) Chairman Spotts opened the public hearing. Daniel Kociemba, 615 Kimball Street, Fridley - stated that he is requesting a Special Use Permit so that he can build an 18' x 28' utility building on Lot 2, Block 2, Pine Hills Addition prior to the construction of his house. Commissioner Perry asked Mr. Kociemba what he will use the building for. Mr. Kociemba noted that he is going to build the cabinets for his house and he needs a place to store them while he is building the house. He also needs some place to store his other building materials. Commissioner Perry asked what the height of the structure will be. Mr. Kociemba noted that it is 18 feet high. He also noted that the building will be approximately 30 feet from the property line. Commissioner Perry asked when he plans to start construction on the house. Mr. Kociemba stated in either 1985 or 1986. Commissioner Jacobson asked what the building will be used for once the house has been constructed. Mr. Kociemba stated it will be for storage of his lawn tractor and other items. Chairman Spotts asked if the building will be shielded by trees or shrubs. Mr. Kociemba .loted that it will be. There are pines on the east side and he has planted white spruce on the north side. Commissioner Jacobson noted that we could put a time limit on the Special Use Permit as to when the house has to be finished. Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes Page 6 (D. Kociemba Special Use Permit, Cont.) MOTION by Bosell, seconded by Jacobson to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Apel, seconded by Rogers that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit requested by Daniel Kociemba to build an accessory building on Lot 2, Block 2, Pine Hills Addition prior to the construction of the principal structure for the following reasons: 1) The Special Use is permitted by Ordinance 8, Section 4.05(A); 2) Granting of the Special Use Permit is governed by Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 (6); 3) The Special Use Permit should be granted with the provision that the principal structure be completed within two years of the date of the Special Use Permit being granted with a one year review; 4) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the city; 5) It will not seriously depreciate surround- ing property values; 6) It is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried on a 6 yes, 1 no (Perry) vote. This will go to the City Council on May 1, 1984. James Refrigeration Rezoning Public Hearing (Comm. #3-84-6) Chairman Spotts opened the public hearing. Dick Kvanbeck, James Refrigeration - stated that the reason for the request is strictly for the intent of putting an addition on the present building (Tom Thumb store) to house a liquor store. Off-sale liquor is not permitted in a Neighborhood Business district but is permitted in other zoning districts. He would like the Commission to deal with this item along with the next item on the agenda, Paul Bertils Special Use Permit. He noted that if they can't get the liquor license, they don't want the property rezoned. The addition to the store would be 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Bosell noted that the site plan that was presented shows the proposed structure as 5,500 square feet. Mr. Kvanbeck noted that they put the maximum size building allowed on the property. Commiss ioner Bose 11 asked what the easement does to the property. Mr. Kvanbeck stated that they can blacktop over the easement but can't put a structure on it. Commissioner Perry noted that one of the requirements for a Shopping Center is that there is a demand for that use. She asked what the demand is. Mr. Kvanbeck noted that Mr. Bertils contacted James Refrigeration with a request to see how he could get a liquor store there. Brian Nystrom, 16005 Makah Street N.H. - noted that while his home is being built, he is living with his in-laws at 16005 Makah. He noted that they moved there because it's a very quiet peaceful area. Mr. Nystrom didn't think that there is a need for a liquor store at that location, it would be a small boost to the economy and didn't feel it would raise much revenue for the city. Stated that he and his in-lavls are against the rezoning. Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo Street N.W. - read a letter to the Commission which stated as follows: "I would like to express my opposition to the request for a zoning change from neighborhood business to shopping center by the owners of the property located on the corner of Co. Road 7 and County Road 58 (the property on which the Tom Thumb is located). I am opposed because of the desire to avoid spot zoning and rezoning which could potentially Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes Page 7 (James Refrigeration Rezoning, Cont.) open a rural residential area to further commercial development. In addition, I am aware the City of Andover has had a policy limiting shopping center development to those areas where there is access to sewer and water. Allowing this request would be inconsistent with this policy. I understand the rezoning request is to enable the building of a liquor store. I am strongly opposed to liquor businesses in residential areas. The intent of the liquor ordinance, if I recall correctly, was to restrict liquor businesses from bordering on residential areas. I believe in this restriction. With a liquor store located approximately two miles away (Co. Road 9 and County Road 20 East) and with a liquor store near the planned shopping center on County Road 9 and Bunker Lake Boulevard, there is no need for additional liquor business in western Andover." Tony Trimble, 4211 - 146th Lane N.W. - stated that he is opposed to the rezoning and Special Use permit, noting that any commercial activity increases the traffic. Dick Kvanbeck - stated that the only reason he is requesting a rezoning to Shopping Center is to allow for the construction of a liquor store. He asked what classification would be appropriate if the Shopping Center classification is not acceptable. Commissioner Jacobson noted that liquor stores are allowed in the General Recreation, Limited Business, General Business and Limited Industrial districts. Mr. Jacobson also noted that the property in question is now zoned Neighborhood Business and it meets the needs of the people in that area. A shopping center is really a modern retail integrated shopping facility. He felt that the developer should show that there is a real need for this rezoning. Chairman Spotts asked Commissioner Jacobson what he would like to see in a feasibility study. Commissioner Jacobson stated that it should include traffic counts and if there is a real need for the rezoning. Richard Wandersee - thought that the intent of the liquor ordinance was to restrict liquor stores from residential areas. Commissioner Apel didn't feel that a shopping center belongs in that area, noting that there is no need for it. Paul Bertils, Tom Thumb Store - noted that he is interested in increasing his business because his taxes and his rent are high. That is the reason he is looking at building a liquor store. Commissioner Bosell asked Mr. Bertils if any people had asked him to put a liquor store in. Mr. Bertils stated that he has had people ask for a liquor store, hardware store, beauty shop and variety store. It was noted that all of the items Mr. Bertils mentioned would be allowed in a Neighborhood Business zone except the liquor store. Commissioner Jacobson suggested that Mr. Bertils ask the City Council if they would allow a liquor store in a Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Kvanbeck asked that these two items be tabled until they can look at some alternatives. ~OTION by Jacobson, seconded by Apel that we table the rezoning request of James Refrigeration and the Special Use Permit request of Paul Bertils for 60 days to allow reconsideration by the applicants. Motion carried unanimously. Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 10, 1984 - Minutes ')age 8 (Commissioner Perry left at this time - 10:40 P.M.) Recess 10:40 - Reconvene 10:45 Junkyard Ordinance Discussion, Cont. (Comm. #3-84-4) Chairman Spotts noted that because of the revocation of the Special Use Permit for Charles Mistelske, the Council would like the Planning Commission to consider allowing auto reduction and storage of used auto parts inside a building. Commissioner Jacobson didn't feel we should allow auto reduction; however the sale and storage of used auto parts inside a building might be OK. It was the concensus that the following memo be sent to the City Council: "Subject: City Council's Direction to the Commission to consider the Concept of Auto Reduction and Storage and Sale of Use Auto Parts if Done Totally Inside a Building. The Commission has spent several hours discussing the above proposal and is unanimous in its feelings that a junkyard should not be established where one does not exist. The Commission is not opposed to the sale and storage of auto parts if it is within a building in a General Industrial District. The opposition is to the reissuance of a junkyard license to do so. The Commission would recommend that under Ordinance 8, Section 7.03 under General Industrial and Limited Industrial Districts, the following words be inserted: 'Sale and storage of used auto parts within a building only.' This language would allow a person to sell auto parts but would not allow auto reduction to take place and would be easier to handle than designating a junkyard within a building." A special meeting to go over the draft of Ordinance 8 was scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. MOTION by Apel to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, U./W Vicki Volk Commission Secretary