Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 22, 1994 o ~ ,,' "' 'J o ~1<1'-1 (-~\ U ~ CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 22, 1994 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on March 22, 1994, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Bonnie Dehn, Becky Pease (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Randy Peek, Bev Jovanovich Jerry Putnam City Planner, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 8, 1994: Correct as written. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval as presented. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (Apel), 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - MINING PERMIT, BLAKE CONSTRUCTION (PAUL BLAKE), SECTION 15 7:03 P.M. Mr. Carlberg stated the advise of the City's legal counsel was to have Mr. Blake apply for another Special Use Permit rather than amend the original one. He did re-advertise and renotify residents on the Permit, so this is a new public hearing. Mr. Blake has submitted current grading plans and the Staff has approved them. Staff is recommending approval of the new Permit. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Dehn, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. There was no public testimony. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Dehn, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. 7:07 p.m. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward the enclosed draft Resolution to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. This will go to the April 5, 1994, City Council meeting. 7:08 p.m. ! \ "\.J , , '\.-J \ .J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT - BULK STORAGE OF LIQUID FUELS (TANK) - 13650 HANSON BOULEVARD NW - MURPHY OIL USA Mr. Carlberg stated he received a fax this afternoon from Murphy Oil USA requesting this item be removed from the agenda. They have determined they do not need the additional tank. They are also requesting a refund of the $70 application fee. Staff is recommending the $20 recording fee be refunded, but the $50 application fee, which was based on publication and Staff time, should not be refunded. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, that we remove and terminate the public hearing regarding the Amended Special Use Permit of the Murphy Oil Company; and that we fund that portion of the fee in the amount of $20 to Murphy Oil Company. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSS AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 102 - LIMITING NUMBER OF LICENSES AND DISTRICTING OF GARBAGE HAULERS 7:11 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the Commission is asked to discuss the issue of limiting the number of garbage hauler licenses issued by the ,\ City and the possibility of districting of the haulers. There are ten "-) licensed haulers currently operating in the City. The discussion came about because of the number of haulers and the maintenance of the streets. There is a concern when there are six to eight garbage trucks on the streets of one neighborhood each week. Staff met with a number of haulers on February 8, 1994, to discuss these issues. Written responses have also been received from two haulers. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (Pease, Putnam) vote. 7:15 p.m. Mike HalL Michael P. HalL Inc. - stated it is hard to say how districting the City would affect the overall cost to the consumer. It depends on the zoning and how the City would get involved if billing the non-paying customers becomes a problem. Whether or not the City gets involved would dictate prices, as well as prices paid to the county. Commissioner Dehn asked if customers would lose any services by redistricting. \ Mr. Hall - stated he takes pride in his business and would do the best he can. He thought there would have to be some guidelines set by the City that each hauler would have to comply with. He would like his business to grow, so he would be in favor of districting if the boundaries would change as the City grows. He is involved in organization collection now, and he felt it is very beneficial to both the consumer and to the hauler. Mr. Hall felt the same services would be given to both the rural and urban areas with districting, though financially it is better to be located in the southern portion of the Ci ty. That would be part of the logistics that would have to be determined when determining boundaries. He is open to districting but wants to know what role the City is going to take. j \- / " ~--) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1Q94 Page 3 , / (Public Hearing: Ordinance 102 - Limiting Garbage Haulers, Cont.) Mr. Hall reviewed the setup in the City of Minneapolis, which is very unique and which he felt works well. It is a partnership, stating he would be glad to provide his experiences and expertise to the City in this matter. Commissioner Peek asked if there is a difference in rates between the urban and rural areas. Mr. Hall - stated not at this time, and it is not something he felt would come into effect. The county and state control the tipping fees they pay. He is dumping at Elk River, and he believed most of his competitors are doing the same. Commissioner Peek asked about the competition and rates in an organized distribution. Mr. Hall - stated it would not be as competitive in an organized system. He felt the haulers would have to negotiate a fee for the different services which would have to be approved by the City. Districting does reduce the travel costs and some labor costs. Billing is the big question. Prices can be cut dramatically if one person is doing the billing. Some cities are willing to use their Staff to implement second notices and stop notices when the bills are not paid. The City can levy on the taxes so they can continue service to the customer. He can put together different examples and help with any kind of plan. The ) question is whether to limit haulers or is it the time to organize them. Councilmember Apel felt the first question is whether or not to limit the number of haulers. The question of districting can then be discussed over the next several months. Mr. Hall - stated many of the metropolitan cities are having these same discussions. He noted there are some haulers who obtain licenses in a city just to be involved even if they don't have any customers. He was not sure what the correct number of haulers should be for Andover. He didn't know of any statistics to show what would get the best service. Councilmember Apel asked how the load restrictions in the spring affects his business. Mr. Hall - stated there is not a legal garbage truck on the roads in the spring. The average truck meets the 5-ton limit when empty. (Commissioner Pease arrived at this time; 7:35 p.m.) Mr. Hall - explained under state law they must provide recycling. With districting, there would be a minimum of three garbage trucks going down the street, the garbage truck, the recycling truck and the yard waste truck in the spring and fall. They are experiencing more demand for the yard waste truck in Andover, particularly in the southern area; and he would like to see that particular service continued. He again offered his service to get information and answer questions on this issue. '- ./ Terrv Lanoue, Peterson Brothers - is in favor of organized collection. There is organized collection where they operate in Elk River, Champlin Blaine and Ham Lake. \ '_ J .' '\ ,~ \ , ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 4 (Public Hearing: Ordinance 102 - Limiting Garbage Haulers, Cont.) Representative for Woodlake Sanitarv Service - would rather limit the number of haulers and let them compete. Districting would limit their growth, and he would prefer to grow through the competitive means. It would also limit the customers' freedom of choice. If the number of haulers is not limited, there could be 15 or more instead of the ten the City now has. Limiting the haulers is the place to start. There being no further public testimony, Chairperson Squires asked for a motion to close the public hearing. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Dehn, to so move. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. , , j The Commission agreed the first step would be to limit the number of haulers. In further discussion it was noted there are also 7 commercial haulers. The Commissioners felt there were many issues that must be addressed before considering the issue of districting and whether that would be good for the City. It was suggested some of the haulers get involved in that issue as well, possibly creating a Garbage Task Force to look at the issues and make a recommendation to the City. They felt districting is an issue that will need some time before a decision can be made and that it is not warranted in the City at this time. Commissioner Dehn was not in favor of restricting private businesses. She was concerned about the possibility of creating a monopoly. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Peek, that we recommend to the City Council that they do indeed limit the number of licensed haulers in the City of Andover to residential customers to ten and limit the commercial haulers to the present number of seven. DISCUSSION: Cindy DeRyder, Recycling Coordinator, asked if the Commission wanted to implement a declining limit based upon turnover. That is, if one hauler would leave the City, the number of licensed haulers would be reduced to nine. Commissioner Apel was not in favor of a declining limit, as it basically eliminates anyone else from ever doing business in Andover; and theoretically it could get to the point where there would be only one hauler. Commissioner Apel added to motion that a public hearing was held and reference the record for comment. Second Stands. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-No (Dehn), 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:50 p.m. AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 44, AUTO RECYCLING/JUNK YARD ORDINANCE '-.-I Mr. Carlberg explained the proposed amendment would allow auto recycling yards to construct commercial buildings if the provisions of the ordinance are met. This is the recommendation that was agreed to by the Auto Recycling/Junk Yard Task Force. The City Council met with the Task Force several times and basically agreed with the proposal. It would reduce the size of the outside storage of the yards. The idea was to make the yards more aesthetically pleasing. c) (J '\ " .-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 5 (Amend Ordinance 44, Auto Recycling/Junk Yard Ordinance, Continued) Commissioner Apel noted a great deal of time was spent on this item by the Task Force. The EPA and MPCA are talking about requiring structures, so the City will have to provide the means for them to construct them. He felt the amendment is a reasonable solution to the problem the City has with the auto recyclers. Commissioner Peek asked the City Attorney's position on the amendment. Mr. Carlberg stated it has been the Attorney's opinion that the construction of the environmental buildings is not considered an expansion of the non-conforming use if required by the EPA and MPCA. Several businesses have already been allowed to construct them. This amendment allows the yards to construct commercial buildings for storage and tear down of the cars as well as requires them to reduce the size of their outside storage. Commissioner Apel argued the commercial buildings will also help the environment by reducing the outside storage. Commissioner Peek agreed with allowing structures that are required for environmental reasons, but he took exception with using this as a trade- off for developing storage buildings. He felt the City is looking for a planned redevelopment, which would be more appropriate than this ~ amendment. The trade-off of 2 to I in the ordinance seems arbitrary and J pretty light. It is banking land with no plan. He still has a problem forwarding this as it stands now as a vehicle for allowing inside storage. Commissioner Apel argued this is making progress by getting the cars inside, that it is better than allowing the leaching of hazards into the ground. Mavor Jack McKelvev - stated the Task Force has been meeting regularly for quite some time, and this is the final agreement. At this time there are Councilmembers who do not wish to buyout the recycling yards. He disagrees with that position. But this provides a way for the recyclers to build buildings and move their operations inside and to make that area more aesthetically pleasing. Everyone is in agreement with the 2 for 1 requirement; but he felt once the recycling yards start getting their parts inside, everyone will see a much larger reduction in the size of the yards, possibly as much as 80 percent. The objective is to get the yards to the point where they are operating wi thin a structure that fits into the City's industrial park rather than have 20 acres of cars stored outside. He gave some examples of auto recycling businesses operating inside commercial buildings, again stressing the intent is to eventually open up more land for commercial development. ~J Commissioner Dehn stated she served on the Task Force, which was a very long process. The auto recyclers are needed and will remain in the City. This provides a method of improving the area, and the recyclers are very willing to work with the City to the point of giving up outside storage to be able to enclose their activities in a building. Commissioner Peek agreed, but questioned if this is the appropriate vehicle to accomplish it. There are no redevelopment plans for the vacated land. Commissioner Apel felt another Task Force would be needed for that, that the concerns of Commissioner Peek could not be addressed tonight. l) '~~ , ., " J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 6 (Amend Ordinance 44, Auto Recycling/Junk Yard Ordinance, Continued) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the amendments to Ordinance 44 to the City Council as presented for their approval. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-No (Peek), I-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be heard at the April 5 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.03, NON-CONFORMING USES - AUTO RECYCLING/JUNK YARDS CONSTRUCTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 8:12 p.m. Mr. Carlberg noted this amendment would allow the auto recycling yards that are licensed as of April 5, 1994, to construct commercial buildings as provided in Ordinance 44. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Apel, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. Mr. Carlberg stated the Building Official determines whether the structures are nonconforming or damaged over 50 percent of the fair market value. Chairperson Squires noted this item is noncontroversial '\ given the motion on the previous agenda item. ',j MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. 8:15 p.m. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the City Council for its approval an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 8 as presented in resolution form by Staff. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, I-No (Peek), I-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the April 5, 1994, City Council agenda. 8:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING - REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RURAL TO GR, GENERAL RECREATION - PART OF SECTION 22, CITY OF ANDOVER 8:15 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the request is to rezone the property known as the Andover Field of Dreams site located on Crosstown Boulevard NW west of the Andover Elementary School. He noted the four criteria used in determining the granting of a rezoning request. There has been discussion for allowing other uses on that site than just park uses. A GR zone would allow commercial recreation uses such as commercial batting cages. The City has received a letter from Anoka County indicating they oppose the rezoning. The area to be rezoned includes three parcels along Crosstown Boulevard that the county has purchased or is in the process of purchasing for the realignment of Crosstown -- '\ Boulevard. All three lots are lawfully non-conforming uses. It had 'J always been the City's understanding that the City and county might negotiate to have those parcels incorporated as a part of the park, so the objection by the county has come as a surprise. The intent is to grade the park area this summer and begin construction of the concession building. (,J ; '\ 'J , ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 7 (Public Hearing: Rezone R-1 to GR, City of Andover, Continued) MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. 8:21 p.m. Anthony palubo, Assistant Anoka County Attorney - stated over the last nine months they have paid in excess of $150,000 for the two lots they purchased, and they are negotiating with the property owner for the purchase of the third lot on Crosstown Boulevard. The county plans to upgrade Crosstown Boulevard to make it better for traffic. He understands that once CoRd 18 is redone, they would sell the residential lots subj ect to the appropriate zoning laws. It is the county's position that rezoning those particular lots to GR would significantly reduce their value. The county was not aware of the City's desire to incorporate those lots into the park, and he was not aware of any discussions to that effect. At this time the county opposes the rezoning because they do not have enough information on how they will reconstruct CoRd 18 and the effect on the remaining property and how the rezoning will affect that value. The County Commissioners have just been informed of this, and they have indicated this should be the county position for now and to enter into further discussion with City officials about exactly what can be done to further mutual goals. He requested that the ) matter be continued to allow for that discussion. They do not oppose the ,~ rezoning of the City property; just the parcels owned by the county. Mr. Carlberg thought it would be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow time to discuss this with the county. He did not think the rezoning would affect the development of the park at this time. Commissioner Dehn was concerned about how the realignment of Crosstown Boulevard will affect the park. Mr. Carlberg didn't think the alignment had an impact on the park. Dave 0' Toole, Park and Recreation Commissioner and President of the Andover Recreational Development Association - didn't think delaying the rezoning would affect the process of development at this time. He had no problem working with the county to get the best possible solution to the three parcels. He would like to see them included in the park, but that will be left to the city and county. There was some concern about another entrance to the park in area of the lots to provide better traffic flow and as a safety factor. Chairperson Squires recommended the item be tabled to allow the county and City to discuss the issue. Jim Martinson - lives in the remaining house. He opposes the rezoning and doesn't understand how the rezoning issue got this far without including him. He wasn't included in the original plans. He is talking with the county, but he would like to be included in any discussions between the City and county regarding his property. Mr. Carlberg ~ agreed, stating he had understood the property was being condemned. ) MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Dehn, that we table the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting in hopes that we get a clear view of what we are doing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. 8:35 p.m. , J , ./ , , , Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 22, 1994 Page 8 DISCUSSION: ORDINANCE REGULATING PAWNBROKERS, SECONDHAND GOODS AND PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS and PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 7.03, SPECIAL USES Mr. Carlberg asked to table Items 9 and 10 to the next meeting, April 12, 1994. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Apel, to so move. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. OTHER BUSINESS Therapeutic Message Parlors as Home Occupations - Mr. Carlberg stated he has been receiving many calls inquiring about conducting therapeutic message as a home occupation. He doesn't feel the ordinance allows that use right now. There is an organization that licenses them, but it is not a State organization. Beauty salons are required by Special Use Permits. The Commission suggested Mr. Carlberg research whether other cities allow these parlors; and if so, how they are regulated. ) Tree Commission - Mr. Carlberg stated they have had a problem getting people to serve on the Tree Commission. One suggestion has been that those on the Tree Commission meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get a full representation of a City task force. That decision has not yet been made, but it has been talked about on the Staff level. Staffing - The Commission asked if they will be introduced to the new City Administrator. Mr. Carlberg stated he will ask if Mr. Fursman is able to attend a Planning Commission meeting. He also noted the applications received for the Code Enforcement position. A selection will be made, with an officer starting work the middle of April. MOTION by Dehn, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, I-Absent (Putnam) vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully s~tted'~ ~~cC;- ~ Recording Secretary , )