Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 22, 1991 <\ V o 0f~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 " ",,~"_ _.0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1991 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Ron Ferris on January 22, 1991, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Becky Pease (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich, Randall Peek, Wayne Vistad None City Planner, David Carlberg; and others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 8, 1991: Correct as written. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, approval of the January 8 Minutes. Motion carried on a 4-Yes (Ferris, Jonak, Jovanovich, ,~ Peek); O-No, l-Abstain (Vistad), l-Absent (Pease) vote. V PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CITY OF ANDOVER UNDERGROUND GAS TANKS. 1785 Crosstown Boulevard Chairperson Ferris called the public hearing to order at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request for a Special Use Permit requested by the City of Andover for a 2,500-gallon diesel storage tank and a 1,000-gallon unleaded gasoline storage tank. The tanks have already been installed in the same place as the old tanks were located next to the Public Works/Fire Department building. It was thought that there was a SUP on the old tanks, but there wasn't. When removing the old tanks, contaminated soil was found, which has been removed down to the groundwater table. PCA is requiring additional testing of the groundwater, which is being done. The contamination is believed to be from spillage, not a leaky tank. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the applicable ordinances and items to consider when making the recommendation. The Staff recommends approval of the SUP. No SUP was required to remove the old tanks, but there was State supervision in the removal. Because it is a computerized system, the content levels will be monitored constantly so any leakage should be known immediately. The Commission was concerned about preventing spillage to avoid further contamination. Mr. Carlberg explained the tanks are the same style on a cement slab with an automatic shut-off system. All State and Federal regulations have been met. .~ / '. ./ Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 2 / (Public Hearing, SUP, City Underground Gas Tanks, Continued) Chairperson Ferris questioned the wisdom of putting the new tanks in the same location as the old ones and still have the ability to determine if there is continuing pollution to the groundwater. Mr. Carlberg explained the contaminated soil has been removed and replaced with clean soil. With the computer's monitor, it should be easy to determine if the new tanks are leaking. There was no pUblic testimony. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Peek, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, i-Absent (Pease) vote. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Jovanovich, that the Planning and Zoning Commissison recommend to the City Council approval of a Special Use Permit requested by the City of Andover for a 2,500-gallon diesel storage tank and a 1,000-gallon unleaded gasoline storage tank on the followIng property: West 330 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 22, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota; 1785 NW Crosstown Boulevard - PIN 22-32-24-41-0002. I Public Hearing was held and there was no opposition. Per Ordinnace 8, Section 5.03, the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands appears to be none. There does not appear to be existing or anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and lands. It does not appear to have a negative effect on the values of property or scenic view of the surrounding area. It is in compliance with the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. This requirement should be that the tanks meet al I Federal and State and local government regulations, and that they comply with Ordinance 8, Section 4.26. Subject to an annual review of the Special Use Permit. (Commissioner Pease arrived at this time. 7:50 p.m.) VOTE ON MOTION: ABSTAIN-Pease. YES-Ferris, Jonak, Jonanovich, Peek, Vistad; Motion carried. Public Hearing closed at 7:51 p.m. -. .. , / , / Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING/R-1 TO AG PRESERVE - Ed Fields & Sons. Inc.. Section 21. Ranqe 32. Township 24 Chairperson Ferris called the Public Hearing to order at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Edward Fields & Sons, Inc., to rezone about 120 acres from R-l to Agricultural Preserve, noting the applicable ordinances and Commission options. He pointed out the Staff recommendation is for Option 1, approval of the request. The property has been used for farming for many, many years. Ed Fields - stated the areas depicted on the map are incorrect, as the property shown adjacent to Round Lake Boulevard does not belong to him, and the areas being requested for Ag Preserve are continuous. There was some discussion on the legal descriptions given, on the corrected properties to be rezoned, and on whether the public hearing is stilI legal. After studying the legals, Mr. Carlberg stated the map incorrectly shows the proposed Ag Preserve areas on the first two 40-acre sections east of Round Lake Boulevard. For those two 40s, the zonings should be reversed -- the slashed area should be left blank indicating R-4 zone, the blank areas should be shown as slashed indicating the proposed Ag Preserve areas. The three 40s to the right correctly indicate the proposed zonings. / Mr. Carlberg also stated that because of the long legal description, the official pUblic notice was a general statement of where the area is located. It was also determined that al I the parcels within 300 feet of the property were notified as required, most of the property being owned by Mr. Fields himself. There was no further public testimony. MOTION by Pease, Seconded by Vistad, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Vistad, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning request by Ed Fields and Sons, Inc., to rezone the property as per the legal description contained in the Staff report from R-l Single Family Residential to Agricultural Preserve. / Planning Commission finds the proposal meets the criteria established in Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 (B), specifically that there is no negative effect on the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants and surrounding lands; that there is no anticipated negative Impact on existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and lands; there will be no negative effects on the values of property and scenic view In the surrounding area; and that it has a positive effect compared to the existing and potential future Comprehensive Plan. J , J Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing: Rezoning/R-1 to Ag Preserve-E. Fields, Continued) (Motion continued) It is also within the City's objective to maintain open and rural spaces. A Public Hearing was held and there were no comments. It is in compliance with Ordinance 57, the Agricultural Preserve Ordinance; and it is in compliance with Ordinance 8, Section 5.02. The matter is to go the City Council at its February 19 meeting. DISCUSSION: The Commission requested the Staff re-check the legal description for accuracy. It was also noted that there Is an applicatIon process through the State to record Ag Preserve land. VOTE ON MOTION: Carried unanimously. The Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. The Commission recessed at 8:10; reconvened at 8:16 p.m. VARIANCE - SIDEYARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT/RIchard Beckes. 14484 Jonquil Street NW Mr. Carlberg reviewed the background and applIcable ordinances for the request of Richard Beckes, 14484 JonquIl Street NW, to allow the placement of a 8 x 12-foot storage shed encroaching about 23 feet into the sideyard setback of 145th Avenue NW. The shed Is already up and was discovered by the Building Official. The sideyard setback is 25 feet, and there is also a 45-foot drainage easement in the back of the lot. Though the lot has its limitatIons, the Staff feels the shed can be placed along the north side of the garage wIthout requIrIng a variance. Because of that optIon and it can be consIdered an eye sore in its present location, Staff recommends denial, that It should be moved. Richard Beckes - explaIned there Is a steep drop-off startIng almost ImmedIately from the back of the house. The shed cannot be moved to the south without encounterIng a problem wIth the slope. He even had to add some dirt to raise one side about a foot to ievel the shed where It Is now. It Is sIttIng on tImbers, but not fastened to the tImbers. He saId he moved the shed as far south as he could away from the curb and stIll be on a ievel part of the yard. He started the shed in September. There was a lengthy discussion on the restrictions on the lot itself gIven the setback requIrements, draInage easement, and steep slope In the back yard. Mr. Beckes explained there has never been any water In the drainage easement in the three years he's lived there, as it all pools to the south. He couldn't put it in the drainage easement in the southwest corner because that is where the play yard is, and his wife is a licensed daycare provider. That is the most safe location for the play yard. There Is also an apron for the storm water drainage from the surrounding area in his back yard. .' ,. I , ) J Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 5 (Variance-Sideyard Setback Encroachment/Richard Beckes, Continued) Mr. Beckes also stated that he did not want to put it beside the garage because he plans to add a third bay onto it in the near future. The shed does not interfere with any utilities, as the only line on that side of the street Is North Central Cable TV, whIch Is three to four feet behind the curb. The shed is 14 feet from the back of the curb. He dId not need a permIt to put up the shed, but dId cal I City Hall asking about the requirements for its placement, giving his exact locatIon, and was told by the offIce staff that he could place It ten feet from the back of the curb. It was only after It was brought to hIs attentIon dId he realize the wIdth of the easements across the lot. Mr. Carlberg stated that the future plans of the resident for the use of the property Is not a reason for allowing the structure to remain where It Is. The CommIssioners debated the request. ChaIrperson Ferris suggested to prevent further misinformation from Staff, that such inquIries be dIrected to the people who are most qualified to answer them. Commissioner Pease acknowledged that there is a severe drop-off in the back of the lot, and It is very lImited as to where the shed can be placed. Aesthetically, she had trouble seeing that the shed would be better next to the house rather than where it is. Discussion was on the various suggestions of where the shed could be located, though no other location seemed feasible other than next to the garage as suggested by Staff. The drawback to that location is Mr. Beckes' intention to add onto the garage. Several Commissioners were concerned about allowing the shed to be left in the setback, questioning its interference with snow removal and possible future construction of sidewalks. It was also commented that the intent of the setback is not to have protruding objects along the lot lInes. Mr. Beckes again noted that because of the topography of the lot, he is very lImited as to what he can do with It. He did not do this intentionally, as he did consider everything and did contact the City. Chairperson Ferris noted he is generally agaInst granting variances, but felt this is one time that it may be warranted because it has a potential for a hardship. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Peek, recommend to the City Council denial of the variance request for Lot 9, Block 2, Creekrldge Estates to put an 8x12/storage shed in the northeast corner of the lot. The storage shed encroaches on the 25 feet In the required sideyard setback along 145th Avenue. Referring to Ordinance 8, SectIon 6.02, establishing the setback requIrements, sideyard setback is 25 feet. Referring to OrdInance 8, SectIon 5.04, establishIng the crIterIa in granting a variance: 'C . ) J Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 6 (Variance-Sideyard Setback Encroachment/Richard Beckes, Continued) (Motion continued) 1. Does the strIct Interpretation of the ordinance cause particular dlfflculities or unnecessary hardships to the property owners? I do not belIeve the strict Interpretation of thIs would because there are other alternatives on the lot to place it. 2. Is the hardship caused by the unIque physical features of the land, Including shape or condItion of the parcel? I believe this also, where there Is a area to place It on property on the sIde, does not apply. 3. Wil I the variance be detrImental to the public welfare? One reason for setbacks is, as on 145th Avenue wIth the storage shed In its current placement, It would stand out a consIderable amount from the other propertIes and be a very notIceable feature. 4. Is the variance necessary to allow the property owner the reasonable use of the property? I do not believe that it is denying him. He does have reasonable use of the property. DISCUSSION: The debate continued, some feelIng the variance should be allowed because the lot is very restrictive as to where anything can be placed and that the topography of the lot is a severe problem relating to reasonable use of the property. Others argued that there are other alternatives that lessen the severIty of the hardship or even comply with the ordinance, plus they were concerned about the severity of the setback encroachment. Given the strIct interpretatIon of the ordinance, they felt the severity of the enroachment Is a violatIon of that concept; and the future intentIons of the property owner cannot be consIdered when granting a varIance. Also, when building in a utility easement as in this case, the question is who is responsIble if the .utlllty company has to access at the location of the structure. Mr. Carlberg didn't think a structure could be located in a utIlIty easement, and this is in the general utilIty easement. CommIssioner Vistad ADDED TO MOTION: encroachment into the utility easement of the structure because you are on the 35-foot setback, and the structure encroaches approximately 8 feet into the utIlIty easement. Second Stands. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mr. Beckes addressed Section 6.02 of Ordinance 8. The blue book gIven resIdents regardIng sIdeyard setbacks needs to be clarified as to what point the setback Is measured. The chart says sideyard setback from street, but It doesn't say where to start measuring. In his line of work, their reference point is always the center line of the adjacent roadway. UsIng that poInt, he is well within the minimum setback requirements. Though he now understands, " ". J Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 7 (Variance-Sldeyard Setback Encroachment/RIchard Beckes, ContInued) there Is nothing in the book that says to measure from the property lIne. He has dIscussed that wIth CIty Staff, and they are now aware of the problem. Mr. Carlberg agreed that is something that should be looked at, but hoped that resIdents would call the CIty If there Is any confusion. VOTE ON MOTION: CarrIed unanImously. CommissIoner Pease - Voted yes with reservatIon. It bothers me that it is In the utIlIty easement. I thInk we should see If we can find some alternative that is not quite as restrictIve based on topography. Chairperson Ferris - I am concerned In votIng yes in that I do belIeve there is some restriction of the reasonable use of the property. What concerns me the most Is the encroachment Into the easement and the abIlIty to maIntaIn that easement and to maintain the purpose to whIch cItIes give easements. I am a firm belIever that the easements must remain clear so that the easement can be used. I am concerned about the magnitude of the encroachment into the sideyard setback; 23 feet into a 25-foot setback is about as far as you can encroach. Although I do understand that there are certain conditIons on this property that make it impossible to move it 2, 3, 4, or 5 feet back further and be able to do anything with it. I thInk the land Is extremely lImIted; and potentially there Is some argument to the fact that in viewIng the property before purchasIng it, one can easIly ascertain that it Is limited In what you can do wIth It. Mr. Beckes detected some concern when he mentIoned the play yard Is In the drainage easement, noting that it is allowed under Section 4.06 of OrdInance 8. The CommIssIon stated they dId not have a concern wIth the placement of the play yard. The matter will go to the City Council on February 19, 1991. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carlberg reported the CouncIl MInutes reflect that the request from Rosella Sonsteby for municipal utIlities Is to be looked at when updatIng the CIty's ComprehensIve Plan In terms of whIch Interceptor Is to be used. He stated It Is to go to the ComprehensIve Plan Task Force along wIth the other requests for their consIderatIon. Mr. Carlberg reported hIs fIndings at the county with regard to hazardous waste and chemIcal disposal by businesses in the CIty. The county has hIred an additional person for this matter, and he requested that the CIty and the Fire Department get copies of the documentation of chemicals at the various locatIons. He will do more research on Title 3. ., , / ) Planning and 20ning Commission January 22, 1991 - Minutes Page 8 (Other Business, Continued) Discussion was then on the problem of misinformation given to residents from City Staff and possible ways to alleviate it. Mr. Carlberg stated the Staff has discussed this and decided such questions should be directed to the correct Department and those who have the authority to answer, as their goal also is to eliminate the misinformation. Several suggestions made by the Commission were to have a procedure in place that only those who can be responsible for giving a correct answer be taking those calls, that al I inquiries be documented, that a written flyer be prepared with the information most frequently asked for to eliminate misinformation given over the phone, and/or any answer be given in writing in a prompt manner rather than give verbal answers over the phone. Mr. Carlberg stated he will bring this matter to the Staff, though he also pointed out that with the hundreds of requests made to Staff every week, there have been very few problems. / Chairperson Ferris reported Todd Smith has been appointed as the new Councilmember. He also noted the City Council is interviewing applicants for positions on the Planning and 20ning Commission on Tuesday, January 29, suggesting the Commissioners attend the meeting if possible. The Commission agreed to ask the Council to set a date for a special joint meeting with the P & 2 for sometime in February, that the item would be placed as a Non-Discussion item on the February 5 Council agenda for their consideration. Commissioner Peek noted the Council Minutes of January 2 indicates the P & 2 had asked that the Council interview the applicants for the Planning Commission. He did not recal I the Commission doing that, thinking the Commission had only recommended that the Council at least meet with the one candidate who is recommended for appointment so they know the Commissioners and vise versa. Chairperson Ferris stated the Minutes accurately reflect what happened at the Council meeting, and recalled the Commission did feel there should be more visibility to the Council. The problem the Commission wanted to avoid was what happened this past year when several of the Commissioners had never met the Councilmembers. Mr. Carlberg was asked to clarify how that statement from the Council came about and get back to Commissioner Peek. Everyone also agreed that quarterly joint meetings with the Council will heip clarify these issues and eliminate future misunderstandings. Chairperson Ferris declared the meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, , )\\~ Q~~ "- Marcella A. Peach, Recording Secretary .. , ~ -, . ;