Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 1990 o o o ~C}\ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Becky Pease on November 13, 1990; 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Bill Coleman, Ron Ferris, Steve Jonak (arrived at 8:42 p.m.), Bev Jovanovich, Randal Peek, Wayne Vistad None City Planner, David Carlberg; and others Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 23, 1990, Regular Meeting .-::) MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Ferris, approval. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, i-Absent (Jonak) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CITY OF ANDOVER - OIL RECYCLING STORAGE TANK Mr. Carlberg reviewed the City's request for a 550-gal Ion oil storage tank to be located next to the Recycling Building. Because of the close proximity of the tank to the access road leading to the City Hall Park Complex, Staff felt there is a potential safety hazard and has suggested placing concrete filled posts around the tank. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission discussed monitoring the tank and limiting hours of operation. Several felt it should be open during the same hours as the Recycling Center, the concern being that hazardous waste and other things not be dumped into the tank. Commissioner Vistad pointed out some of the surrounding cities keep their tanks open all the time. Mr. Carlberg stated he would check with those cities to see if they had any problems and their limits on the hours of operation. In further discussion, the consensus was that the tank should be open only during daylight hours and when the Recycling Center is open. The hours should be set by the City, not in the Special Use Permit. ::J Sophie Kozlowski. 1021 Crosstown Boulevard - stated at one point she had oil in her toilet, and it was determined it was coming from one of the junkyards on Bunker Lake Boulevard. To go with this recycling of oil, she wanted to make sure it is double lined according to State law. She also felt it should be placed on a cement slab because oil eats up tar; and if it gets into the soil, it will cost thousands of dollars to clean it up. Ms. Kozlowski also wanted to make sure that hazardous waste isn't dumped into the tank. u u ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1990 Page 2 (Pub]ic Hearing: SUP/Andover-Oil Recyc]ing Storage Tank, Continued) Mr. Carlberg thought the double liner is in the State specifications. He wasn't sure whether the tank is proposed to be on a cement slab. He also didn't think there would be a problem with leakage. It is an above-ground tank and should not contaminate any water. The Commission agreed the tank should be placed on a concrete slab with adequate spillage control. MOTION by Vistad, Seconded by Ferris, to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Jonak) vote. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Jovanovich, that the P]annlng and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Special Use Permit to erect and function a recycling motor 01] collection tank on the west 330 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast Quarter, Section 22, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota (1785 NW Crosstown Bou]evard - PIN 22 32 24 41 0002); that a public hearing was held and that there was comment received regarding the safety of the structure, specifically that the structure have double sides, that it meet State requirements in terms of the tank and the site and the recommendation that the site be placed on a cement slab. ~ In reviewing the criteria, it is the recommendation that the effect of the proposed site on the health, safety, morals, and genera] welfare of the occupants and surrounding areas would be met if In fact there was some ]imltation on the hours of control synonymous to those of the recycling area. Therefore, it is recommended that a contingency upon the recommendation be that such hours of restriction of use be a constraint within the approval. A]so, that the tank meet a]] State requirements for a recycling tank both in terms of the tank and the site to which it is located on. Further recommendation that a cement slab be used for mounting this tank. With regards to the other criteria, it is not anticipated to have any negative effect on traffic conditions, value of the surrounding property, and it is most in cohesion with the Comprehensive Plan. A]]ow for security devices to be placed about the perimeter of this storage tank so an out-of-contro] vehicle could not damage the tank and create a spill. Typica] sunset clause of 12 months to completion be applied. Subject to an annual review. ,J Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Jonak) vote. The item is to go to the City Council at its November 20 meeting. 8:01 p.m. u / \ V ,J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1990 Page 3 VARIANCE - CITY OF ANDOVER - SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM A MAJOR ARTERIAL Mr. Carlberg explained the variance request by the City to allow a 10-foot encroachment into the sideyard setback along a major arterial, Crosstown Boulevard. This is for the proposed Fire Station No. 1 on the corner of 139th Avenue and Crosstown Boulevard in an NB zone. With the clarification of 139th Avenue designated as the front yard, the setback encroachment is actually five feet. He noted that there appears to be some inconsistency in the ordinance, as Ordinance 8PP changed the setback along major arterial streets to 40 feet in the R-4 zone. He also referred to two other variances given in the past for similiar situations along this major arterial, one for Riccar Heating and Air Conditioning and one for five houses on Crosstown after the the road was widened. r--J The Commission discussed the setback along major arterial streets, the general consensus being that the setback should be 50 feet for safety reasons. In discussing this variance request, the Commisison asked what is the hardship in this case. Mr. Carlberg explained it is a narrow lot, and the site plan shows what the Fire Department needs for that site. Commissioner Ferris didn/t feel the other variances approved in the past had any bearing on this request. Chairperson Pease and Commissioner Vistad felt the City should be fol lowing its own ordinances. Commissioner Peek noted the site plan is not accurate in that it does not reflect the 10-foot encroachment. There was a question as to whether the request should be sent back to the Building Committee because of the discrepancies or whether to forward it to the Council with a recommendation. Commissioner Ferris felt the proper procedure is to forward it to the Council. Mr. Carlberg stated he would recommend to the Building Committee that the building be placed so no variance is required. At this point he felt the request should be denied. He also felt that no one from the Committee was at the meeting because they were not made aware that this would be on tonight's agenda. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Coleman, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the CIty Council denial with reason for a variance request by the City of Andover for sIdeyard setback encroachment of ten feet for the construction of Fire Station No. 1 at the intersection of 139th and Crosstown. That the criteria for acceptance of variance clearly states that there must be a hardship and the hardship cannot be created by the structure to be erected. In this particular case, there is no hardship which can be shown. There is no attempt to show a hardship. The only hardship is the plan is bigger than the lot. ,) u o ,J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1990 Page 4 (Variance - Andover/Sideyard Setback from a Major Arterial, Continued) (MOTION Continued) That the City has the responsibility to act as a resident or as a developer in a particular case such as this and to follow all the ordinances which are applicable. In this particular case the ordinance deems that there is no way but to deny due to a lack of a hardship. DISCUSSION FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Ferris - Quoting from the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of April 12, 1988, in a quote from Mr. Jacobson, "that when you are dealing with a variance, there has to be a hardship. The State law says you have to meet three criteria in order to meet a variance. And we just don't have any of them." The law has not changed, our ordinances remain the same. I think the then-Commissioner who is now a Councilmember has a good point. Commissioner Peek - The graphic exhibit presented actually demonstrates that a setback is not necessary. It leads him to believe that the building may be able to be placed on the site without the requirement of a variance. Mr. Carlberg stated as proposed, the building does encroach. Commissioner Peek noted the graphics may be wrong, but it demonstrates that there is a potential soiution not requiring a setback variance. ~ VOTE ON MOTION: Carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Jonak) vote Commissioner Vistad - On the document dated April 12, 1988, when the hardship is self-created, the Supreme Court has ruled it does not mean valid undue hardship. Also, reasonable use of the property can be made without the variance. If the size of the lot they purchased 15 too small to fit their needs, they can always purchase a larger one. This 15 to be placed on the December 4 Council Agenda. The Commission recessed at 8:30; reconvened at 8:37 p.m. The Commission agreed the Comprehensive Task Force should address the sideyard setback requirements In Ordinance 8, the general feeling being It should be 50 feet from major arterials. DISCUSSION - FHA FINANCING RELATED TO ORDINANCE NO. 44. FENCING REQUIREMENTS FOR JUNKYARDS ~ Mr. Carlberg reported his findings on FHA financing for those properties adjacent to the junkyards/automotlve recycling yards. The letter received from Thomas Feeny, Manager of HUD on April 2 Is very general. In talking to Angie Ditty, Appraiser for HUD, on October 24, it appears the problem is not primarily with the fencing but with the junkyards themselves. ,~ CJ u ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1990 Page 5 (Discussion - FHA Financing/Ordinance No. 44, Fenclng/Junkyards, Cont) (Commissioner Jonak arrived at this time. 8:42 p.m.) Mr. Carlberg stated the indication was any FHA financing would be only for those areas that are two to three city lots from the junkyards, that there would need to be a buffer between the junkyards and FHA financed housing. The Commission discussion then recognized there is not much else the City can do with the fencing requirements as it pertains to FHA financing of properties adjacent to the junkyard areas. There was some frustration over lack of progress in cleaning up that TIF area, the lack of an aggressive program to clean up or eliminate the junkyards, and that the location for Commercial Boulevard has not been determined so development plans can proceed. They felt the Council should be making a policy statement regarding that area as to what the City wants to accomplish within the TIF zone. ,J The Commission noted the initial directive from the Council was to look at conflicting requirements between ordinances of the fencing height versus the stacking height of cars and parts behind the fences. The red-lining by HUD was a side issue. After some discussion, it was generally felt that the fence height should be six feet. No specific decision was made regarding the height of stacking of cars and of salvage auto parts, though there was speculation that the last draft had stacking the same height as the fence. Mr. Carlberg stated he would collate the Council Minutes and P & Z materials on this matter for the public hearing. He will readvertise the public hearing and contact the affected property owners. Commissioner Ferris suggested the research on FHA financing be forwarded to the Council when Ordinance 44 is completed. He also felt the issue of zoning properties abutting the junkyards should be addressed by the Comprehensive Task Force. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, that we table the discussion on Ordinance 44 to the next meeting and for that meeting we invite the auto parts people back to the meeting, for the public hearing to be completed at the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission recessed at 9:25; reconvened at 9:37 p.m. DISCUSSION - COST FACTORS AND CONTROL AREAS RELATING TO ORDINANCE NO. 29. DISEASED SHADE TREES , '-~ Mr. Carlberg referred to the report in the Agenda material relating to cost factors for the diseased shade tree program in designated control areas. He recommended first adopting an appropriate ordinance and then establishing a Tree Board. Once those are done, funding can be addressed, possibly even meeting with the Council to discuss funding. C) u o Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1990 Page 6 (Discussion - Cost Factors and Control Areas/Ordinance 29, Continued) Discussion was on the responsibilities of a Tree Board. It was felt that body would recommend the control areas and determine the budget needs, with Staff advising them. Mr. Carlberg felt that two additional Staff people would be needed to carry out the Intent of the ordinance. He also noted a developer's agreement also needs to be established to protect trees during construction and for some type of reforestation program, though he did not think that agreement should be a part of Ordinance 29. The Commission generally agreed the draft ordinance reviewed at the October 23 meeting should stand with the exception of adding a section to establish a Tree Board. Also, add that the control areas will be established from time to time as required by the City Councilor at the direction of the Tree Board. The Commission agreed the Council should determine who makes up the Tree Board and how many members it shou I d have. The Public Hearing is to continue at the November 27 Planning Commission meeting. ~J OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Pease reported on the Council's action to rescind the denial of the Scardlgli variance request and their subsequent approval of that request. There was a lengthy discussion on the variance and Special Use Permit process. A concern was raised that some petitioners want to withdraw their request if the Commission denies it. There may be some misunderstanding and they may not know that the Commission is only an advisory board, that the Council has the final authority. One suggestion was to have a printed sheet outlining the process so everyone has the same information. Another recommendation was to have the Chairperson briefly outline the procedure prior to hearing a specific request. Mr. Carlberg stated he would draft a memo for the Commission to consider outlining the variance and Special Use Permit procedure that could be stapled to the application and/or given out at the Commission meetings. .J Discussion was then on Commissioner Ferris's recommendation to ask the new Council taking office in January to formally reconfirm the Planning Commission and Comprehensive Plan Task Force appointments. It gives the new Council a chance to re-evaluate the members and would stand as a vote of confidence from them. Some debated that has not been done in the past, that the staging of terms ailows for new appointments every year, and it could mean some Commissioners would become "Yes men/women" for the Council. ,. \ \, .J ,. \ (J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ~ Minutes - November 13, 1990 \.j Page 7 (Other Business, Continued) Commissioner Coleman felt it would be more beneficial to have regular joint meetings with the Council. Because some of the Commissioners were interviewed by the P & Z, not by the Council, they do not know the Councilmembers. Also, the Commission felt it would get a better idea of the direction of the Council on some of the issues in the community and some common goals could be set if they had periodic joint meetings. One example that was pointed out is decisions are being made by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force that will direct the City's future, yet there has been no sense of what direction the elected officials envision the City taking. MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Vistad, that we request via Becky Pease to approach the City Council to set up a working session between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council every three months to allow for the swap of ideas that we have on pertinent issues and to gain their perspective on It, at the same time to input our perspective to them on It, with the objective being a working more in sync with what their thinking Is. Motion carried unanimously. ) MOTION by Ferris, Seconded by Peek, that we ask the Council to consider the makeup of this Commission and the Comprehensive Plan Commission and reconfirm the appointments on both Commissions. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ferris stated there is a potential the Council may say the Commission does not represent the correct mix between rural and urban, or there may be someone whose ideas are contrary to what the Council feels Is best for the City. This gives them an opportunity to reconfirm that this is the group of people they want to finish the Comprehensive Plan and to represent the City and ordinances at public hearings. Chairperson Pease pointed out the reappointment to the Commission is quite automatic, and maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe the Council should advertise and interview for reappointment positions as well. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Coleman, Ferris, Jonak; NO-Jovanovich, Peek, Vistad; ABSTAIN-Pease. Motion dies. Because the last appointed Commissioners were interviewed by the P & Z, Commissioner Ferris suggested in the future the Council interview the one candidate that is recommended for appointment so they know who is being placed on the Commission. The main point of the discussion was the Commission's desire to see the City Council take a more active role in what the P & Z does. The general consensus was that improved communication and quarterly joint meetings with the Council are needed. MOTION by Coleman, Seconded by Ferris, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. ,J Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ~'LU.JL M~~la A. Peach, Recording Secretary