Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 25, 1986 " "- v .~ o () u CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING-AGENDA NOVEMBER 25, 1986 1. Call to order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Revocation of Special Use Permit Public Hearing/ Tonson, Inc. 4. Commercial Pole Buildings, Cont. 5. Waste Tire Ordinance 6. Mining Permit Discussion 7. Auditor's Sub 82 Legal Descriptions Discussion 8. Park Dedication Fees/Lot Splits 9. Adjournment o" \ L~ ,. . ) L--- .~-.J CITY of ANDOVER REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING-MINUTES NOVEMBER 25, 1986 The Regularly Scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, November 25, 1986 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: .I\lso Present: Bosell, Pirkl, Jovanovich, Apel, Vistad Rogers City Attorney, William Hawkins; Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas; Natalie Haas Steffen; Bob Hutchison; Coleen Herman, County Attorney's Office; Anne Cohen, State Attorney General's Office; Dave Harmon, Anoka County; Andy Ronchek, PCA; Richard Johnston, PCA; others Approval of Minutes - November 12, 1986 The motion for the rezoning of Lot 5, Watt's Garden Acres shows Chairman Jacobson as voting on the motion. This should be striken as he did not vote. MOTION by Apel, seconded by Pirkl to approve the minutes of November 12, / , 1986 as corrected. Motion carried. -J Revocation of Special Use Permit Public Hearinq/Tonson, Inc. William Hawkins, City Attorney - explained that a Special Use Permit was issued to Schriptek in 1983 for a tire recycling operatio. Since that time, there have been some changes in ownership, none of which have been reported to the City. He stated that the tires are owned by Waste Re- cycling, Tonson owns the equipment and Cecil Heidelberger owns the property. The city set out various conditions, basically incorporating the County's conditions. Mr. Hawkins then went through the list of violations he provided, noting that there is supporting data in the documents he provided. The first violation is that the city did not receive at least sixty days notice prior to the effective date of any change in the operation or management, changes in the agreement with the Heidelbergers, or ownership of the property. The second violation is that the waste tires stored in the "Receiving/ Processing Area" at times exceeded 25,000. The County's monthly inspections indicate that at times the number of tires exceeded that number. The third violation is that monthly operating reports. September and October. the city and the county did not receive The County has received reports but not for '\ (J The fourth violation is that all new waste tires received were not stored in the "Processing/Receiving Area". Within the last week, tires have been dumped in other areas. \ ) \ \ ) Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 2 / The fifth violation is that the operating ratio of 3 old tires to one new tire was violated. Some reports show .2 to 1 and .05 to 1. The ultimate goal of the city is to get rid of the old tires. the sixth violation is that the city and county have not received access to the receipts for new waste tires and shipment of recap casings and processed tire chips. The seventh violation is that Tonson, Inc. or Milton LaPanta have not applied for and kept current a junkyard license as required by the city. Mr. Hawkins noted that Mr. LaPanta informed d'Arcy Bosell that he would not be present at this hearing and that he would not have a representative present. He then stated that the legislature recently passed legislation dealing with the clean up of tires. The State is currently negotiating with Mr. LaPanta for the cleanup of the site. There are funds available to have this work done. He also noted that there is a draft agreement between the State and Mr. LaPanta. Mr. Hawkins felt that from a practical standpoint, if the city cancels the Special Use Permit, that will prohibit him from cleaning up the tires. His recommendation would be that the Planning commission pass a motion cancel- ing the permit, but that it would not take effect unless the agreement \ with the state is not entered into. He also noted that the term of the / state agreement is three years. Chairman Jacobson asked who took over the operation after Schriptek left. Mr. Hawkins stated that North American Tire Tech was the next operator and in late 1984 a partnership of Bob Sayers and Cecil and Pat Heidelberger took over with an option to purchase. They operated for six months. Toward the end of the six month period, Mr. LaPanta negotiated a purchase from that partnership. In April 1985 Mr. LaPanta applied for a license from the County, which the County Board approved but did not issue because some of the requirements were not met. In January 1986, Mr. LaPanta submitted a request to change it to Tonson, Inc. Commissioner Pirkl asked who Waste Recycling is. Mr. Hawkins believed it is a shell coproration set up by Mr. LaPanta Commissioner Vistad asked if there is a taken in from the City of Minneapolis. stated that there is no restriction on The only information he is aware of is record of the number of tires Bob Hutchison, Anoka County, the number of tires corning in. what is on the county reports. Mr. Vistad asked if Mr. LaPanta will still be allowed to receive tires if he receives funds from the state to clean up the site. , ) Mr. Hawkins explained that the PCA took pictures of the site in November 1985 and have estimated the number of tires on the site. The funds are to be used to get rid of those tires only. At this time Chairman Jacobson opened the public hearing. '-- ) '-.) Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 3 , ) Cecil Heidelberger, 15955 Nightingale Street N.W. - stated that Mr. LaPanta bought the tires from him with a note for $275,000. He has not made any payments on this for over a year. He is also four months behind on his lease payments. Mr. Heidelberger said that the county never made LaPanta clean up the tires he was supposed to clean up. If the ratio was enforced, there would be no tires there now. On Friday, Mr. LaPanta told his employees that he was leaving the state for a week and they should operate the business like it was their own. Mr. Heidel- berger didn't think that Mr. LaPanta would be coming back to town. He also stated that when they sold to Mr. LaPanta, it was called Minnesota Tire Recycling. Mr. Jacobson asked Mr. Heidelberger if he is the owner of the land. Mr. Heidelberger stated that he is, also noting there are about 30,000 tires in the front area. Commissioner Pirkl asked if Cecil is going to start proceedings to get the proeprty back. Mr. Heidelberger stated that they ahve been in court on this and every time the judge goes along with LaPanta. Richard Johnston, PCA - asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to hold off on making a decision as they ahve a way to get the tires out of there. The PCA has been negotiating with Mr. LaPanta to get rid of the tires. They will be taking the agreement to the Board in January , for their approval. If Mr. LaPanta doesn't go along with the agreement, ) they will order him to clean the site, or the PCA would have it cleaned up and go after LaPanta for their costs. Mr. Johnston stated that the city doesn't have anything to lose by giving him more time. Mr. Vistad asked if someone else could come in and clean up the site. Mr. Johnston stated that they have to afford Mr. LaPanta the opportunity to do it first. The agreement states that he doesn't get any money until the tires are cleaned up. The total he will get paid is $166,000. Mr. Heidelberger - didn't feel that Mr. LaPanta should be given until January. The business should be closed down now and he should be made to clean up what is there. Chairman Jacobson felt that what to what the city is going to do. of the Special Use Permit issued the state is trying to do is irrelevant He noted that there are seven violations by the city. Anne Cohen, State Attorney General's Office - stated that their concern with the action before the Planning commission is that it will interfere with the State's process. They want to make sure that the state and the city and county doen't start working against each other. If the city revokes the permit, Mr. LaPanta will have the perfect excuse for walking away from the State. She would like the Commission to decide that they do have grounds for revocation, but to stay that action until the state gets the agreement with LaPanta. , , ) Pat Heidelberger asked if anyone had talked to Mr. LaPanta's partner, Bruce Johnson. Ms. Cohen noted that he attended a PCA meeting at one time. , ) , J Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 4 / MOTION by pirkl, seconded by Vistad to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Chairman Jacobson then went through the list of violations. He asked what proof there was to substantiate number one, which was that the city was not notified of changes of ownership. Mr. Hawkins stated that that information was submitted to the county but not the city. Violation #2, that the waste tires in the Receiving/Processing area exceeded 25,000 was questioned. Dave Harmon stated that he estimates the numbers. Violation #3, that no operatin~ reports were received for September and October was verified by Dave Harmon. Violation #4, that all new waste tires received were not stored in the Processing/Receiving area, was determined by Mr. Harmon. About a week ago Mr. Harmon observed tire tracks going to the back of the site and there were 50-100 tires that were recently dumped. Mr. Harmon stated that this has happened in the past also. Violation #5, stating that the 3:1 ratio was violated was answered by Bob Hutchison, who stated that this information was taken from their records, a summary of which has been provided to the Planning Commission. \ Mr. Jacobson asked if the numbers are from the county or the operator. J Mr. Hutchison stated that they are from the operator. Violation #6, that the city and county have not received access to the receipts for new waste tires was answered by Mr. Hutchison who stated that they have requested supporting data in a letter dated October 9th and they have not yet received that information. Violation #7, that no current junkyard license has been applied for was striken from the list. d'Arcy Bosell stated that in going through the records, it was found that in Decmeber 1985, Mr. LaPanta requested a junkyard license and in February 1986, it was approved by the City Council The license was issued on February 4, 1986. Commissioner Vistad asked if anyone knows exactly what is being brought in to the site. Mr. Hutchison stated that it's hard to tell how long some of the tires have been there. They have identified some that were recently brought in. The County license has no limit on the number of tires brought in. Their main concern is the processing capability. Mr. Vistad stated that he would like to see the tires stop coming in. / MOTION by Apel, that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council cancellation of the Special Use Permit for the tire recycling operation at 2050~ Bunker Lake Boulevard due to non-compliance with the terms of the Special Use Permit with the provision that cancellation will not take effect until the operator negotiates with the PCA for state funding assistance in the cleanup. If no agreement \ \~ ) Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 5 I / j is reached, calcellation shall be effective February 1, 1987. Reasons for cancellation are that there were seven violations of the Special Use Permit identified at the public hearing. The Planning Commission agrees that the first six were actually violations of the Permit. No one was present at the public hearing representing the holder of the Special Use Permit. Public input seemed to favor cancellation of the Permit. The proposed cancellation will not affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. It would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Motion fails for lack of a second. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Pirkl that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City council cancellation of the Special Use Permit for the tire recycling operation at 2050y, Bunker Lake Boulevard effective immediately and all business is to cease immediately. There are seven violations of the special use permit that were noted at the public hearing. The Commission feels that the first six were definite violations. A public hearing was held. Mr. LaPanta was not present and did not have anyone representing him present. \ Discussion on motion: Commissioner Pirkl didn't feel that someone who has violated six conditions of a special use permit would comply with the PCA's conditions. / Chairman Jacobson felt that cancellation would not be in harnony with the Comprehensive Plan as the plan says this is the junkyard area. He asked that the maker of the motion put ln a 90 day stay to allow the State to come to an agreement with Mr. LaPanta. Mr. vistad asked what happens if he comes into compliance with the state within 90 days. He can then start operating again. Mr. Jacobson noted that he could not start operating again if the permit is cancelled as it would not be an allowed use any longer. Mr. Hawkins noted that the ordinance says you can cancel the permit, but it does not say that you can cancel it with conditions. The commission can recommend cancellation with the effective date at a future time. Commissioner Vistad asked Mr. Hawkins if we cancel this, is there no way to clean up the site. Mr. Hawkins stated that the PCA can declare it a nuisance and have it cleaned up. Mr. Heidelberger owns the land and there is a potential problem of getting on the land. Then there is the question of who actually owns the tires. The PCA feels that it is a lot better to use the existing operator. / Commissioner Vistad asked about the possibility of trucking the tires out of there. Mr. Hutchison felt that would be too costly and take too long. , \ ~~ CJ Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 6 ) AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Apel, seconded by Jovanovich that cancellation of the Special Use Permit will take effect February 1, 1987 to allow the operator the opportunity to enter into an agreement with the PCA for the cleanup of the site. The conditions of the Special Use Permit must be brought up to date during this 90 day period. Vote on amendment to motion: Yes- Vistad, Jovanovich, Apel; Abstain - Pirkl. Amendment carries. Vote on motion: Yes - Vistad, Jovanovich, Apel, Pirkl. Motion carried. This will go to the City Council on December 16, 1986. Recess 9:~0 - Reconvene 9:32 P.M. Commercial Pole Buildings Commissioner Bosell stated that Dave Almgren said that he will put together an ordinance for the next meeting. This will be continued to December 9th. Waste Tire Ordinance \ ; Chairman Jacobson presented an ordinance amendment dealing with waste tires. The amendment states that anyone with more than 500 tires will need to obtain a Special Use Permit. He noted that the State is doing this also and they have indicated 500 as the number of tires allowed. Commissioner Vistad felt that 300 tires would be more reasonable. Commissioner Pirkl didn't feel that the amendment was specific enough. Mr. Vis tad also felt that the amendment should say used tires instead of waste tires. Mr. Jacobson noted that a used tire can be one with only ten miles on it. Waste tire is the legal language the state is using. Commissioner Bosell felt that 500 tires might be too restrictive. This will be continued to the December 9th meeting and if anyone wants changes in it, they should let the secretary know so that it can be changed and sent out with the meeting packet. Mining Permit Discussion Chairman Jacobson noted that the city is concerned that most material from mining permits is being removed from the city. a couple of big projects coming up and when we need fill, it be available. of the There are might not Todd Haas stated that Blaine is considering an ordinance that will not allow any fill to be taken out of the city. Maple Grove might also have an ordinance. , It was noted that it might be hard to tell someone that they cannot sell their fill to whom they want. Chairman Jacobson stated that he will inform the council that the Planning Commission doesn't feel that \ ./ Regular Planning Commission Meeting November 25, 1986 - Minutes Page 7 there is a problem. Auditor's Subdivision 82 Legal Descriptions This item will be continued to the next meeting. Park Dedication Fees/Lot Splits Chairman Jacobson noted that the park dedication fee for a lot split is currently $100 for each newly created lot. The Council asked that we consider changing this to the same as for a plat which is 10% of the property. Commissioner Pirkl felt that it should be the same as a plat. Commissioner Bosell felt that we need the revenue to equip the parks that we have now. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Jovanovich that we leave Ordinance 40 as 1S with no change. Vote on motion: No - Bosell, Pirkl, Jacobson; Yes - Vistad, Apel, Jovanovich. Motion fails. Commissioner Bosell suggested holding this over to the next meeting so that some research could be done. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Vistad to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,i[L-/~ Vicki Volk Commission Secretary