Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 14, 1981 o o Call to order Approval of minutes 1- Comm. #3-81-1 2. Comm. #2-81-2 3. Comm. #8-80-12 4. Comm. #5-81-8 5. .. o o 0 ~ 0& ANDOVER o PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 14, 1981 7:30 P.M. Creekside Preliminary plat Public Hearing, Continued Ordinance 8 Amendment (Zones allowing liquor) Public Hearing, Continued Multiple Conversion Ordinance, Continued Ordinance 8, Section 4.05, Accessory Buildings, Continued Oak Grove Comprehensive Plan o o 0 ~ 01 ANDOVER o o PLANNING'AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 14, 1981 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning by Chairperson d'Arcy Bosell at 7:34 P.M., Tuesday, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Anoka, Minnesota. Commission meeting was called to order July 14, 1981 at the Andover City Hall, Commissioners Present: Apel, Kishel, Scherer, Anstett, Johnson, Lobb City Engineer, Larry Winner; interested residents ~.~ ~1 1/~{ ~ Also Present: Approval of Minutes June 23, 1981 MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of June 23, 1981 as written. Motion carried on a 5 yes, 2 present (Lobb, Apel) vote. Chairperson Bosell noted that the City Council has referred Mixed Uses in Residential Areas back to the Planning Commission. This will be on the next agenda. Ordinance 8 Amendment (Zones Allowing Liquor) Public Hearing, Cont. (Comm. #2-81-2) Chairperson Bosell reopened the public hearing. Commissioner Lobb noted that he didn't feel this was up to the Planning Commission as the City Council is going to do what they want anyway. He does not feel that liquor is needed in the City and will probably abstain. Chairperson Bosell noted that the Liquor Study Committee has recommended that liquor be allowed in Limited Industrial, Shopping Center, and Limited Business zones but not in Neighborhood Business zones. She stated that the other concern that has to be dealt with is the Andover Community Shopping Center; they have always developed their Neighborhood Business zones with a restaurant with liquor included)~u.J ",.L J.~ ~. 1;<~;;",~ Commissioner Lobb asked how close liquor can be to a residential area. Chairperson Bosell noted that the state only says you can be so many feet from schools and churches, nothing about residential areas. Commissioner Kishel stated that we should get rid of the Neighborhood Business classification and rename it Retail Business. He noted that he would be opposed to liquor in a Neighborhood Business but not in a Retail Business. Marge Perry, 17337 Roanoke Street N.W. - asked if Commissioner Kishel meant that any Retail Business could be put anywhere in the city and how the city would decide which businesses could go in a Retail Business zone. Commissioner Kishel noted that a Retail Business would have to meet the criteria for that particular zone and the ordinance would have to be changed to include which businesses would be allowed in a Retail Business zone. Ms. Perry asked what the benefit would be to the city to have Retail Business zones. Commissioner Kishe1 noted that it would draw in businesses; He noted further that no city can support itself just by the taxpayers. ~ommissioner Anstett stated that if we want to keep the rural area rural, we should not put liquor in the rural area. She asked if there is a need right now to have liquor anywhere besides a Shopping Center district. Commissioner Kishel noted that that is what we're trying to decide. Planning July 14, Page 2 O "..., and Zoning nmiss~Meeting 1981 - Minutes f' U o (Ord. 8 Amendment, Cont.) ,~'rank padula, 4550 - 173rd Avenue N.W. - Asked if someone wanted to put in a golf course, which ~jould be General Recreation, and they want liquor how they can do this. commissioner Johnson stated that the basic conflict we're seeing right now is the fact that liquor does not belong in neighborhoods. He noted that he would be in favor of having liquor in the Neighborhood Business portion of the Andover Community Shopping Center if it was zoned Retail Business, but not Neighborhood Business. commissioner Scherer noted that the people want liquor away from residential areas. He felt the only way to accomplish this is to allow a zoning within a zoning. You would have to take a 40 and zone it Industrial and take 10 acres out of the middle and rezone that to allow liquor - that way there would be no way it would be next to a residential area. He felt that the ordinance should be left the way it is and to deal with it by Special Use Permit which would require a Public Hearing. commissioner Lobb stated that if you're going by public feeling, we will never have anything in the city. Richard Wandersee, 17315 Navajo Street N.W. - noted that he would like to see the Neighborhood Business zone remain; it should be a very restrictive area. He also noted that just because we are allowed to have six liquor licenses doesn't mean we have to give all six out. Chairperson Bosell stated that our leaving in Neighborhood Business. a Thoroughfare Business District. Comprehensive Plan, under Proposed Districts, suggests That is followed by a B-2 General Business District and John Trost, 13842 Northwoods Drive - Asked if anyone had decided to have a referendum vote to allow liquor. Chairperson Bosell noted that he would have to start with the City Council. Clint Bendickson, 13828 Northwood Drive - didn't feel that liquor should be in any residential area. Would be much more favorable to an off sale store. Jim Elling, Chairman of the Liquor Study Committee - stated that he would like to take the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council next week; it is on their agenda. Frank padula - asked if General Recreation was being excluded from having liquor. Chairperson Bosell stated that it is not being excluded. Mr. padula stated that Industrial zones are the worst place to have liquor because of the possibility of employees drinking at noon and getting hurt on the job. MOTION by Kishel, seconded by Johnson to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Scherer, the recommendation location of liquor Permit. seconded by Kishel that the Andover Planning and Zoning commission accept of the Liquor Study Committee regarding the acceptable zones for the in the City of Andover, mainly GR, LB, SC, GB, LI and GI, by Special Use ;u.,'7 ~c(~--V A public hearing was held and comments were made both in support and opposition to the recommendation of the Liquor Study Committee and that the major concerns of the public centered around the issue of allowing liquor in a Neighborhood Business and the overwhelming feeling of the people who gave testimony was that it should not be allowed in a Neighborhood Business (~ne. Vote on Motion: Yes - Bosell, Kishel, Apel, Anstett, Scherer; No - Johnson, Lobb. '-(Commissioners Johnson and Lobb noted that they voted no because they felt we do not need liquor in GI, LI and LB zones.) This will go to the City Council on July 21, 1981. Planning July 14, Page 3 o 0 and Zoning Commission Meeting 1981 - Minutes ~ \....j o _Chairperson Bosell suggested that a memo be sent to the City Council on July 21, 1981 stating ~~.at the Planning Commission ask the City Council to get our Comprehensive Plan in some kind of final form so that we can get on with updating our ordinances so they are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Clerk will send said memo. John Trost - stated that he would like the Creekside Preliminary Plat to fit in with the neighborhood. Chairperson Bosell noted that this will be discussed tonight if someone representing Creekside shows up. Recess 9:12 P.M. - Reconvene 9:26 P.M. Chairperson Bosell asked the Clerk to put a Public Hearing notice in the paper for rezoning the Neighborhood Business portion of the Andover Community Shopping Center to Shopping Center which will enable Mr. Rademacher to be eligible for a liquor license. The public hearing will be held on July 28th. Creekside Preliminary Plat public Hearing, Continued (Comm. #3-81-1) No one was present representing this plat; therefore, it will be continued to July 28, 1981. Multiple Conversion Ordinance (Comm. #8-80-12) Commissioner Apel stated that the League of Minnesota Cities sent him a copy of Chapter 582, which is a State Statute passed in 1980 allowing for conversion of multiples. He also had copies of ordinances from the City of Wayzata, the City of Greenwood, the City of Minneapolis and the City of Little Canada, all dealing with conversions. He noted that the City of Wayzata requires a certificate of inspection prior to occupancy. Chapter 582 basically states that if you are going to convert you must not violate any city codes. commissioner Lobb felt that our City Attorney should review Chapter 582 to see if it is sufficient. Chairperson Bosell noted that the City Attorney should be advised that the following are our concerns: 1) separate wells; 2) separate sanitary sewer services; 3) lot area requirement; 4) fire walls. The clerk will send Chapter 582 and Wayzata's ordinance to the City Attorney asking him for a written response prior to our July 28th meeting. Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 Accessory Buildings (Comm. #5-81-8) Commissioner Johnson presented his written report on this subject. The main problem with putting something in the ordinance restricting the number of accessory buildings is enforcement. MOTION by Lobb, seconded by Anstett to send Commissioner Johnson's report to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on August 4, 1981. Chairperson Bosell suggested that a memo be sent to the City Council stating that such things as accessory buildings could be most appropriately handled under the Visual Standards section of Ordinance 8; however, as is the case with junkyards and other areas of the city, the problem is enforcement. The clerk will send this memo to the Council for their August 4th _meeting. U Oak Grove Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Apel will review this plan and report on it at the July 28th Planning Commission meeting. Planning July 14, Page 4 f~ '\ , d . \. ) , j). . an Zon~ng cu~ss~~ Meet~ng 1981 - Minutes o u In regard to Mixed Uses in Single Family Residential Areas, Chairperson Bosell noted that ~he City Council does not want to allow multiples in R-4 districts. This will be on the \ .J"'ext agenda. MOTION by Lobb, seconded by Anstett to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, u. cUP Vicki Yolk Commission Clerk <J