Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 10, 1981 o o o 1. Corom. #3-81-6 2. Corom. #6-81-1 o 0 ~ ~ ANDOVER o SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 AGENDA Agricultural Preserve Districts Review of Neighborhood Business Zones o o 0 ~ ~ ANDOVER o r\ '-..J SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 MINUTES A special meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission person d'Arcy Bosell at 7:33 P.M., Thursday, September la, 1981 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Anoka, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Apel, Kishel, Scherer, Anstett, Johnson, Lobb was called to order by Chair- at the Andover City Hall, 1685 ~~f~J1/. ~ Commissioners Absent: None Also Present: Interested Residents Agricultural Preserve Districts (Comm. #3-81-6) Commissioner Anstett noted that one of the things people are most interested in is what agri- culture preserves would do for them. This began as a state legislative act to enable the cities to set up agricultural preserve districts. She stated that she talked to a number of people who would be eligible for agricultural preserve and some of them stated they would not apply as they would like to sell their property for development. Seven or eight people have submitted their Affidavit of Authority and those properties have been marked on a map. Chairperson Bosell noted that the City Council determined that the Adolfson and vosika properties and a small part of Slyzuk's property could not be included in agricultural preserve. Mr. Adolfson's property is served by sanitary sewer and Mr. Vosika's property in on the Hanson Boulevard extension and is prime industrial property. Walter Vosika, 1414 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W. - stated that he has two dumps adjacent to his property now with a third being talked about south of his property. Twenty-five acres of his property is not taxed as it is low land and used as a water preserve. He stated that he has owned this property since 1948 and has farmed it since that time. There are a lot of game animals, such as deer and pheasants on the property. He does not want to see the land used for housing. Chairperson Bosell explained that the city would Industrial, as it is now zoned, or for housing. sold it someone else who wanted to develop it. not make him use the property for Limited The only way that would happen would be if he Mr. vosika noted that there are a lot of houses being built north of him and they're going to be asking for sanitary sewer. He felt that his assessment would be very high because of the frontage he has on Hanson Boulevard. He also noted that as long as he is living, he has no intention of selling his property. Winslow Holasek, 159 Andover Boulevard NW. - stated that he's been around the city long enough to know that the City Council can rezone a property any~nin~ they wan~07 pU-Jt sewer in even if the property owner doesn't want it. 17'"1 -fj....r:.., (j.;>~f,?- 'if Commissioner Lobb noted that there was talk of putting the sewer pipes in along Hanson Boulevard Extension but not hooking them up. Commissioner Kishel stated that there is nothing in the Hanson Boulevard plans for sewer pipes to be laid. ~ella Sonsteby, 4151 - l4lst Avenue N.W. - asked how this ordinance will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens as noted in the draft ordinance. Chairperson Bosell explained that that statement is normal language in any ordinance. She felt that in this case it is alluding to setting aside of land so we don't end up with something that looks like downtown Los Angeles. , / Special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September la, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 ) ~ / ". Preserve, Cont. Ms. Sonsteby - asked if the purpose of this is to tax land not in agricultural preserve at a higher rate. Commissioner Anstett stated that the tax structure will be the same as Green Acres. The taxes on the properties not in agricultural preserve will not increase because of other properties being in ag preserve. Leroy Johnson, 125 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W. - asked Commissioner Scherer if the city could decertify property in agricultural preserve. Commissioner Scherer said yes, if the city wanted to run the sewer in they could rezone the property, start the decertification process and eight years later assess the property for the sewer. Rather than go over the list of property owners who were notified of the agricultural preserve districts, the Commission decided to go over the ordinance to see what, if any, changes should be made. Chairperson Bosell felt that the ordinance title should be changed by deleting everything after 'State of Minnesota' as we're not amending our zoning ordinance. She also felt that the last sentence under Legislative Intent and Findings of Fact should be deleted because the intent of the City council is not to have any properties in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area included in agricultural preserve. Jack Menkveld, Anoka - stated that some of the land presently in the MUSA is now agricultural and will remain that way for many years. The land is not suitable for anything other than agricultural. If Mr. Slyzuk's property is removed from agricultural preserve eligibility, the Commission would be doing him a disservice. Chairperson Bosell explained that at the present time Mr. Slyzuk's property is in Green Acres and can remain so. His property is zoned R-l which is 2-1/2 acre lots and the city policy is that you cannot develop 2-1/2 acre lots in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. commissioner Apel felt that the sentence Chairperson Bosell wants deleted is what the whole ordinance is about. commissioner Scherer noted that if the City Council did take the view that they would not allow an agricultural preserve in the MUSA we might as well not have an ordinance. Commissioner Apel stated that we're doing the farmers a great disservice if we don't take advantage of what the state is giving us. Commissioner Lobb noted that Mr. Adolfson can keep his land in ag preserve for eight years if he doesn't want to develop it, if we include the properties in the MUSA in ag preserve. Chairperson Bosell stated that we're a city that is urban and rural. We should be encouraging growth in the urban area. We have a sewer in the ground that no one is paying for. Chairperson Bosell noted that there are three definitions that should be put back draft ordinance: Accessory Structure, Building and Capital Improvement Program. what the difference is between farm dwelling and non-farm dwelling if they are on into the She asked the same forty. 'missioner Kishel felt that it could be a dwelling not connected with the farm. Jld have to be included in the one per forty density. However, it Chairperson Bosell noted that all of the definitions that were taken out have to be put back in the draft ordinance. She then questioned what the Urban Expansion District is. Commissioner S '1 l' /,' / pec~a P ann~ng and Zon~ng Commission Meeting September 10, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 ,~ ) , / "-,Preserve, Cont. / Anstett felt that these are the properties that would be removed from agricultural preserve the earliest. commissioner Johnson felt it would apply to those properties in the MUSA. Commissioner Scherer stated that we could still have the definition even if we don't have any properties in the Urban Service Area included in ag preserve. Commissioner Johnson asked if a farmer is in AgP-l and the MUSA boundaries change, and some are in the new MUSA, is there a problem in moving them from AgP-l to AgP-2. Chairperson Bosell stated the only way we could do it is to rezone the property from AgP-l to AgP-2. She felt that AgP-2 would be the properties just north of the MUSA line and beyond that would be the AgP-2 district. Ms. Bosell informed Commissioner Anstett that she must prepare a map to go with this at the time of the public hearing in accordance with section 3.2 of the ordinance. Winslow Holasek - asked if the city has the r~ght to anlend t t d' . a S a e or ~nance. Chairperson Bosell informed Mr. Holasek that this is not an ordinance, it's a model ordinance. Commissioner Johnson felt that AgP-l and AgP-2 should be differentiated on the map. There was a difference of opinion on which areas should be included in AgP-l and AgP-2. The issue of the length of the Planning Commission meetings was again brought up with several commissioners saying they would leave the meeting when they wanted to, whether or not the meeting had been adjourned. Recess 9:07 - Reconvene 9:19 Commissioner Anstett noted that locations for AgP-l and AgP-2. the top part of the city should in order to draw up a map, the Commission had to set up the The first tier above the MUSA boundary should be Ag-2 and be AgP-l. Chairperson Bosell noted that the AgP-2 should go to the west into the CAB Study Area. Commissioner Kishel stated that the CAB is going in right now. It will be completed next summer; however, they are not going underneath the river at this stage. Commissioner Anstett noted that in comparing the AgP-l and AgP-2, section 5.2 does not allow feedlots and poultry operations. This would affect the Peterson turkey farm if that area is designated as AgP-2. Commissioner Apel stated that one of the things that impressed him on the model ordinance is that AgP-2 allows for a single family subdivision. This gives the people close to developing a good escape. Commissioner Kishel stated that if a person comes in for a conditional use permit, they could subdivide their property. Chairperson Bosell told Commissioner Anstett to find out if that is the intent of the ordinance. There was some discussion on how many model ordinances there are dealing with ag preserve and which one was being used tonight. Commissioner Anstett noted that the one the Commission is working with is taken from the Agriculutral Planning Handbook. Chairperson Bosell didn't think it was. commissioner Kishel felt that Commissioner Anstett should talk with some people and come back with the model that we want to use. Going back to the model ordinance, Chairperson Bosell asked if we wanted to leave the frontage "0ng a road at 100 feet as shown in 4.2 g.2). She noted that in our rural district, parcels , /ve to have 300 feet of frontage. Commissioner Anstett felt that we should follow our own ordinance which would require 300 feet. special Planning and t..viling Co.. .ission Meeting September 10, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 , ) '. / ~~ Preserve, Cont. J Chairperson Bosell asked what an Outdoor Recreational Area is. Commissioner Kishel felt it could be a golf course. Commissioner Apel suggested changing it to 'Recreational Area'. Page 7, 4.7 a., Lot sizes: should go with 2} acres and 300 feet of frontage. Commissioner Scherer suggested that we refer to Ordinance 8 in this ordinance rather than putting in figures. Page 8, 5.7 a. Lot size: single family dwellings should have 13,000 square feet, not 10,000. Page 6, 4.5 c. Agricultural service establishments shall be located at least 100 feet from any drive,.ay and at least 100 feet from any single family dwelling. Page 6, 4.5 d. Screening shall be at least 8 feet in height. Chairperson Bosell noted that the draft ordinance does not contain a variance provision. It was decided that a variance provision should be included. Commissioner Apel also noted that there is no penalty clause either. The following are items that Commissioner Anstett will check on: . How the map should be done. . The intent of AgP-l and AgP-2. . What would happen if we remove the sentence on page 1 under Legislative Intent and Findings of Fact. . Conditional uses - are subdivisions allowed in AgP-2. . A better definition of non-farm dwellings. . Changing Outdoor Recreation Area to Recreation Area. . Variance provision . Penalty Clause This item will be continued at a work session on Tuesday, September 29, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. Review of Neighborhood Business Zones (Comm. #6-81-1) Commissioner Scherer noted that this item came about because there is a provision in our ordinance that states that a Neighborhood Business zone that has not been used as such for two years can be rezoned back to its original zoning. There were two or three parcels that had come to our attention that precipitated our discussion on them. One of these is the parcel that is northeast of the Speedy Market (Conroy's property). There are several parcels across from the Community Shopping Center, both to the south and the west. There are two parcels across from Crooked Lake (Nemeth's and the old Hockey Inn). Another belongs to Rosella Sonsteby on 7th Avenue. There is a parcel north of the Tom Thumb Store on 7th Avenue. The question r~e Commission had was whether or not we should look seriously at chansing them to different ,lings. One of the most important would be the Conroy property because of the traffic hazard. Another that would be a contributor to a serious traffic hazard would be the one on Bunker Lake Boulevard and County Road 9. special Planning and September 10, 1981 - Page 5 I <.vning Co.._"ission Meeting Minutes , / '-./ N~ Zones, Cont. I Chairperson Bosell asked if the Commission can deal with properties that were grandfathered in. Commissioner Lobb felt that under Ordinance 8, Section 5.02 (A), we could. Jim Conroy, 2487 - 139th Avenue N.W. - stated that the reason nothing was developed on his property during the last 24 months was the economy. Noted that he has letters stating that if he does develop his property, the road would be upgraded. There would be a service road on the north side of the street. He plans to build a grocery store, drug store, hardware store and various shops. Mr. Conroy stated that he fought for 11 months to have this property rezoned to Neighborhood Business and was surprised when he received the letter regarding this meeting. He is planning to go ahead with this; the plans are already drawn up. Commissioner Scherer asked if the plans include upgrading the county road. Mr. Conroy stated that the county will be taking care of that. Chairperson Bosell asked if the plans included houses. Mr. Conroy noted that they will be putting seven lots for houses along Crosstown Boulevard. They will be served by a service road. Chairperson Bosell noted that when Mr. Conroy decides to start building, he will have to come in for a special use permit. Commissioner Kishel felt that this property should be left as Neighborhood Business as long as Mr. Conroy has plans for building. Jack Menkveld - stated that he owns three parcels north of the Speedy Market. The plan that was approved by the city has three buildings. There would be one more driveway exiting onto Crosstown Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson asked if they anticipated any attempts to rezone any of this property. Mr. Menkveld didn't think they were going to change the zoning. Whatever goes in there will be relatively compatible with the business that is already there. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Menkveld thought there would be any conflict with what Mr. Conroy is planning to the north of this property. Mr. Menkveld noted that this is a big city and he didn't feel there would be any conflict. He felt that if this property is rezoned back to its original zoning, it would cause a hardship on them. Commissioner Scherer asked if they were trying to sell these parcels. Mr. Menkveld said yes. He didn't feel that the competition factor should be the Commission's responsibility. To take the NB zoning away is not realistic. He noted that it's their problem if they can't make the businesses profitable. They definitely want the zoning to remain NB. Commissioner Johnson recommended leaving the property zoned as is. Dick Quanbec, James Refrigeration - stated that they own the Tom Thumb property, which is approximately 7 acres. The Tom Thumb store occupies 1 acre. They were planning to put in something like a barber shop or dry cleaners, but the economy will not allow it at time time. At this point in time they are not sure what they are going to do; however, they would like to retain the NB zoning on that property. He noted that they have had several inquiries on the property but the people can't see going into business at this time. Mr. Bertils who operates the Tom Thumb store inquired about putting a liquor store next to the Tom Thumb. Mr. Quanbec w~s told that the property would have to be rezoned to Limited Business in order to put a liquor ,re in that location. Rosella Sonsteby, 4151 - 141st Avenue N.W. - stated that her land was zoned Neighborhood Business Special Planning and' .ling CL ission Meeting September 10, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 , / '-~ NB Zones, Cont. ~~fore the ordinance went into effect. Asked why her property was being considered. Chairperson Bosell stated that the Commission would just like to know what her plans are. Ms. Sonsteby noted that she has two parties interested in buying her land; one would like to build a liquor store and one would like to build a fast food restaurant. She also noted that she would like to use a part of the property for a real estate office for herself. Commissioner Lobb felt that he had heard enough for now until such time as the Commission gets direction from the City Council on what to do. He felt that the people heard tonight have genuine plans for the future. Chairperson Bosell suggested that Commissioners Lobb, Johnson and Scherer write up a report on what we've done and send it to the City Council. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to contact the people who were not in attendance tonight to see what their intentions are. This item will be continued to September 22, 1981 at which time Commissioner Johnson will have a report prepared. MOTION by Johnson, seconded by Anstett to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, k~ Vicki Volk, Commission Secretary