Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1979 P&Z MinuteseI ` • /af 2,-'. `September 19, 1979 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:08 p.m., September 19, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Bob Doocey, James Shearen, Vi Schwankl, Vernon Reinert and Council liaison John McLean. Members absent: Jerome Heath and Lawrence Johnson. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the August 8 special meeting and the August 15 regular meeting. Mr. Gourley asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 8 minutes. Mr. Doocey moved to approve these, and Mr. Gourley seconded the motion; however, the motion and the second were with- drawn at Mr. McLean's suggestion, until a majority of those at the August 8 meeting were present. Mr. Gourley asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 15 minutes. In regard to the motion on the rezone of the duplex on page 3, Mr. Reinert had understood that Mr. Heath had voted against it as well. There was some question as to whether he had or not, and Mr. Doocey moved to table the minutes until Mr. Heath was present. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean gave his report from the August 27 Council meeting. Twilight Acres had been approved subject to the lawyer's approval; the layout and design hearing on Baldwin Lake Trailer Park was held and the July 2, 1979 drawing was accepted with stipulations; the bid to upgrade Deer Pass Trail was in, and the landowner would be carrying the majority of the cost on an annual payment basis rather than by assess- ment; the public hearing on the Brunner rezone was held September 10 and granted; the hobby kennel had been approved; the public hearings on East Birch Addition and Bloom's Addition were set for September 24; Lyndol Nelson had come before the Council, and it had been suggested he contact his title insurance company and lender for assis- tance; Mr. Burque had received the letter and responded and the matter had been tabled; and Mr. McLean had moved that the Coyncil accept no more plats for meets and bounds in that area. The motion in this case applied to Mr. Burque's land only, but it was a rule the Council had been trying to follow generally. Ordinance No. 37 dealing with kennels in commercial zones had been amended by resolution, and Mr. Doocey was asked to note this on the ordinances. The public hearing on the W. Rehbein rezone was laid over again, waiting for Rice Creek Watershed; Mr. Gotw.ld ad been instructed to obtain a bid for the installation of a cul-de-sac for Mr. .nd the Council had taken action on residential uses in commercial zones. This was a motion by Mr. Zelinka to the effect that any residential use in a commercial zone should be forwarded to the P&Z for review. Mr. Gourley had spoken to the building inspector, and permits will not be issued for a residential use in a commercial zone. Mr. Shearen understood that the ordinance neither allowed or disallowed lesser uses; Mr. Gourley indicated that Mr. Locher's interpretation of this was that lesser uses were not permitted unless specifically stated in the ordinance. Mr. Nadeau indicated that he had understood the P & Z had been instructed to consider Suchi's problem as of the August 13 Council meeting. Mr. McLean indicated that Mr. Suchi had been told to apply for a special use permit at the P & Z level, and Mr. Gourley noted that there had been no request yet. Mr. McLean was asked to carry this back to the Council. The first item of business was the request for a variance on the Bhend property for a parcel of land that was less than 21/2 acres (approximately 1 acre). The title had been transfered approximately a month after the ordinance had been adopted and pub- lished, and Mr. Locher had recommended that a variance be granted to clear up the problem. This had been carried over from the August meeting because there had been no certificate of survey, which was now available. Vi Schwankl checked the certifi- cate of survey against the legal description that had accompanied the application at the last meeting. Mr. Doocey noted that the majority of the property was within the commercial zone; however, Mr. Gourley indicated that the request did not deal with September 19, 1979 -Planning and Zoning Page 2 zoning and was only to clear up transfer of title on the land. There was some dis- cussion, and it was noted the house should have been indicated on the drawing. Mr. Doocey moved to approve the variance for 7720 Lake Drive. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item on the agenda was a preliminary discussion of Twilight III, El Rehbein and Son, with Mr. Blackbird present. He indicated they would like to plat the area into four one -acre pieces fronting on Lake Drive, the exception being the area deeded to Tim Rehbein. The lots would be 560 feet deep, and Mr. Blackbird's question was whether the entire area could be platted commercial with a variance on the back 160 feet, which would be landlocked. It was noted that the lots had 100 -ft frontages, and in an unsewered area, the requirement was 150 feet. Mr. Doocey consulted the ordinances on this, Mr. Blackbird asked if it was feasible with the right kind of sketch, whether a variance would be granted on the back 160 feet. This would be a rezone, and it was also adjacent to a residential area, which could be a problem with homeowners. An alternative suggested by Mr. McLean was to plat two lots with 150 -ft frontages as commercial or duplex, put a road in, and have the back lots as residential. Mr. Blackbird also had a matter involving the extension of 79th Street for a projected lot split. The problem lay with lining up the road extension with the existing 79th Street, which angled in from the south. Mr. Gourley read Marilyn Anderson's letter to the engineer stating the problem and asking for his comments, and also read the engineer's letter reviewing it. Lot B did not have a full 22 acres considering road easements; also the total net acreage did not add up to 5 acres. Mr. Blackbird explained that 79th Street angled about 15 degrees north, then turned right at the line and went into Moorhouses' property, stopping there. He indicated North -Northeast Realty would absorb the cost of the road, but had a question as to how the 33 -ft easement would be obtained from Mr. Moorhouse, and how to handle the road at the end of the property line. Mr. McLean felt this could be handled with some type of cul-de- sac, and Mr. Blackbird felt Mr. Moorhouse would probably give up the easement if they paid for the road, Mr. Gourley asked how the City handled getting the easements, and Mr. McLean indicated Mr. Blackbird would do that. Vi Schwankl brought up a similar situation of about a year and a half ago. Mr. Gourley asked about the other road easements, and Mr. Blackbird said they were vacated. The straightening of 79th Street was further discussed, and it was felt the details should be handled by the City engineer and the developer. Mr. Gourley noted that the existing road was entirely on the south easements and this would not match up at all if 33 -ft easements were taken on both sides of the ection line. Mr. Shearen moved to authorize the City Engineer to work with North:Northeast Realty on the extension of 79th Street for the projected lot split. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. It was noted that the developer would be absorbing the cost of the road. The next item on the agenda was a request for a rezone from Land and Oaks, Inc. There was no representative present. Next on the agenda was a plat for Forest Glen, with Mr. Menkveld present. The plat was first proposed in October of 1977, and the minutes of the April 10, 1978 public hearing were available. The plat had been approved at that time; however, it was never signed, and the one-year period was up in April of 1979. Mr. Menkveld was told that a new application and platting fee would be required. Mr. Menkveld had not realized this would be necessary, and had hoped to be able to go ahead with the plat at this meeting. Mr. Reinert moved to authorize the Clerk to forward all necessary materials regarding Forest Glen to the planner and engineer upon receipt of the fee P4ge 3 'Planning and Zoning September 19, 1979 and application. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This matter will be carried over to the next regular meeting. Mr. Menkveld also had a question regarding a commercial area in Carole's Estates Second Addition. He had sold some lots for residential use with: large accessory storage buildings. Mr, Gourley noted that accessory buildings could not be larger than the house, and Mr. Menkveld indicated they were an oversized garage with a split foyer house. In regard to the zoning, the property was platted with the intention of residential use on the lots fronting the highway. There was some question as to their status in light of the recent Council action, because the R-1 use had already been authorized. However, the deeds had notations that these were still commercial lots. Mr. McLean noted that the intent of the notation was to protect the buyerso he realized a commercial use could come in next door. The Clerk is instructed to contact Mr. Locher and request an opinion as to the zoning status of the lots along Highway 8 in Carole's Estates Second Addition. Mr, Gourley will contact Marilyn Anderson to explain further. The next item on the agenda was a variance request for MarDon Homes, and a representa- tive was present. This had been on the P & Z agenda some months ago as a request to build smaller homes, and it had been indicated at that time that there was not enough information to take action. The developer presented plans of two homes he had in mind, one at 909 sq.ft. and one at 958 sq.ft. It was noted that the requirement on split entries was now 960 sq.ft., so the 958 sq.ft. design would only require 2 more square feet. The developer gave his reason for the request as an attempt to develop some- thing on MarDon Acres in a lower price range. He had previously asked for a 768 sq. footage. Mr. McLean indicated that the City had allowed an experimental situation in Shenendoah at 860 sq. ft., and anything less than that would not be possible. Mr. Gourley felt that until the experimental situation was reviewed as per Mr. Zelinka's motion, no further action on smaller house sizes could be taken. It was further noted that there had been a limited number of the smaller homes allowed --15 percent of the development, which now consisted of 45 lots, which would Lean about 7 homes at the smaller size. These had not yet been built, and a two year review was called for in the motion. Mr. Reinert moved to deny the variance request, and Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. It was noted the ordinance allowed a 960 sq.ft. split entry without a garage as well as a 1,000 sq.ft. rambler without a garage, and that Mr. Menkveld could consider something along these lines. Mr. Rivard's request for a special use permit to raise chickens was on the agenda under old business. He had not returned with the additional signatures as requested. It was the general feeling that this had been carried forward long enough. Mr. Reinert moved to deny the special use permit at this time because of the delays encountered. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley raised the issue of whether the P & Z should request the law enforcement authorities to pursue any violation. Mr. Nadeau brought up the similar situation with Mr. Suchi. Mr. Shearen, however, felt that the P & Z was not an enforcement body and it was not within their scope to direct the police force to do anything. Mr. McLean was requested to inform the Council that Mr. Rivard's permit was denied and there was a possible violation there, and in reference to the Council minutes, as of this date the P & Z had not received a special use permit application from Mr. Suchi. No representative was yet present.for Land and Oaks, Inc. Mr. Shearen moved to table their rezone application, and Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Rage -Planning and Zoning September 19, 1979 Under new business, Mr. Gourley brought up the matter of the increasingly wider road easements that the county was requiring. Presently the county required a 100 -ft ease- ment on plats and a situation was created where the easements varied from 60 to 100 feet along the highway. The county got the land free from the people who came in with a plat, but were purchasing the land from other landowners to extend the right- of-way. The engineer had recommended that the City not require the 100 -ft easement, but that it be required as a setback so the county could purchase the land it wanted. Thus the easements would still be 33 ft. instead of the 50 ft. the county had been asking for, but there would be an increased setback along county roads of 100 ft. Mr. Nadeau noted that it was just on thoroughfares that the ordinance called for 100 feet. Mr. Gourley indicated that only Highway 8 and County 23 were classified as thoroughfares, and the rest were designated collectors. Mr. Nadeau felt that if 20th Avenue was considered a collector, there should be a reduced speed limit, not 55 mph as on the freeway. Mr. Gourley indicated it was still considered a collector by the county because it brought people to the freeway. Mr. Nadeau suggested increasing the setbacks on the collectors to 40 feet. Mr. Gourley noted the ordinance now asked for 60 feet from the centerline on collectors, so an additional 30 feet should be asked for, to bring it up to 90 feet. He felt that if this was held for the Comprehensive Plan, it would not be put into action until 1980, and asked if it could be done by resolution. Mr. McLean felt this could be requested of developers, but not actually put in the ordinance until later because of the costs. Mr. Gourley raised the question of whether this would force developers to increase lot sizes. This was not thought to be a problem. Mr. Nadeau felt this requirement by the county was for safety, but also to compel people to back up and come out on a collector or main road driving forward rather than backing out. Mr. McLean felt the requirement could be stated in the ordinance two ways, whichever was less;either 57 feet from the road easement or 100 feet from the centerline of the road. Mr. Gourley moved to recommend to the Council that the City require a 66 -ft road easement on all collectors and further require a 100 -ft building setback from the centerline along collectors or a 67 -ft building set- back from the road right-of-way along collectors, whichever was less; and further recommended that the Council do this by resolution at this time rather than an ordin- ance change to avoid the expense of public hearings and publication. The Planning Commission will incorporate this change into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley had another item for discussion under new business. This was in regard o special use permits, and the suggestion that had been made to issue these permits with a common renewal date. At present they came up for annual review on the date of their issuance. If, for example, a special use permit were requested in May, and the date of common renewal was set for June, then either a 1 -month or 13 -month permit could be issued. Mid -year had been suggested for this renewal date rather than the first of the year. Also, the Council had taken a position on some special use permits, and Mr. Gourley suggested the P & Z request that they initiate a review of all special use permits, as it would be necessary for the Comprehensive Plan to determine which ones were still in force. Mr. Gourley moved to recommend to the Council that a common renewal date for all special use permits be set and that special use permits be issued in such a manner that they all come up for renewal on that specific date; and further recommend that the Council initiate a comprehensive review of all special use permits and forward the results of that review back to the Planning Commission so it could incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan allthe active special use permits at this time. Mr. $heaven seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley indicated the Council should be aware that the P & Z was planning to complete the zoning district map around the first of the year, so the information on the active special use permits would be needed by the November meeting. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Page 5 -Planning and Zoning September 19, 1979 Mr. O'Shea had a presentation on a peice of property owned jointly with Mr. Shanus and Mr. Wilson, and requested input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilson was also present. Mr. O'Shea had available maps and typewritten information for the Commission on the proposed development of the property. This was located on the north side of Highway 8, about a quarter mile east of Rice Lake Drive, and consisted of 10 acres, 2 of which were lowland and swamp. A land reclamation project entailing a mining and filling operation was proposed for this area, and eventually the land would be subdivided, although they were unsure of the present zoning. Preliminary approval from DNR had been obtained. Mr. Gourley indicated that this had been in operation without permits or controls, or a plan as to the ultimate use of the land. Mr. Doocey asked what compactible waste consisted of, Mr. O'Shea answered that it would be anything that met the specifications, and there would be no large peices of concrete, garbage or pollutants. Mir. Gourley asked if the PCA allowed asphalt, and Mr. O'Shea thought they did, but the building inspector had indicated it couldn't be used. The fill would be mostly sand, dirt and some rubble. Mr. Reinert asked if any borings had been taken; Mr. O'Shea thought it ran 4-15 feet, but no borings had been taken. Mr. Gourley had indicated to Mr. O'Shea previously that a number of borings would be required before the project was started to determine how much exactly would be mined out. He had also indicated the Council would probably require some sort of surety bond or deposit for each yard of material moved so it could be replaced if the operation was abandoned. Mr. O'Shea indicated that when a final plan was done, borings would be included, but had not been done because of the expense before input was gotten from the P & Z. Mr. Reinert felt the P & Z could not make a decision until more information of this type was available. Mr. Gourley asked if the Planning Commission automatically reviewed land fill and mining operations, and Mr. McLean indicated it did. Mr. Shearen asked whether the finished elevations were required as to what the property would be after excavation and refilling; Mr. McLean indicated this was a part of the engineering requirement. Mr. McLean asked what guarantees the Council would have that they would maintain ownership up to the time that the land was developable. His concern was that the land would be stripped and the project never completed, becoming a solid waste dump. Mr. Shearen felt this should be spelled out before a permit was issued, as people move away and so forth, and ownership changes. Mr. Reinert also expressed concern as to the material being mined out and then the project abandoned and becoming an eyesore. He also felt the type of fill was extremely important as the lake was nearby and the ponding and so forth in the area indicated underground water movement; whatever was put in as fill would have to be fairly res- tricted, as pollution in this case could be a serious problem. He suggested the City could insure that with certain requirements and restrictions as to type of fill. Mr. Gourley felt the procedure would be to have Mr. O'Shea submit a request for a permit for a mining and land fill operation, which would then be forwarded to the engineer. The state agency would need to be contacted. Mr. McLean indicated the P & Z would want to see the plans for the finished product. Elevations would need to be shown, and the type of zoning determined. The frontage on the highway was 75 ft, and a road would be needed to develop the back area. The minimum frontage requirement was 150 ft. Mr. O'Shea felt he wouldn't know until the engineering was completed whether it would be a feasible operation; Mr. Gourley indicated the Planning Commission would be willing to work with them in developing the property. Mr. Reinert asked what the time frame was for completion of the project. Mr. Q'Shea estimated three years, but felt this would depend on the engineering report. He had access to 50,000 cubic yards of fill material each year, and they would be filling as it was excavated. Mr. Gourley noted that this could be one way to control the operation, in terms of requiring a certain amount of fill on hand as a certain amount is removed, Mr. Reinert felt they should have letters indicating contact with the PCA in regard to the types of fill, and also DNR. .Page 6 Planning and Zoning September 19, 1979 The September 5 minutes were available, and also a letter from Mr. Mobley addressing a violation at 866 Bluebell Lane, dated September 17. There had been a school bus used as living quarters, and a small building erected without a permit, used to house two horses. The violation had been explained to them, and by the morning of September 19 the bus had been removed. Also there was a note from Marilyn Anderson on Fran Burque's plat to the effect that Mr. Burque had stopped into the office to say he would not be able to complete his plat until next spring and did not anticipate any further work on it until then. The next special meeting was set for September 26, at which time the land use plan would be reviewed. The engineer and planner would be present. Mr. Doocey asked if the Comprehensive Plan work was on schedule, and Mr. Gourley indicated it was, although there could be problems in November, and December was the only makeup time. Mr. Reinert moved to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.