08/15/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 6 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 by the square foot and a buyer could purchase more than one lot if needed. Mr. Gourley suggested the developer look at Ordinance No. 56 on setback requirements in regard to the lot sizes. The developer felt that in a commercial/industrial area, buildings could go up to the lot lines. It was noted this could only be done by variance, depending on the type of business. The ordinance was referred to on setbacks, maximum building heights, andmaximum percentage of coverage of the lots, and there was discussion as to whether the lot size was sufficient. There was some question as to a 3 -acre minimum lot size, and the developer felt with the cost of the property, roads, and so forth, that a 3 -acre lot size would not be feasible and could not be afforded by the type of business he hoped to attract. Under a light indus- trial zoning, a variance for this would be required. In reference to the park dedi- cation, the developer felt cash -in -lieu of land would be appropriate. Mr. Heath asked what would be done with the drainage ditch, and the developer indicated the possibilities under consideration. Mr. Shearen felt the intended use of the land was fine, although the details would have to be worked out. Data on 4th Avenue was needed; Lillac Lane had been brought up to a 9 -ton road, and Highway 49 was an industrial - type road. Copies of the plans should be sent to the Lexington Fire Department, to determine if they had the capability for an industrial park. The developer had yet to make some submissions to the engineer and planner on the things required for platting (topography, etc). He asked to be put on the next P & Z agenda, and was told that the submissions must be in ten days in advance of the meeting. A decision on the zoning classification should be made, and the rezone application should accompany the plat at that time. The same developer presented a detailed sketch plan for the Wallen property, next on the agenda. Mr. Gourley read the planner's letter. Twenty-seven lots were proposed for 50 -acre area; the smallest lot was 1 acre, and the largest, 10 acres. Access was on to Lake Drive. The Anoka County soil survey indicated some wet soils, and development was restricted by permit for those areas. The planner's letter referred to the dead-end street and suggested coordinating this with Nordeen Street in Pine Oaks; if extended this would go into lot 14, a 10 -acre lot and largely swampy. The developer was asked to indicate on the drawing where Nordeen Street would come in, and also indicate some idea of how he would like to connect it. He felt there might be a problem with adjacent property owners and easements. Urban Sewer District II qualification needed to be looked into; Mr. Gourley noted that Sunset Oaks had had an alternate plan for the possibility of sewer service coming in, and suggested the developer consider doing the same. The planner's letter had recommended eliminating direct access on to Lake Drive; land for a park dedication; and felt the land use was consistant with the Comprehensive Plan; and that the commercial lots be rezoned to R-1. However, the developer preferred to keep these commercial, and would inform the buyers of the residential lots of their status. The Commission indicated they were in the process of reviewing the commercial status along the highway. Lots 1 and 24 would be commercial, but the ones just behind them, partly commercial, the developer would want to zone residential. Mr. Gourley read the engineer's letter, and Vi Schwankl read the letter from Anoka County Highway Department. The right-of-way should be 60 feet instead of the 40 feet shown, and driveway access on to Highway 23 was reviewed. Mr. Gourley thought covenants on the deed to control access would be needed. The next item on the agenda was the plat for Bloom's Addition, with Mr. Glenn Erickson appearing for Mr. Bloom. The P & Z minutes from the July 18 minutes referring to this were read. Mr. Gourley had contacted Mr. Gotwald on this situation. The number of lots had been reduced from 7 to 5, and each lot was at least 1 acre in size, less pond surface. There was some question as to what the Park Board wanted in the way of park dedication. Mr. Gourley noted that when thedrawing was revised, the 60 -foot right-of-