Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1979 P&Z MinutesAugust 15, 1979 t61''�1�1 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:09 p.m., August 15, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: James Shearen, Jerome Heath, Vernon Reinert, Vi Schwankl, Bob Doocey and Council liaison John McLean for part of the meeting. Members absent: Lawrence Johnson. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes from the May 16, June 27, July 11 and July 18 meetings. In reference to the May 16 minutes, Mr. Reinert felt it would be appropriate for the typist to identify themselves because there were errors noted from time to time, and that way they would know who to go to if there was a need for clarification. The Commission requested that initials be put on the minutes in the future. Mr. Shearen moved to approve the minutes of the May 16, June 27, July 11, and July 18 meetings. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean was not present to give his report from the Council. In response to a request from the Council, the matter of the rezone for the duplex at 790 Vicky Lane was reviewed. Mr. and Mrs. Brunner, owners of the property in question, were present as well as several residents opposed to the rezone. The Planning and Zoning Commission had previously recommended approval of a rezone from R-1 to R-2 for this property; however, it had been brought back to the P & Z level from the public hearing because of an error in the rezone, which should have been commercial to R-2. The portions of the August 13 Council minutes that dealt with this were read by Mr. Heath, and the P & Z minutes from the May 29 and June 20 meetings were read by Mr. Gourley. Mr. Shearen raised the question of whether a rezone was necessary since the property was in a commercial zone, in which lesser uses were allowed. Mr. Gourley indicated that this area had been zoned as a commer- cial district under Ordinance No. 6, which Mr. Locher felt was concurrent with the general business district in Ordinance No. 56, which did not permit an R-2 use. Mr. Shearen noted that Mr. Locher had been going to research this, but there was no ans- wer on it yet. Mr. Reinert felt an interpretation was necessary before a decision could be made. Mr. Gourley said that in the past, residential had been permitted in a commercial zone without a rezone or special use permit; however, it was noted this had been only single family (R-1) and not multifamily (R-2). Mr. Reinert felt this was preferential zoning and asked what the rationale was for allowing R-1 but not R-2. Mr. Heath thought this could be because it had developed that way (R-1) and requiring a rezone for R-2 would be notice to the residents. He also felt the resi- dential areas along the strip zoning should be rezoned as such and traded for commer- cial in other areas. A statement signed by a number of residents who were not opposed to the property at 790 Vicky Lane being rezoned to R-2, dated August 14, 1979, was presented to the Commission. Mr. Gourley opened the meeting to discussion from the audience. A resident, Mr. Dick Paulsen, 789 Vicky Lane, said that the immediate property owners were adamantly against the zoning change on several grounds: (1) Homeowners tend to take care of their property better and were more concerned with the feelings of the neighborhood in regard to noise, traffic, and so on. Transient renters would affect the property values, the living style, and the general character of the neighborhood. (2) If there was a lot of on -street parking from the duplex, this could block visi- bility and be a potential hazard for the children. (3) If one change to R-2 was granted, there would be no reason to refuse others, and the nature of the whole block could be changed. (4) The house presently does not meet the minimum requirements for a duplex as it has only one well and septic system. Mr. Paulson said there had been trouble in the past with the poor septic system, and it could be a neighborhood problem if not taken care of. Mr. Paulson also felt that those opposed to the change Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission August 15, 1979 had moved into a residential, single family community, and had expected it to stay that way. He felt the zoning in that area should be changed from commercial to R-1, and suggested the rezone decision be postponed until that was handled. He also pointed out that the property at 790 Vicky Lane was zoned partially commercial and partially R-1. Another resident, in reference to (3), said that approximately one-third (6) of the houses on the block were suitable to become duplexes and could at some time apply for rezoning if this one were granted. Mr. Paulson indicated that although the petition presented at the public hearing was not available, 90 percent of the property owners who were immediately adjacent to 790 Vicky Lane were opposed to the change, whereas those who signed the statement not opposed to the change either did not live on Vicky Lane or lived farther down the street. Mr. Shearen raised the question of whether either list constituted two-thirds of the adjoining property owners within 300 feet; however, Mr. Gourley noted that while this was required for a special use permit, it was not required for a rezone application, although it was felt to be a consideration. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Brunner were asked to indicate on the map the locations of the homeowners who had signed the petition and declaration; taking into consideration all those within 300 feet of the property, it was felt to be fairly even. Mr. Paulson felt several homeowners should not be considered, as they did not have access to Vicky Lane, and he also had not contacted them and felt they might change their minds. Mr. Gourley reviewed the background of the house, which had been used as a duplex up through 1975; he had been in contact with one of the previous owners, and verified that when the property had changed hands in 1976, the new owners had dropped the R-2 use at that time. Mr. Reinert felt that the P & Z should consider whether they wanted R-2 use in this particular area, as it might start a chain reaction; if not, it should be restricted to R-1. He also felt the wishes of the people directly affected by the change should be considered. Mr. Brunner pointed out that in developing new land, it was a common practice to use R-2 as a buffer between commercial and residential property, and that in this case, they would serve as a buffer between the commercial property to the south and across the street. In reference to the septic problems brought up by Mr. Paulson, he indicated that there were not signs of damage , and also that the property was larger than the surrounding residential lots and would probably have fewer people living there than now live on some of those lots. The structure of the building would not change; it was set up as a duplex, had been there 14 years, and was rented out periodically up until 1976; and because it had not been rented from 1976 through the present, it had lost its duplex status. No one on the street had moved in since 1976, so they had either moved there or were living there when it was a duplex. In respect to the num- ber of cars that would be parked, he noted that the City had an ordinance that covered vehicles on the street, which would be followed, and there were lots now that had 5 or 6 cars parked on them. Also, Mr. Brunner felt he did not want the value of his property to decrease either, and that the only thing that would affect the area would be if commercial came in behind them, or if anyone let their property run down. Also, it had been brought up that there would be nothing preventing others from becoming duplexes as well, but Mr. Brunner noted that it would not be just a matter or rezoning, but physical alteration of the homes as well. Mr. and Mrs. Brunner indicated they realized that if and when they decided to rent as a duplex, they would have to meet all building codes as far as putting in a new septic system and well. It was noted that if rezoned, it would not be necessary to specify separate sewer and water systems as this came under the State Building Code, and was not a concern of zoning. Mr. Reinert felt there was a reason why certain properties revert back to certain zoning, and that was to establish uniformity; however, Mr. Gourley noted that in this case, the zoning,rather than reverting back to R-1,it reverted to commercial. Mr. McLean raised the question of whether a new application was necessary. The present applica- tion was corrected to read "rezone to duplex status, R-2, from commercial and partial R-1 or from general business and R-1, whichever applies," and was signed and dated by Mrs. Brunner. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend approval to the Council of the zoning Page 3 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 change and that the fees be transfered to the corrected application. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor with the exception of Mr. Reinert, voting no, on the basis of respecting the wishes of the people that live in that neighbor- hood. Motion declared passed. The public hearing had been set for August 27 at 9:30 p.m. Next on the agenda was an application by Mr. Rivard for a special use permit to raise chickens on a 2 acre parcel. Mr. Rivard's brother, Don Rivard, was present on his behalf. This matter had been carried over from a previous meeting in July, because at the time there was only one signature from the adjoining landowners. The. Clerk had indicated that Mr. Rivard had been unable to obtain a signature from an invest- ment company that owned the adjoining landas it was based in Chicago and the repre- sentative in Minneapolis had an unlisted phone number. Mr. Gourley asked if there were any other parties aside from the investment company and Emmett Label, who had signed the petition,who owned land within 300 feet of the property; however, Don Rivard was not sure and indicated most of the surrounding land was undeveloped. There was further discussion of a house kitty-cornered from the property. Mr. Gourley noted that a drawing had not been provided and was required. Mr. Rivard was asked to provide the drawing and obtain the signature of the homeowner discussed above. Don Rivard estimated about 100 chickens were kept on the land, but could not clarify Mr. Rivard's intentions on this. The present coop was about 10 x 15, or 150 square feet; Mr. Reinert thought that for confined housing, the estimate was 1 chicken per square foot. Mr. Shearen moved that the application be tabled until more information was gotten and more signatures were obtained from the adjoining property owners. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley further explained that the P & Z was looking for the signatures of everyone within 300 feet whether a house was there or not, but that they would take into consideration that the investment company couldn't be reached. Also needed was information on how many chickens there would be and under what conditions. The next item on the agenda was two variance applications by Mr. Shaughnessy, 6231 Otter Lake Road. Mr. Shaughnessy presently has a house on tract A (1.02 acres) and wants to put a house on tract B (1 acre); this required two variances, one for each tract. This was felt to fall within the policy previously set by the Commission. Mr. Doocey moved to recommend approval of the two applications. Seconded by Mr. Shearen. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be on the Council agenda for August 27. The next item was a variance request by Mr. Bhend, 7702 Lake Drive, for a lot less than 22 acres (1 acre lot). According to a note from the Clerk, the property had been divided one month after the ordinance was published, a variance had never been requested, and it had changed owners several times since. There was a problem with registering title, and Mr. Locher felt the City should formally issue a variance. Mr. Bhend was not present, and there was no certificate_ of survey, although there was a legal description. Vi Schwankl moved toitab1e it until a certificate of survey was available. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. --All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The Clerk is requested to write a letter to Mr. Bhend indicating to him that a certificate of survey on the property was needed before action could be taken on the application. This should also be put on the P & Z agenda for the September meeting. /The next item on the agenda was an application for a rezone from R-1 to R-2, duplex, by Tim Rehbein on lots 4, 5, 6f and 8, block 1, and lot 8, block 2, Carole's Estates. Lot 7, block 1, was Mr. Rehbein's home. Mr. Rehbein had presented the idea previously Page 4 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 and a letter had been received from the planner that indicated it would be consistant with the Comprehensive Plan. There were already two duplexes onthesouth side of 77th Street. Mr. Rehbein asked if the. rezone to R-2 was granted, would he still have the option of using the lots as R-1. This was a question of lesser uses. Mr. Gourley felt a special use permit might be needed for that. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend the Council grant'Rehbe Construction a rezone from R-1 to R-2 with the option of the lesser use of R-1 only, subject to the interpretation of the attorney, and a public hearing be set. Vi Schwankl.seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item on the agenda was an application by Mr. Wegleitner for a special use permit to operate a kennel. There was a representative present, who indicated that it had recently come to their attention that they were governed by Lino Lakes ordin- ances. There had been some confusion because their mailing address was Hugo, MN. Mr. Gourley read from the March 17, 1975 P & Z minutes in relation to a similar request by Mr. Orrin Clover, for which the P & Z recommended approval of a special use permit subject to annual review, and limited to 8 dogs with the exclusion of litters that would not be retained more than 6 months. The March 25, 1975 Council minutes were read by Mr. Gourley and they further stipulated that some type of visual screen be provided. It was explained that Mr. Wegleitner would like to maintain in the next 2 to 3 years a breeding show stock of 12 dogs. This would not be a kennel because they would raise a single breed of dogs, and would be for show only and no dogs would be boarded nor any services provided. The puppies would be sold and the money used for maintenance. It would qualify not as a profit-making venture, but as a hobby run at a loss. Mr. Gourley noted it would qualify as a business if it were making a profit and open to the public. They plan to build separation pens and runs; at present the entire 5 acres is fenced and an additional fence encloses the backyard. There was discussion on the surrounding landowners; because of the freeway and Washington County across the street, the signatures represented all the surrounding landowners. Mr. Doocey read Ordinance No. 37, section 9, which required that the land be zoned commer- cial and a special use permit be issued in order to run a kennel. Mr. Heath felt that since they were in open country, this shouldn't make any difference, as there were no adjoining landowners nearby. There was some question as to which of the ordinances regarding dog kennels applied in this situation, and the precedent set by the Clover Kennels situation was also considered. Mr. Heath felt that kennels were usually run by one family, and if the land were rezoned commercial, then any future buyer would be stuck with commercial zoning; he felt a special use permit should be used instead. Mr. Reinert felt no action should be taken until the attorney gave an interpretation. Mr. Heath suggested recommending to the Council that they change that part of the ordinance. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council that they grant a special use permit to Mr. Wegleitner to operate a private hobby kennel with a maximum of 12 dogs, other than litters up to 6 months of age, and also that the Council refer to City Ordinance No. 37 on kennels being allowed on commercial property and also refer to the March 17, 1975 action by the Planning and Zoning Commission where Mr. Kelling made reference to that rezone conflict. In reference to special use permits, Mr. Gourley pointed out that any neighbor could apply for a similar permit. Mr. Shearen noted it could only be done with the agreement of two-thirds of the surrounding prop- erty owners, and in this case 100 percent of the property owners were in favor. Mr. Heath thought the circumstances (agricultural versus, for example, Vicky Lane) had to be taken into consideration. Mr. Gourley pointed out that special use permits were transferable with the sale of the property. Section 5.04 of Ordinance No. 56 was consulted, "the permit shall be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. The cancellation of a special use permit shall be considered adminis- tratively equivalent to a rezoning." Once granted, even though it can be reviewed, it goes with the land and a public hearing and advertisement process were required to cancel it. Mr. Shearen amended his motion to include that the special use permit Page 5 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 be granted on an annual renewable basis from the date of issuance. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The attorney's opinion should be gotten on this. It will be on the Council agenda for August 27. Next on the agenda was a plat for East Birch Addition, submitted by Mr. Nadeau. Updated copies (8-13-79) were available. Mr. Gourley read a letter from the County Highway Department, dated July 18, which in addition to the previous request asked that lot 11, block 4, and lot 13, block 3, have no access by driveway to County Rd. 54. This would have to be a covenant on the deed and it would be up to the Council if they wanted it indicated on the plat and on the deed. Mr. Nadeau felt buyers would not want to put a driveway up to County Rd. 54 there because it was much higher than the lots. In reference to the park dedication, Mr. Nadeau felt the lots were large enough that people wouldn't want a park, and proposed cash in lieu of land. Lots 1, 2 and 3 now showed a 40 -foot setback as recommended. Mr. Nadeau again raised the question of the 100 -foot setback from the center of the road called for in Ordinance No. 56, which was not enforced. Pertinant buildings and structures within 100 feet of the site, watercourses and marshes were all now indicated on the plat. Mr. Nadeau indicated that easements or drainage weren": indicated but felt it was premature to do so before the City engineer went over it. All power line easements were shown (Anoka Electric). The section on drainage from the engineer's letter was read by Mr. Gourley. It was Mr. Nadeau's understanding that the City engineer would address drainage and confirm whether the ponds were adequate. Section 14 of the planner's letter asked for easements of 12 feet centered on the rear lot lines where necessary, but it was felt this was not necessary yet and was more of a notation for the future. Lots 7, 8 and 9, block 3, were to take care of water storage, but Mr. Nadeau felt they were also going to be buildable lots because they would be above the high water table. There was further discussion, and Mr. Nadeau felt that the area would be better off as part of a lot so the owner would be taking care of it rather than the City maintaining the property. The proposed development was adjacent to the Centerville city limits; a letter and copy of the plat had been sent to them but there had been no response. Mr. Gourley felt the engineer should address the drainage easements and utility easements, but otherwise everything seemed to have been complied with. Mr. Nadeau indicated that some trees along an existing ditch would be taken out. There was some question about the zoning classification indicated on the plan, which was FR, farming -residential. tIt was felt the zoning should be agricultural, which is concurrent with an R-1 use.- Mr. Reinert moved to submit Mr. Nadeau's plat to the Council for approval subject to the correction of the terms expressed by the engineer, and also to have it corrected in terms of the proper zoning for a plat of this type; also the concerns of the planner being referred to the engineer for proper correction. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley moved that the Council also be recommended to set a public hearing on Mr. Nadeau's plat. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be on the Council agenda for August 27. Next on the agenda was a sketch plan for Lino Industrial Park. A representative, Mr. Gagteod, was present. The p1lnnej's and engineer's letters were read, and the Clerk is requested to provide Mr. i;& with copies of these. The developer indicated that the buildings would be one, and possibly two stories, and it would be small businesses to start with, such as body shops and cabinet shops. Mr. Gourley noted a rezone would be required, and the developer would have to make a decision as to whether they wanted a light industrial or heavy industrial classification. The developer felt there weren't the facilities for heavy industry at this time, but if sewer service came in as anticipated, they would like to change the zoning at that time, or make it subject to when the sewer did come in. Commercial zoning uses were read by Mr. Gourley and discussed. In reference to the recommendation for a larger lot size and additional streets, the developer didn't feel these were necessary. The land was sold 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- Page 7 Planning and Zoning August 15, 1979 had been missed, and should be corrected. With the alteration of the lines, lot 1, block 2 could be accepted as a little smaller than an acre. Mr Heath moved to recom- mend that the Council accept theplat for Bloom's Addition with the change in the one line from 55' to 60' from thecounty road and that they set a public hearing. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. There was a note from the Clerk concerning Lyndol Nelson, which was read by Mr. Gourley. There had been a variance request by Mr. Nelson at the June 20, 1979 meeting; due to the builder's error, his house had been built close to or right on the lot line. Since that time, the house on the adjacent lot had been built. This constituted a safety hazard. The variance had been refused and it had been felt to be a builder problem. The June 20 minutes in regard to this were read by Mr. Gourley. Mr. Mobley had not followed the P & Z recommendation in regard to the house under construction adjacent to Mr. Nelson's property. However, the setbacks on the second house were in order, and there was no violation there. Mr. Gourley suggested the land be surveyed in order to determine the exact position of Mr. Nelson's house, and have Mr. Locher, Mr. Nelson and the neighbor come to an agreement as to the disposition of the property. However, Mr. Shearen pointed out that the second homeowner could not be forced to sell a piece of his property toMr.. Nelson in order to satisfy the setback requirements. The prob- lem still remained with Mr. Nelson's property, which was in violation of the ordinance. It was felt that Mr. Mobley should proceed with his job, which was to issue a red tag; other than that, the P & Z felt it could take no action as it then became a problem between the owner, Mr. Nelson, and the builder, Sussel Homes. Mr. Reinert moved that the Chairman get hold of Mr. Mobley and tell him it was the opinion of this body that he go out and tag, or whatever he has to do, at least pinpoint the problem, to the initial home that was built in the wrong place or in violation. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. There was a letter from Mr. Locher available --an opinion on the Reshanau Estates zoning. This was a matter of information only, and no action was necessary. The next item on the agenda was the matter of Fran Burque's plat. The P & Z had handled an item for Mr.:Burque contingent on his submitting a plat, which he had not done. The Clerk had sent a letter to Mr. Burque on this, but there had been no reply. Mr. Gourley read the letter. Mr. Shearen moved to table the matter until the Commission had a request from Mr. Burque and recommended that if there was no submission by the next meeting, he be billed for the park land dedication. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Reinert moved to adjourn at 12:10 a.m. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.