Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/1979 P&Z MinutesNote: Mr. Heath's motion on the changes to Ordinance No. 20, as actually made, included only the changes to rules 1, 9, 10, 21, and 24, as well as the recommendation to expand the ordinance to include the commissions, etc. I felt the intent here had been to include the change to rule 26 as well, as had been discussed, so I didn't omit it from the motion. If I am in error here, please let me know and I will change the minutes accordingly. Also, I am unsure as to whether I have the name --Mr. LaRue --correctly (first page). --Carol Krasnow July 18, 1979 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m., July 18, 1979, by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Jerome Heath, Jim Shearen, Vi Schwankl, Bob Doocy, Lawrence Johnson and Council liaison John McLean. Members absent: Vernon Reinert. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the May 16 and June 20 minutes. Mr. Doocy moved to approve the minutes of the June 20 meeting. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Johnson moved to table the minutes of the May 16 regular meeting. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean gave his report on the Council. In reference to the moratorium on moving buildings and garages in the city, the Council passed an amendment to Ordinance No. 39A and adopted the permit form as presented by Mr. Mobley, with corrections. A permit can be obtained before publication of the ordinance, conditional to the new requirements. Mr. Gourley brought up that Ordinance No. 56 requires that the moving permit have a formal recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This would be in addition to the on-site inspection by the building inspector, a member of the Council and a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This has not been done in the past and had been overlooked at the Council meeting. A section for P & Z approval would have to be put on Mr. Mobley's form. Mr. McLean will check on this. Mr. Johnson asked if the action by Centerville in reference to Mr. Mobley had any effect on Lino Lakes. Mr. McLean indicated that Mr. Mobley has put in his application and will take the certification test at the earliest opportunity. In reference to Mr. Nelson's variance request (Sunset Oaks), the Council had moved to instruct Mr. Mobley to report on the situation for resolving the problem by means other than the variance. This was to be presented at this meeting, but it was not available. The building inspector is requested to reply to the Planning and Zoning Commission on this. The special use permit to raise chickens for Mr. and Mrs. Tueiberg was approved as set forth by the P & Z. They had over 10 acres under their control through lease and ownership; if the lease is not kept up (6 acres), the special use permit should be rescinded. The application by Mr. Rivard for a special use permit for raising chickens was not complete and action was deferred. Action was delayed on the variance request by Mr. Skoglund due to lack of information. The rezone application by El Rehbein and Son was continued to the next meeting. A public hearing had been set for the rezone at 790 Vickey Lane (R-1 to R-2). Mr. Burque will be informed by mail of the requirements that need to be met on his plat. In reference to Mr. Alenck on Rolling Hilis Drive, no action was taken on the special use permit; since none had ever been taken, no further action was necessary. He will be notified by the Clerk. In reference to Sandpiper Drive, the atitude of the Council is that they would need to petition for the improvement and the benefiting property owners would bear the cost. In reference to street lighting in Shenandoah, there would be a temporary installation of a security light in one location there. The Council had accepted the July 2 drawings of the Baldwin Lake Trailer Court expansion, and the two landlocked parcels will have the opportunity to hook up with the sewer and water at their own expense. The Council had decided to deal with the entire trailer court as one piece on the rezone matter and a public hearing had been set. Mr. Ray Rehbein's transfer of a piece of property of less than 22 acres on Highway 8 and 77th Street had been dealt with. In reference to the damage to Rolling Hills Drive and 64th Street, Mr. Klenck and Mr. La °`were requested to appear at the next Council meeting. Mr. Leis apparently operating a hauling business on 4AIeChI dL agricultural property, which is/not a permitted use of that kind of property. In reference to the gravel pit operation on Otter Lake Road, a red tag had been issued. It was suggested that since there would be more mining or scraping out, Mr. Gotwald Page 2 Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 set some standards as a basis for a mining permit. The final plats for Carroll Estates II and Swanson Estates had been signed upon receipt of money in lieu of park land. A letter from Patch, Erickson, Madson Inc., Architects and Planners, had been received, inquiring as to the zoning situation and sewer and water availability for St. Joseph's Church and another 40 acre tract just west of the detention facility on County Road 53. They had been instructed by the County Commissioners to look at these sites in reference to a proposed juvenile detention center for Anoka County. Mr. Young, representing St. Joseph's Church, was present and explained that the Church would be receptive to the offer, if it is sufficient to build a new Church; however, an offer had not yet been received. They would be considering buying about 9 acres, which would include St. Joseph's Church, the convent and the acreage around it, but excluding the old Church and the cemetery. The Church also owns 40 acres right across the street, but this is not the 40 acres referred to in the letter. There was some question as to exactly where the other 40 acre parcel of land was located. Neither of these sites currently have sewer or water, and would probably need to be rezoned. The Commission felt there were too many unanswered questionson this matter to make any decisions. Mr. Heath moved to forward this letter to the Council without recommendation due to inadequate information. Mr. Doocy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item on the agenda was a variance request for Mr. David Boyle to obtain a building permit on less than 22 acres. Apparently there had already been a variance granted for the parcel in question, Tract B, 1.43 acres, in June of 1972, to a Mr. Floyd Miller and this should appear on the deed. Mr. Gourley moved that the Clerk refund the $25 fee in that it was collected in error, and provide Mr. Doyle with a copy of the June 26, 1972 minutes. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Boyle's representative was given a copy of the June 26, 1972 minutes. Next on the agenda was a variance request for Mardon homes, lots 1-46 Mardon Acres, to build split entry homes, 32' x 24', less square footage than required by code. There was no representative present. Mr. McLean felt that there was inadequate infor- mation to consider it at this time, and also that Mr. Rehbein's project had been granted as an experimental situation. Mr. Shearen moved to table this. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Next for consideration was Bloom's Addition, Mr. Glenn Erickson appearing for Mr. Bloom. There were letters from the planner, engineer, and the Anoka County Highway Department which were read, and Mr. Erickson was provided with copies. The plat will need to be redesigned with reference to the 60' right-of-way on County Road 54 (instead of the 55' shown), and the policy of not platting ponds as part of the one acre minimum lot size. Also, allowance for a drainage (road) easement should be made between lots 3 and 4 for future extension of the cul-de-sac. This will be put on the August 15 agenda. Mr. Gourley will contact Mr. Gotwald and explain further what was discussed on this plat. No action was taken. The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for East Birch Addition. The planner's and engineer's letters were read. The Commission asked if there were any existing buildings or houses within 100 feet of the plat, as these should be indi- cated on the plan, as well as trees and natural water courses. These items had not been shown on the plan. Mr. Shearen raised a question of conflict between items 4 and 5 in the planner's letter; however, item 4 dealt with the Comprehensive Plan outlines for that area, and item 5 dealt with the sewer interceptor and Page 3 Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 designation of this area as Agriculture 1, which allows one unit per ten acres. Mr. McLean explained the situation. There was some concern expressed about this plat using up the alloted development. Mr. Gourley indicated that unless the members of the Commission had any objections, he was not concerned about this item, as it was an agreement the Council had made with Metro and was therefore not a concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission. In reference to the 40 foot setback, the developer pointed out that Ordinance No. 56 reads that it should be 100 feet from the center of the road, although this is not enforced. There was some dis- cussion about this. Mr. Heath noted that lots 3, 5, and 6 of block 1 and perhaps lot 9 of block 3 were not a full acre. A minor adjustment to the lot lines would correct this. A corner piece on the north side will be screened from the adjacent property there. This is strictly voluntary on the developer's part, as it is not required. The developer indicated that the soils are fairly good as far as perco- lation, and the major problem was the high water table. He is going to be putting 6 feet of fill in. He also raised a question as to the water level of the ponding area, and was told that Mr. Gotwald may have some suggestions on this, as he is now working on ponding and elevations. The developer felt there wouldn't be suffi- cient population for a park, and also the lot sizes were large enough that they probably wouldn't want one. He preferred to pay cash in lieu of land for the park dedication. This plat will be sent on to the Park Board. This has already been sent on to the Anoka County Highway Department, and they had indicated that the right-of-way was acceptable, but they would request that lots 1 and 2 facing 20th on the south side of the plat have a common driveway. They will forward a letter to this effect. The Clerk is asked to send a copy of the preliminary plat to Centerville and ask for their comments. The developer was given copies of the planner's and engineer's letters and was requested to conform with the items set forth there. The developer will check with the Clerk about sending this on to Rice Creek Watershed, and will also get in touch with Mr. Gotwald. This will be on the August 15 agenda. No action was taken. The rezone matter for Reshanau Estates, continued from the June 20 regular meeting, was considered. Mr. Blackbird as representative for the development was present. Also present were homeowners from the area adjacent to the proposed plat. M•1r. Blackbird in his presentation felt that the submissions of the planner, engineer, and others were not adverse to the proposal, with the exception of the local resi- dents. He felt the area could support the quadriminiums as far as sewers and services -- police, schools, stores and transportation. He also had density figures to present: The density for Reshanau Estates is 5.56 with 36 units, and 5.2 for 34 units. The computed overall density for Lakes Addition II is 1.2, and adding the townhouses it s_ 2.83. This is gross acreage including roads, parking lots, etc. Considered with Lakes Addition III, the density is 2.37. Some of the homeowners present inquired as to whether the land used for computing the densities was owned by the developer; Mr. Blackbird answered no. Several homeowners brought up a question as to whether gross acreage should be used in computing density. In computing densities for Metro Council, the City deletes only the freeways and the County Park, and then starts computing from there. Mr. Blackbird said he had been in contact with Maple Grove on the density figures. Their city planner had said this plat was similar to one they had accepted as a planned unit development, if Lakes Addition II and III were considered as a planned unit development. Their Rice Lakes Addition North is being developed in three phases --additions I, II, and III. The first is 20 acres and is townhouses, similar to Lakes Addition II. In back of that is Rice Lakes Second Addition, consisting of single family homes. Lakes III is unplatted and is on the further end, similar to the area in the County Park. This is an Orrin Thompson development, one of several, and the density came out as 2.8, the same as for the Lakes Addition. Mr. Blackbird suggested that Reshanau Estates should be considered Page 4. Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 as Lakes Addition IV. He indicated that the density figures he presented should have been submitted earlier by Suburban, but they had been lost in the shuffle. Also, 29 percent of the area is improved and the figures on this have been submitted, as well as the figures on the blacktop area, which falls into the factor that can- not be improved over a certain percentage. Mr. Blackbird felt the basic Environ- mental Impact Study had not been adverse to the project. The townhouse on the lake side will be taken out due to the ponding area so the maximum number of units would be 35, or more likely 34. The plat itself consists of 26.25 acres. In reference to the motion made by Mr. McLean and passed by the Council, Mr. McLean explained that it meant that all recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Com- mission dealing with changes to be included in the Comprehensive Plan be held until the work on that document is finished. The Council did not interpret this as a moratorium on zoning, only that recommendations related to the Comprehensive Plan be held until the work is finished. The moratorium under those conditions lasts until the end of January when the Comprehensive Plan is forwarded to the Council. One of the residents present felt that the density was a concern with residents, but of even more concern was the fact that it was not just a few townhouses, but a major development which would dominate the nature of the neighborhood and would also be a substantial portion of the entire city. In terms of the effect on the neighbor- hood and environment, a large development such as this would be very different from that of a few townhouses. He also brought up the fact that the developer had not yet met with the homeowners group. The Commission felt this was a matter to be worked out between the two parties, as it has no control over it. Mr. Gourley asked for comments from the Board. He noted that the application was for rezoning only, and that the plat still had to come up for approval, and an environmental impact statement had to be drawn up. This would be provided by the developer. Mr. David Cody, an attorney and resident of Shadow Lake Drive, acting as a private party and not hired by the homeowners group, gave a presentation citing legal prece- dents in regard to zoning. He reviewed a case of the Minnesota Supreme Court (1974), and gave copies of this to the Commission. It was put forth in this case that in order to rezone, it must be proved that there was a mistake in the original zoning ordinance. The other requirement is that there be a substantial change in the char- acter of the neighborhood such that a rezone is necessary; and also that no reason- able use can be made of the property in its current zoned condition. The burden of proof is upon the proponents of the change. He also cited a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which he indicated had been used recently in Minnesota cases. Another resident, Mr. Benson, felt the issue before the Board was a question of rezoning rather than one of density. He felt that Mr. Cody's presentation had offset some of the comments made at the last meeting. He felt the residents' opinion should be taken into consideration by the Board, as they strongly opposed the development. He felt the rezone should be denied because significant changes have not been made in the property to warrant a rezone. He quoted the Comprehensive Plan to the effect that "the most significant pattern for future land use is the built environment." Mr. Heath brought up that the Planning and Zoning Commission has done a lot of vari- ances and rezoning in the past, and apparently other cities do very little of this; the Supreme Court would seem to feel that little rezoning should be done as well. He felt in general the Commission should be more careful than it has been in the past. Mr. Blackbird noted that the Comprehensive Plan needed updating in view of the sewer. Mr. Johnson had some questions for Mr. Blackbird in reference to Cottage Grove, and brought up their R-1 ratings, and densities as related to house sizes. This is done to keep, for example, a 960 house size from being put next to a larger one, to pro- tect land values. Mr. Gourley asked about which area they were talking about; Mr. Page 5. Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 Blackbird had referred to Maple Grove, and Mr. Johnson to Cottage Grove. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the quads were $50,000 units and these would be put next to single family homes, worth considerably more than that. He pointed out that in talking with Chuck Windham Associates, the planners for Orrin Thompson, that this would be inconsistent with what they do. Mr. Blackbird said that the density was 4.6 in the Rice Lake Addition lots. Mr. Johnson said that they also had 2 acres minimum buffer zone (green space) between areas, which is not included in the density factors. Mr. Blackbird said that taking their gross acreage they were still at 2.8 for 120 acres. He said that he maximum for Maple Grove was 4 to 5.99 in the Rice Lake Addition. He felt his development was almost identical to the Rice Lake Addition. He pointed out that the minimum distance between the townhouses is 50-70 feet, which is more than the distance between single family homes. The selling price, if con- structed this year, would be $50,000, and if next year, $53,000. The equivalent house price would be $60,000. He felt it would not depreciate the value of the lake homes, as it is a completely seperate environment. He suggested the county assessor as a neutral third party to check with on this. Mr. Johnson brought up some material from Twin City Federal, mentioned at a previous meeting, in that townhouses should sell within $10,000 under the average cost of a house in an area. He felt the single family homes were worth more than $60,000. There was further disagreement on this. Another man from the audience, a resident of the neighborhood for more than 5 years, said his main concern is that when they bought their property, it was with the under- standing of what the zoning was at the time. He felt that changing the zoning at this time, as an afterthought, would be unfair to the residents. Vi Schwankl sug- gested that the builder has the right to take this to court if it is denied, and felt that all the citizens of Lino Lakes should not have to bear the cost for something people in one particular area didn't want. She also brought up that she had moved into an agricultural area, which has developed and is no longer just agricultural. Mr. Gourley felt that the 1934 case was not applicable because it referred to apart- ments (more than one story) and also because the Supreme Court tends to shift and reverse itself through the years. He felt the Court cases he had cited at the last meeting (1976 and 1978) had been more recent than the 1974 court case cited by Mr. Cody; and that the courts were once again reversing their decisions on zoning in that there are specific statutes that require the type of zoning in question. Also, he had information from court cases and from Metro that indicates that any zoning ordinance that goes beyond the health, safety and welfare of the residents then becomes discriminatory. He also felt that there is considerably more information available since the last vote taken on this matter, which goes beyond just the elimi- nation of 3 units. As far as rezoning, he felt the nature of the village has been changing, and would continue to change, thus requiring corresponding changes in zoning as it no longer fit the development of the community. The Comprehensive Plan is in the process of being changed now, and the Minnesota Legislature has specifically required provision for multifamily housing in the community; Metro Council has specific requirements for the number of multifamily units and so on that must be provided for. Mr. Cody said the 1974 decision has not been reversed. Mr. Gourley said he had submitted the material on types of housing and zoning required to the attorney, and they were dated 1976 and/or 1978. Another resident felt he was being discriminated against by Mr. Blackbird--a case of reverse discrimination. He asked for the laws cited by Mr. Gourley; Mr. Gourley enlarged on these. Mr. Benson felt that Lino Lakes should make changes in their ordinance to meet these requirements, but felt this particular situation didn't warrant this type of change as the deve- lopment and land use was directed to single family dwellings. He was in favor of complying, but felt it didn't necessarily have to be in this particular area. Another resident felt it was also a matter of magnitude--it would be a substantial development and there would be a large population influx. Mr. Shearen asked Mr. Blackbird if there had been some kind of buffer planned. Mr. Blackbird said the Page 6 - Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 development was segregated from the community. There was some further discussion between Mr. Johnson, Mr. Blackbird and Mr. McLean on the history of the area, the density and zoning. Mr Benson felt there wasn't enough room to make any adjustment for a buffer zone. He felt that the development would be an island surrounded by single family dwellings, considering the development east of it. It would be out of place in that location. Mr. Blackbird said that they had bought a number of lots looking onto the development and were selling these with the understanding that the proposed quads might be going up there. Vi Schwankl moved to recommend approval to the Council of the rezoning from R-1 to R-5 for Reshanau Estates, subject to a public hearing being set. Bob Doocy seconded the motion. Mr. Gourley asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Johnson addressed Vi Schwankl to the effect that 2 months ago she had seen -nothing wrong with the project, even though Mr. Blackbird had subsequently said the density had been too high; less than 10 percent of the development had been deleted; did she still feel the same way? Vi Schwankl indicated she did. Mr. Johnson also brought up that the May 16 minutes had not been approved, pending Mr. Reinert's objections; at that meet- ing she had gone on record as saying she was in favor of high density housing in sewered areas. This had been missing from the minutes. There had been quite a few other things missing from the minutes of that meeting also; Mr. Reinert had been going to bring this up at this meeting, had he been present. The vote was taken on the motion. Mr. Gourley, Vi Schwankl and Mr. Doocy were in favor; Mr. Johnson, Mr. Heath and Mr. Shearen were opposed. The rezone request will be forwarded to the Council without recommendation, and it will be indicated that the vote was a tie. Mr. McLean will present this to the Council July 23. The next item on the agenda was the situation with Mr. Hahn in reference to the prop- erty at 1909 Birch Street. Mr. Hahn was present and read his letter of intent to the Commission with explanations. He is presently tearing down the old portion of the house, while living in the newer addition until the new house, to be built on the north side of the existing house, is completed. Mr. Mobley has issued a stop order on tearing down the old house, because no permit for demolition had been obtained. Mr. Hahn said he had spoken to Mr. Mobley of his intentions on several occasions before starting work, but had not been told he needed a permit to tear down the house. Mr. Hahn is now the owner of record, and had a copy of the contract - for -deed, which he showed the Commission. The front of the house when finished will be 32 feet from the property line, which is 33 feet from the middle of the road. The existing house (the older portion, to be torn down) is now 5 feet from the prop- erty line on the road. There was discussion as to whether Mr. Hahn needed a permit for temporary occupancy, but as this qualified as remodeling rather than new con- struction, it was felt he didn't need one. Also brought up was whether Mr. Hahn could get a building permit on a contract -for -deed. The developer for East Birch Addition brought up that the ordinance calls for a setback of 100 feet from the road. There was some question as to whether this applied where the house is already exist- ing. The ordinance is dated 1972; the house was already there at that time, so the ordinance would not apply unless the position is taken that Mr. Hahn is building a new house. The net effect of the remodeling would be that the house would be further away from the road. Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council that Mr. Hahn be issued a demolition permit and a permit to add to the existing structure on the north side of the old building in accordance with all building codes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. The developer for East Birch Addition asked if certification or evidence of title was needed for this type of thing; Mr. McLean said it was to insure that they were dealing with the owner of the property. There was some further discussion as to whether proper setback should be required or whether it should be dealt with as an existing situation. The vote was taken on the motion; All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be put on the Council agenda for July 23. Page 7_ Planning and Zoning July.18, 1979 The developer for East Birch Addition inquired as to why Mr. Hahn was not informed that there was an ordinance. This apparently had been up to the building inspector. There also was a communication problem with the city offices and residents. The next item on the agenda was a variance application by Mr. Cunningham for a long driveway over 300 feet in length. Mr. Cunningham was present. He was told that the purpose of the ordinance was to inform him that maintenance of the driveway was his responsibility and not the responsibility of the City, and that it should be main- tained such that emergency vehicles can get back to the property in case of fire. Beyond that the only other problem in this type of case was where someone had wanted to sell parcels of land off the driveway. In this case, he would have had to bring the driveway up to the standards of the city streets. Mr. Shearen moved to recom- mend approval to the Council. Mr. Doocy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will be on the Council agenda for July 23. A letter from the planner in reply to the Commission's request to review duplex development in R-1 zones was read by Mr. Gourley. He suggested that th4,'might be one item the P & Z should look at. This request had been generated by '2ehbein's proposed rezone for duplexes, which will come up at the next meeting. It was suggested he rezone the 4 lots as well as his own as one package and under one fee. The Clerk is requested to relay this to Mr. Rehbein. The next item on the agenda, under old business, was Mr. Locher's review of Ordinance No. 20 in light of recent changes in open meeting laws. The review had been requested at a previous meeting. Mr. Gourley read the letter from the attorney and the items in the ordinance referred to. After discussion of the attorney's comments, the following changes were recommended: Rule 1 --in reference to the meeting time of 8:30 p.m. This should be eliminated entirely from the ordinance. Rule 9 --As recommended by the attorney, the word "of" in the fourth line should be changed to read "if." Rule 10 --It was felt rule 10 should be removed from the ordinance entirely. Rule 21 --The rule should read as is with -the addition of the following: "The rules may not be suspended, repealed, altered or amended when such action would not otherwise be in compliance with Minnesota Statute." Rule 24 --The following addition should be made to rule 24: "If there are special meetings held, every effort should be made to post a notice of the meeting and to contact the newspapers that are disseminated in the City, and even to contact radio stations and to notify anyone who may be particularly interested in any matters that may be discussed at any special meeting." Rule 26 --The following should be added to rule 26: "The deputy clerk, who has been appointed by the clerk, may act in place of the clerk, the clerk, in such instance, being responsible for the actions of the deputy clerk." As now drafted, the provisions of Ordinance No. 20 apply only to the City Council. It is recommended that Ordinance No. 20 be expanded to include all commissions and subdivisions of the City Council. Mr. Heath moved to recommend these changes to Ordinance No. 20, as outlined above, to the Council. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Page 8_ Planning and Zoning July 18, 1979 Mr. Kenneth Skoglund was present to discuss the situation with the location of his garage. Mr. Mobley had been requested to attend this meeting or to submit a written report, but this had not been done. The Clerk is requested to contact Mr. Mobley and obtain a report on Mr. Skoglund's property so that it can be dealt with at the August 8 special meeting. Mr. Heath moved to adjourn at 11:50 p.m. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The planner and engineer will be attending the August 8 special meeting.