06/27/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

June 27, 1979 The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:08 p.m. by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Vi Schwankl, Jerome Heath, Bob Doocey, Vernon Reinert, Larry Johnson, and Council liaison John McLean. Members absent: Jim Shearen. The first item on the agenda was a rezone application for the Baldwin Lake Trailer Court expansion. Mr. Magnuson was present. There were also some other matters discussed pertaining to the proposed expansion. Copies of a letter from Mr. Gotwald dated June 26 and in reference to the fire hydrants were available. Copies of a letter from Mr. Short, dated June 4, were also available. The letter covered four items pertaining to the Trailer Court expansion that hadpreviously been missed: (1) There was a 28 -foot wide street in some areas. The requirement by ordinance was for 30 -foot wide streets. (2) Sidewalks --there was some question as to whether sidewalks were required; under Ordinance No. 56, applicable here, they were not. However, the owner had decided to include sidewalks. (3) Minimum lot width under Ordinance No. 56 was 60 feet. There were 8 lots only 50 net in width. (4) Ord- inance No. 56 required that fire hydrants be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. A memo from Mrs. Anderson was read to the effect that the Fire Marshall had no information on fire hydrants, but that state requirements would have to be complied with. Mr. Gotwald's letter also indicated that the State Board of Health would have guidelines covering this; Mr. Gotwald would be repre- senting the city at that time to see they were met. Revised drawings (revised 6-11) had been submitted and the street width problem had been corrected, and sidewalks had been included. There was some discussion as to the situation with granting a variance for the 50 -foot width on the 8 lots to the north of the plat. The 8 lots measured 50 feet by 120 feet; there was room for a 10 -foot setback, a 14 -foot trailer home, and 36 feet between homes here. The lots conformed in this respect, but not to the 60 -foot width requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed some reluctance to grant a variance as there was no hardship, and a variance had already been granted for the angling of the trailers. Mr. Reinert felt the Commission shoud not discuss this in advance of the actual application being made, as this constituted preirential treatment. In view of the time delay involved in applying for a variance, the developers will revise the drawings to include 6 60 -foot wide lots instead of the 8 50 -foot lots. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of the drawings, pending the further re- vision of the drawings to indicate the width of the lots changed from 50 to 60 -feet. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. There will need to be approximately seven of these revised drawings. The application for a rezone on lots intended for the expansion of the mobile home park was considered. This would be a rezone from commercial to R-6. The necessity for a rezone had been brought to the attention of the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city attorney in his letter dated June 14. He had pointed out in that letter that the zoning under Ordinance No. 6 as it existed had allowed for mobile homes in a commercial zone, but under Ordinance No. 56, which superseded Ordinance No. 6, mobile homes were no longer considered a commercial usage but required a separate zoning of R-6. Since the land had never been used as allowed for under Ordinance No. 6, it lost that classification and became subject to the new classification under Ordinance No. 56 when that came into effect. In reference to the present ability of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Consider rezones, Mr. Reinert brought up a motion made by Mr. McLean and approved by the Council on May 16, the possible intent of which was to declare a moratorium on any consideration of rezoning until the Comprehensive Plan was completed. A quote of the motion in question was