06/20/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 4 • Planning and Zoning, June 20, 1979 Mr. Tim Rehbein brought up a feasibility matter for construction of three duplexes in Carroll Estates; two on 77th Street and one on Carroll Drive. The land would need to be rezoned to R-2. The existing development across the street is duplexes. The building department would have to determine whether the lots perk out to support two systems. These duplexes would be split side to side; Mr. Rehbein was interested as to whether the duplexes, and the lots as well, could be split and sold separately. This was not possible, as the lots were at about one acre already, and the policy in a non-sewered area is one acre. The title would probably have to be joint tenancy on the land although the duplexes could be sold separately. Vi Schwankl brought up that a similar situation had occurred on Fourth Avenue. The Commission would like the clerk to mail a copy of this to the planner and indicate to the planner that lots 4 and 5 in block 1 and lot 8 in block 2 are under consideration; and request him to review this in a general sense, not res- tricting himself to how it would affect just this area, but how it might affect future plats in the village. The same request should be presented to the attorney. Mr. Bloom presented a preliminary plat for consideration. The planner and engineer had not had time to submit recommendations to the Commission, but the proposal was discussed in a general sense and would be considered again at the next meeting. Mr. Bloom's father-in-law, Mr. Glenn W. Erickson, will represent him then. The area is approximately 12 acres, at present pasture land, to be subdivided into 7 residential building sites, each lot running 1-12 acres. The Commission pointed out that there is a minimum buildable land area requirement as far as the ponds were concerned. Mr. Bloom inquired as to the situation with the city as far as building roads were concerned. The Commission indicated that this would be nego- tiable with the Council and that several different things have been done in the past. The Clerk was requested to contact the engineer and have him address the lots with ponds on them as to whether they were buildable under the ordinance in respect to minimum buildable land area requirements. The planner should also be contacted and requested to comment on the relationship between this development with the adjoining property owners. An easement may be required as future land develop- ment is possible on the land north of this. The Park Dedication was also discussed; Mr. Bloom would prefer to give cash in lieu of land. The Clerk is asked to forward this to the Park Board. Mr. Gourley brought to the attention of the Commission the situation with Richard Klenck. The Commission had approved a special use permit for Mr. Klenck to park his trucks in November of 1978. However, the Council mistakenly issued a permit to build a pole barn. Since that time there have been a number of complaints concerning his operations. He has a permit from the DNR to build a pond and a canal across a thousand feet of wetland. The problem comes in with the fill. There were several letters from the DNR, Department of the Interior, and the Pollution Control Agency pertaining to the fill, and dating back to January, 1979. Mr. Klenck has apparently violated federal laws in reference to his unauthorized fill, in the wetlands adjacent to Otter Lake. He will apparently have to remove the fill and restore the area to its original character; he may also have to remove the barn. Don Volk had also indicated that the operation of the trucks was severely damaging Roiling Hill Drive; he had been asked to put this in writing, but had not yet done so. Mr. Gourley suggested that in view of the misrepresentations made to the Commission and the continuing problems concerned with the operation that the Commission reverse its previous recommendation of approval of the permit to park the trucks; particularly in view of the damage to the roads. Apparently Mr. Klenck is not parking them empty but hauling them in full and affecting the road. The problem with the unauthorized fill is not the responsibility of the Commission, but a matter for the Department of the Interior. The special use permit for the pole barn was completely in error and meaningless, as it was not required anyway; however,