03/15/1972 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 3/15/72 was read. He indicated 5 recommendations: 1. Direction of the surface water flow off the site should be shown. 2. Direction of Street surface grade. 3. North 24 unit building should be set back at least 60 ft. from the Highway property line as to allow for a possible future frontage road and the passage of utility improvements or fire fighting equipment. 4. Site investigation report and sewage system design are complete, but approval of the system by the Anoka County Health Dept. is necessary, 5. The final plan must have the approval of the Highway Dept. Mr. Van Housen's letter, received March 14, 1972, had 4 recommendations: 1. A letter from the Highway Dept. with access permit was needed. 2. Approval from the Village Engineer and Anoka Co. Health Dept's. must be bad. 3. Section 5.03 -A4 - Landscaping has not been complied with, 4. Section 5.03-81 - Certification has not been complied with by to the development is poor, unworkable and a traffic hazard as a congestion problem will surely develop. He also felt it is not the highest and best use for this land. He recommended Denial. There was discussion as to how much of this acreage should be included in the rezoning. Mr. Tagg wanted it all rezoned so he could put up a sign in the far northeast corner. It was figured this sign would be about 475 feet off the freeway. The State code doeai't allow for spot zoning and we are trying to get away from it, Mr. Tagg stated he plans to use the south 40 acres for recreational purposes, such as snow mobile trails, etc. He would like to erect two sign. One would be in the vicinity of the motel situated to attract attention of cars going north. He would like to have it 85 feet, but our code stipulates 65 feet. The one in the northeast corner would face the north to attract southbound traffic, Mr, Shearen moved to recommend approval of Mr. Tagg's application for rezoning with adherence to the recommendations stipulated by both the engineer and planner, and that it be restricted to limited commercial use for the motel and restaurant only. Seconded by Mr. Karth. Carried unanimously, Ken Rehbein's office building plans were reviewed. W. Hutchinson of the Anoka County Health Dept. submitted a letter dated March 13, 1972, with several suggestions for additional information or changes. Mr. Van Housents letter of Feb. 22, 1972, outlined a number of recommendations: 1. Section 5.0344 - Landscape Plan is not provided. 2. Section 6.14A - Limited Business District requires special screening. 3. Sewage Disposal System should be verified. 4. Two points of ingress - egress at Highway requires a permit from the State Highway Dept, 5. Section 7.03D) - As drawn lot is not blacktopped. His recommendation was to resubmit with revised plans and required approvals. Mr, Kurth, who was resenting W. Rehbein, indicated they will meet with the neighbors and put up whatever type screening they agree to. The long point of land on the south end will not be planted because it is drainfield, this will be sodded. A homeowner, Mr, Torp, had questions concerning the 20 foot utility easement and set back. He indicated he and another neighbor felt they would prefer tree screening as it would be of better value to the homeowner. At any rate, they would want a guaranteed maintained screening. Mr, Karth moved to recommend acceptance of the plans as laid out with the compliance of stipulations set forth by the engineer, planner and Health Dept., and with a screening agreement to be carried out within 90 days with the ad-