Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1983 P&Z MinutesJanuary 12, 1983 Planning and Zoning Board The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by Mr. Prokop, Chairman on Wednesday, January 12, 1983 at 7:31 p.m. Members present: Goldade, Ostlie, Klaus, Prokop, Doocy. Members absent: McLean, Johnson. Mr. Kluegel was also present. INTRODUCTION OF CHAIRMAN AND NEW MEMBER Mr. Prokop referred to the Special Council meeting on January 3, 1983 where the Council appointments were approved. Mr. Richard Juleen has asked not to be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Board and Mr. Wendell Ostlie was appointed to a three year term. Mr. Goldade was reappointed. Mr. Prokop was asked by Mayor Benson to be the Chairman for 1983. MINUTES - December 8, 1982.. Mrs. Klaus noted on page three under the moving permit for Mr. Henry Miers, should read, "that since the agenda was short, Mr. Johnson gave his consent Mr. Miers appear tonight. Mr. Doocy moved to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1982 Planning and Board meeting as revised. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion declared VARIANCE - Leroux third line to have Zoning passed. Mr. Bartholdi appeared in behalf of Mr. Leroux who was also in the audience. Mr. Bartholdi gave some background on Mr. Leroux's land transactions. In 1977 Mr. Leroux entered into two contracts for deeds with Mr. Peter Scherer who owned the 40 acre tract of which the two parcels were part. The reason that Mr. Leroux is applying for the variance is that the two contracts are now paid off and now it is time for Mr. Scherer to give Mr. Leroux a warrantee deed for the parcels. However, the contracts for deed were never recorded at the County and the warantee deeds cannot be recorded now be- cause of the moratorum. Mr. Bartholdi displayed a survey map indicating by color the two parcels of land for which the variance is requested. Parcel #1 is in green and parcel #2 is yellow. Mr. Bartholdi explained the brownish color section is the parcel Mr. Leroux purchased by warantee deed and which is now his homestead. The deed is recorded. At that time Mr. Leroux received from Mr. Schererby contract for deed a parcel shown in yellow. Mr. Leroux received a building permit to build his home and his pole building. In 1979 Mr. Lecher who was representing the property owner to the southeast of this parcel, Mr. Jankus, approached Mr. Leroux and outlined an exchange of property shown in red for another parcel which Mr. Bartholdi outlined with his finger. Mr. Leroux did make the exchange and the deeds were drawn up and recorded showing the easements. This land is owned in fee simple by Mr. Scherer but is under contract for deed to Mr. Leroux.and the contract is now paid. Mr. Bartholdi continued by stating that in approximately 1980 the City came to Mr. Leroux and asked him to acquire an additional 60' adjacent to his homestead. The reason for this was that an access into parcel #2 was needed. Mr. Leroux asked Mr. Scherer for the additional 60' and Mr. Scherer agreed but asked Mr. Leroux to pur- chase the balance of the parcel between the homestead and parcel #2. This was also • by contract for deed and this contract was not recorded. This contract is now paid. Mr. Bartholdi said the reason they are asking for the variance is not so much as sub- dividing but combining parcel of land into two parcels of land and to clear up access problems. He indicated each combination. Mr. Bartholdi said he had talked to the Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 1983 Page -2- 0 City Attorney, Bill Hawkins and he said Mr. Hawkins indicated that since these transfers actually took place prior to the subdivision moritorum, that the City is really obligated at this time to allow this particular recording to take place. Therefore, the request is that the City allow Mr. Leroux to make the transfer and create parcels #1 and #2. • Mr. Ellison who owns the lot that the easements are on to the southeast of Mr. Leroux's property explained he purchased his lot in 1979 and the problem he had to obtain proper road frontage. and how the matter of the easement came to be. Mr. Doocy asked Mr. Ellison where the easement actually is located and Mr. Ellison explained where he felt it was located. However, Mr. Bartholdi explained the recorded easements do not appear to be located as Mr. Ellison believes. The reason being the moratorum prevented the parties from changing the location of the easements. Mr. Doocy noted that the current Section Map compiled by the County does not show any easements. Mr. Bartholdi explained that a Section Map is merely a compulation of all kinds of things the County recieves and is not necessarily the status of the legal title that exists at the present time. He explained that at the present time the ease- ment that exists there is what is shown on Mr. Leroux's Certificate of Survey and is of record and is recorded with the County recorder. The description that Mr. Ellison has is a Certificate of Survey drawn up by Milner W. Carley following conversations with all the parties stating that this is how all the parties would like the easements to be but was never recorded because of the moratorum. Mr. Bartholdi said the orginal easement was recorded on March 8, 1979. The easements are a part of Mr. Ellison's legal description. Mrs. Anderson said she had checked with the County and was told the easements were not recorded. Mr. Prokop felt that until the question of whether the easements are recorded or not is resolved, the question of the easements should be tabled. Mr. Prokop asked what is the difference in terms of ownership of easements as opposed to property. Mr. Bartholdi explained normally the easement.46d'the underlying property is owned ,by someone else, the history of this particular easement is as follows: Mr. Scherer owned the full 40 acre tract. He indicated on the map the property Mr. Scherer conveyed to Mr. Leroux by contract for deed. When Mr. Scherer conveyed title of the property to Mr. Ellison's predecessor it was conveyed subject to certain easements. Mr. Scherer is actually the underlying owner of the easements because he was unable to record the conveyance to Mr. Leroux. The contracts for deed to Mr. Leroux for the easements are paid. Mr. Ellison then does not have any ownership or title to the easements since his description states his property is subject to these easements. Mr. Bartholdi explained that the underlying owner is the person who actually owns the land, one person can own the land and another person can have the right to drive over that land. Mr. Doocy noted that on July, 1980 Mr. Leroux requested a variance for the property shown in green on the certificate of survey, the homestead, and the Council did grant the var- iance. This too was never recorded. Mr. Doocy said the problem as he sees it is that Mr. Scherer cannot give Mr. Leroux a warrantee deed because of the moratorum, Ordinance #85. It was explained the County will not record a transfer of title unless the document has the City Stamp of Approval showing the City approves of the transfer. Mr. Prokop felt that since Mr. Leroux had started his transaction prior to the moratorum this is a continuing action. Mr. Leroux has paid for the land and is now entitled to a recorded deed. Pending some proof that Mr. Leroux has paid for the property, he felt a motion was in order. Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 1983 Page -3- . Mr. Ostlie moved to recommend to Council that a variance to Ordinance #85 be granted to Mr. Leroux combining parcels per the legal description on a Certificate of Survey dated December 21, 1982 and to eliminate any reference to Planning and Zoning Board approval of the easements as shown on this Certificate of Survey contigent to advice by the City legal council that deeds and other legal descriptions are in order. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. Mr. Prokop noted that Mr. Leroux had been before the Planning and Zoning B oard previously with several different proposals as to how the land could be subdivided. He asked Mr. Leroux if he still was considering these plans. Mr. Leroux said he is no longer interested in subdividing his property but selling it as one piece and retire to another warmer part of the country. Mr. Jefferson, who was in the audience, is interested in purchasing parcel #2 and dividing it into two lots. The purpose of the two lots would be single family dwellings. He recognizes that there are some problems with this subdivision especially proper lot frontages. Mr. Leroux was told this will before the Council on January 24, 1983 for final action. VARIANCE - Stafki Mr. Stafki has requested a variance to Ordinance #85 to divide a lot he owns in the Lexington Park Lakeview Addition. He explained that he had planned to do this about two years ago but he was injured on the job and he could not purse this further until now. Mr. Prokop was told that area is designated Urban Residental on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which indicates the area is planned for municipal sewer within the next five years. Mr. Doocy noted that in the past years this kind of lot split was granted routinely. Mr. Prokop asked Mr. Kluegel if he felt that tract B on Mr. Stafki's certificate of survey would be a buildable lot and be able to contain an on -site septic system. Mr. Kluegel said yes. Mr. Goldade said the proposed new Ordinance will require that a lot be at least one acre to he a buildable lot. There was discussion on this and the concesses was that although this lot is less than one acre it is buildable and will not require another variance before a building permit is issued. Mr. Doocy moved to recommend to Council that a variance to Ordinance #85 be granted to Mr. Stafki to divide into two lots lot 20, Block 5, Lexington Park Lakeview as shown on the Certificate of Survey dated September 30,1980. The reason for granting this variance is that it conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Goldade seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. Mr. Stafki was told the Council will give its decision on this request on January 24, 1983. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Kluegel presented a letter to the Board dealing with the Shoreland Management Act. This letter states the City must prepare a Shoreland Management Ordinance by December 1, • 1983. Mr. Goldade asked if the Board will be given a sample ordinance to work with. He felt maybe the task force should deal with this item. Mrs. Klaus noted that in the Council minutes of December 28, 1982 the third page, third to last paragraph dealing with Revenue Mortgage Bonds the paragraph states the Administrator • M Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 1983 Page -4- will present this information to the Planning and Zoning Board. She wondered when this will be done. Mrs. Anderson told the Board the application for the Revenue Bonds had been submitted and she felt if the Citys application was approved Mr. Schumacher would bring the matter before the Board. Vice Chairman Mr. Goldade moved to retain Mr. McLean as Vice Chairman. Mr. Prokop noted that Mr. McLean was not present. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Doocy felt the Vice Chairman will have to be strong with plenty of background experience because of the items that will be coming before the board such as the new ordinance and zoning maps. It was decided to table this matter until a full Board was present to consider the matter. Mr. Prokop asked to step down as Chairman so that he could offer a few remarks regarding the Leroux property. He explained the current status of the area to the south and the east of Mr. Leroux's property and what is some of the background regarding Mr. Leroux's previous subdivision plans. He also noted that there is some thoughts about designating this area something other than Rural on the Comprehensive Land Use Map. He felt even Metropolitan Council thought this area should not be designated Rural. Mr. Doocy moved to adjourn at 9:01 p.m. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Aye. • •