08/07/1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

August 7, 1979 287 that would fall into this categor, and this was further discussed. Mr. McLean felt the intent of this section had been to encourage activity on those zoned or special use permit properties as opposed to having nothing happen on them for many years. Mr. Locher noted that outlot G was subsequently rezoned in 1973 from R -5 to R -1 to allow for singel family residence. Notice of the public hearing appeared in the Forest Lake Times and was for the purpose of rezoning out - ots C and I, Lakes Addition II from agricultural to R -1, as well as rezoning outlots G from R -5 to R -1; it stated that ny special use permits granted to allow construction of townhouses on outlot G were thereby withdrawn. These outlots were then rezoned as of March 13, 1973. Mr. Zelinka commented that the public notice specifically addressed the fact that the special use permits also had been withdrawn; which would indicate that the Council at that time felt they were still in force, and by implication that any place else under a special use permit was not being withdrawn. Mr. Locher reviewed the backgrould history of the proposed developments in this area. which indicated that there had been townhouses platted and ser- iously considered. A public hearing had been held on Chomonix South (1971 R -5 zoning, 68 townhouse units on outlotK), but nothing had ever developed. Chomonix East was also platter but never completed. Several Council minutes, planner's letters, and records were consulted. The last time townhouse developments had been considered before the Council was on June 23, 1975. In answer to Mayor Karth's question about the Lake Drive area, Mr. Locher answered that it had been zoned initially in Ordinance No. 6 in 1955; Ordinance No. 6 was the base point in establishing all zoning in the City. There wa a zoning map with Ordinance NO. 56, but that had never been adopted, so that sections in Ordinance No. 6 had to be referred back to in those cases, as it had never been changed. Ordinance No.6 had had only two specific zonings; commercial and residential, which allowed 2 -4 family dwellings. Ordinance No. 56 was much more sophisticated in its zonings. Special use permits under Ordinance No. 6 had no special or dinal limitations except that the Council could attach conditions if desired; it did not specifically state whether special use permits went with the land or the individual. Mayor Karth pointed out that at this point the Council did not know how many properties would be affected under Section 6.21, and that the properties already mentioned had been bought and sold several times as commercial property, which they no longer would be if 6.21 was enforced; this should be a consideration. Sun Oil, Gulf Oil, and Feedrite were mentioned as cases in point. Mr. Zelinka felt that if the Council took the position of enforcing 6.21 uniformly, that it would be necessary to notify those affected. He felt that these people have been given advice to the contrary, and in- quired as to how an outsider would have been aware of this type of situation. Mr. Locher said the law assumes everyone is aware of these things and that publication in the newspapers is sufficient notice to the public. Mr. McLean asked how the City stood from a liability standpoint; Mr. Locher said there was no obligation; that the ordinances were available and notice on Ordinance No 56 had been published and a public hearing held. There was a question raised as to the situation when a buyer comes in three years after the publication and was told by the seller that the property was commercial; it was pointed out that attorneys are hired, and it is their responsibility, but that when or if they checked with the City Hall, what answer would they have gotten? It was felt taht for the future, the Ordiannces should be codified, and also that special use permits should be limited i:t individuals and not run with the alnd. Mr. Zelinka said that