Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1979 P&Z MinutesOctober 17, 1979 6.L The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:04 p.m., October 17, 1979 by Chairman Ken Gourley. Members present: Bob Doocey, James Shearen, Vi Schwankl, and Council liaison John McLean. Vernon Reinert and Jerome Heath arrived late. Members absent: Lawrence Johnson. The minutes of the August 15, September 5, and September 26 meetings were held over as there were not enough members present: to approve these. Mr. Shearen moved to approve the minutes of the September 19 meeting. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The September 5 minutes should be corrected to show that Vi Schwankl was not present at that meeting. Mr. Gourley briefly reported on the Council action with respect to the three items of business from the last special meeting. The Council had approved a variance for Mrs. Hegstrom to vary the requirement for frontage; they had approved the variance for a long driveway; and had concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation with respect to Mr. Burgerman's request for narrower streets. A variance request for along driveway (550 feet) for Mr. Blake Rivard, present, had been added to the agenda. The property was a 5 -acre parcel on Lake Drive, and the driveway would cross the 300 -ft commercial zone to the residential behind it, where the house was located. The building permit was pending action on this variance request. Mr. Gourley indicated he felt there might be some problem with allowing the house to be built in this manner, considering the commercial zone, particularly if the property were respliD He indicated the Council had just taken a position not to allow R-1 uses in a commercial zone. Mr. McLean felt this should have no effect, but indicated to Mr. Rivard that if he wanted to split off 22 acres in the front for a commercial venture, he would have no frontage for his house. Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Rivard if he understood that he would conceivably be fronted by a lot of commercial activity some day, and noted that commercial development created some problem with residential development71 Mr. Rivard said he understood the situation. Mr. Gourley indicated that in the case of long drive- ways the city would not accept responsibility or liability for the length of the drive- way; it would be the owner's responsibility to maintain it in a manner that would permit emergency vehicles to get to the residence, for example, fire trucks, as quite possibly they did not have 550 feet of hose. Secondly, the owner would not be able to split off parcels along the driveway. Vi Schwankl moved to recommend to the Council to grant Mr. Rivard a variance for the long driveway on the property as described on the application,.. subject to the conditions mentioned by Mr. Gourley. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion.-- All otion."`All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Rivard was told the matter would be on the Council agenda for the October 22 meeting, and that he should be present. Mr. Rivard asked if he would be able to build commercially along the front, and Mr. McLean replied that in that event, he couldn't sell the house as a separate piece because it wouldn't have a legal frontage, although, as Mr. Gourley noted, he would be able to develop a commercial concern for himself. Mr. Heath indicated that the city was considering drop- ping the commercial zone in areas that had developed residential. The next item on the agenda was a request for a special use permit to operate a business from a residence by Mr. Richard Klenck. Mr. Klenck indicated he ran a contract hauling business from that address, but the only operation he did was parking two dump trucks, which came in empty and left empty, in the pole barn overnight. Mr. Reinert noted there seemed to be a lot of confusion and actions taken without permits; Mr. Klenck said the basic problem was the swampland, but that he had been issued permits by Rice Creek Water- shed, the ArmCore of Engineers, and the DNR. He indicated he had been trying for over a year to get the permit for the pole barn, which he had already built. He had also applied for a variance to operate vehicles over 9,000 pounds and had gotten his neighbors' signatures for this, but now apparently needed a special use permit to operate a business out of a residence. '1r. Reinert felt that although Mr. Klenck had come in good faith to try to straighten it out, it appeared the Board should instruct someone in city Page 2 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 employment, particularly the building inspector, to get all of it straightened out and bring it back to the Board in an orderly manner, so the Board knew where it stood in the matter: Mr. McLean felt Mr. Mobley should be instructed to deal with the building and the land use permit, since there were supporting permits, to clear that record. The Council minutes dated July 23, and the Planning CommW9D minutes dated July 9 and June 20 were read; the P & Z had approved a specialOor Mr. Klenck to park his trucks in November of 1978i however, the Council had mistakenly issued a permit to build a pole barn. There was a note from the Clerk dated Octcber 10, 1979, that the permit for the building had never been issued, and also that the permit from the DNR had never bin issued either; however, Mr. Klenck indicated he had the DNR permit as of last year.{ Mr. McLean noted this Board had denied the permit to run vehicles over 9,000 poun�'scon the city street, and the Council had not taken any action on the special use permit, as no further action was necessary. He asked Mr. Klenck if it was a fact that the business directly implied operating 9,000 pound vehicles over the same roads. Mr. Klenck indicated these vehicles were no different than a cement truck or school bus; that they came in empty and went out empty; that the street past him was in just as bad a condition as the one he used; and that he was here in good faith trying to get what- ever he needed passed to keep doing what he had been doing for the last 7 years, Mr. Shearen asked what the road limit was on that road, and Mr. McLean indicated it -was very minimal and had never been brought up to city code. Mr. Clenck indicated the trucks wieghed 18,000 pounds total, divided by three for the axles. Mr. McLean noted the code on trucks was not a three -ton axle, but 9,000 pounds gross wieght. Mr. Klenck said that in comparison, his neighbor had a mobile home with only two axles, but because this was considered recreational, it was not considered, but damaged the road as much as his trucks would. Mr. Shearen asked if the signatures represented the majority of the adjoining property owners, and Mr. Klenck indicated he had all but one, and Pointed these out on the map.; Mr. Shearen moved to recommend to the Council they approve the special use permit for Mr. Klenck to park two vehicles on his property, not parked in there loaded, and that he be allowed to operate a business from a residential address, and that the permit be issued on an annual review basis. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor with the exception of Mr. Heath who voted no. The motion was declared passed. Mr. McLean noted the date of review for special use permits was July 1. In reference to the building Mr. Klenck will speak to Mr. Mobley again, and if there is no response, will contact Mr. McLean in order to get the situation cleared up. Mr. Heath asked if in the future the Board could ask the Council to change the ordinance in respect to special use permits, to not allow the use to go with the land; however, Mr. Shearen indicated he thought this was state lair. -1 The next item on the agenda was discussion of a variance for Tim Rehbein for 7851 Knoll Drive, the problem being that because of an error, the house setback on the south side was about 8'6" rather than the 10 ft. required. Mr. Rehbein said this was for discussion only, and if the Board were favorable, he would go ahead with a certificate of survey. As a matter of information;Mr. McLean asked whether he was supplying a plot plan on these showing the building n the surveyed lot before the building permit was gotten; Mr. Rehbein indicated they did, but that their own drawings were used, Mr. McLean indicated the city had little sympathy for the builder in these situations; however, Mr. Rehbein thought that the end result in this case was not as serious as in some other recent cases, because it was a corner lot with good access from the garage side from the street. Mr. Gourley indicated the Board's position on Lyndal Nelson's request for a variance for a similar situation,and also in the one before that, was that they didn't want to grant variances to compensate for mistakes that were the fault of the developer; they would, however, grant a variance for the transfer of land and moving lot lines. He noted that if the Board started varying the setbacks, they would be forced to draw lines at some point as to where they would stop --5 ft., 4 ft., 3 ft., etc. Mr. Shearen asked if it would be a problem in this case to transfer land from the adjoining -.landowner, and Mr. Page 3 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 Rehbein indicated he had not contacted them yet. Mr. Gourley noted that Mr. Rehbein had had this problem once before this year, and Mr. Rehbein indicated there had been no argument on his part with that, and the problem had been resolved; however, in this case, as far as safety factors, the adjoining house was 33 feet from the lot line and the house in question was 8'6" in from the line, so there should be no problem. Mr. Shearen felt the Board was more concerned with precedents --if they granted this one, where would they stop? Mr. Heath added that the neighbor was entitled to build un to 10 ft. from the lot line, and it wasn't feasible to tell him he couldn't do so. Mr. Rehbein asked about the situation; where the neighbor is not willing to sell a foot and a half of property, the Barad indicated that was the case with Mr. Nelson's house, and he was currently in suit, and was working with his title company and his lender and developer, Tim Rehbein had another matter for discussion concerning one of the,two' lots recently rezoned R-2, on which_ he proposed to build a duplex (side-by-side), one side to be rented privately and the other to be used by himself, the upper level for model home purposes and the lower as an office. He intended to park vehicles outside, and the garage would beused as shop space:"Part,of the lot, about 70 feet, was within the 300 -ft. commercial zone along Lake Drive. This was just north of 77th street and just east of Lino Auto Body; the duplex right across the street was used in a similar manner some years ago, and didn't create a problem. There was some concern as to the property reverting to a simple duplex after Mr. Rehbein moved out, and he indicated this was his intention. It was felt this could be made a condition, so that somebody buying it for the same purposes would have to go through the same process of applying for a permit. Mr. McLean felt there should be some screening provision for the neighborhood; however, it was felt this probably would not be necessary in view of the fact that the body shop was on one side and Swan Frozen Food across the street. Mr. McLean asked what specifically Mr. Rehbein meant by the "shop" in the garage. He indicated this was an attached garage in which they would be storing various lumber, light items like nails, and would be doing light mechanic work for vehicles, no different than an individual would. There would be four trucks parked outside, the heaviest a one -ton truck. It would not technically be a shop, as they would have the model home upstairs. Mr. Gourley noted he might check with the building inspector as to parking requirements, as he thought it would require a larger driveway than normal, to accomodate people stopping by,so the wouldn't park in the street. Mr. Rehbein was told he would need the signatures of fRe adjoining property owners as well as the application:? The next item on the agenda was Golden's Rice Lake lot; however, Mr. Berget was not present. The next item on the agenda was a rezone for Land and Oaks, Inc., which had been on the agenda at the last meeting, but nothing had been done. The representative present indi- cated he hadn't realized they were on that agenda, They were requesting a rezoning on the property to light industrial, although they would also consider a general business category. He asked if industrial zoning included commercial zones as well, and was told they were different classifications. The developer indicated they were basically sellers of land, and although they did build some buildings, and also bought from other contract- ers to sell along with the land' He indicated they basically wanted to use the frontage of the County Road and Main Street,and split the land up into a 16 -acre piece and two l0 -acre pieces so everything would have over 330 -ft. frontages. Also, they had thought about coming through the center with a road and putting lots off that. They had hired Midnight Drilling to perk the property and had gone over the results with Mr. Mobley[ He indicated that they were flexible at this point, and had more than one type of ten- ant or owner in mind; they basically wanted to know what the Board's position was. Mr. McLean asked if they planned on splitting the property up into an industrial park, or cid they want blanket zoning in the hopes that something might happen? He indicated Page 4 • Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 that the Acton property, an industrial park, was just south of this area, and Mr. Heath noted a lot of the area had been zoned industrial and commercial, but not this particu- lar piece. Mr. Gourley pointed out a number of items; first, the property fit the Compre- hensive Plan guidelines for the area, secondly, that the P & Z would want to see a com- plete layout as to how the developer intended to divide it before it was rezoned; and thirdly, there was a provision in the ordinance that stipulated that construction would have to begin within one year or the zoning would revert back to its prior use:`' The developer asked if all the parcels would have to be built by then, and was tad' not if if was zoned as a complete parcel, and so long as there was some substantial progress within one year. The developer indicated a Baptist Curch was considering the property although this didn't qualify as a commercial or industrial use. Mr. McLean said this would be a public use, but it was indicated they would like to see an industrial or commercial use there, and there would be no major problem with the rezoning. The deve- loper asked if he went to 5 and 10 acre parcels, would he have to go through a subdivi- sion process; Mr. McLean explained the procedures used by Acton in their industrial park. The developer indicated they had considered 4 lots with two double driveways, and he had spoken to the County Highway Department about this; they had also considered 6 lots, but felt this was too small. He discussed some prospective tenants, and also the sewer situation at Bald Eagle-Tndustrial Park. He did not feel the lack of sewer would cause a problem, and realized there was no possibility of its coming in. Mr. Gourley indicated the Board was in favor of the rezoning, but would like to see a pack- age type plan. He indicated they should requst a specific zoning, and that the attorney could give them some guidance on whether they wanted to go with a general business or light industrial use. Mr. McLean personally felt commercial would be more appropriate, and Mr. Heath asked if it would be possible to zone partly industrial and partly com- mercial within one zoning; it was indicated this would be possible. The developer felt they could convert the request to general business and plat 4 lot sof varyin sizes. Mr. Reinert expressed the opinion that at this time the Board really didTFr`t know what the developer wanted, and wouldn't be able to act on it until they brought in a proposal. The developer indicated that if they stayed with the industrial zoning, the plan would be 3 lots (two 10 -acre and one 16 -acre) on the County Road, and it was his understanding they would not need a plat along with that, and asked for a recommendation to the Council on that proposal-:\ Mr. Reinert felt there was nothing to work with at this point, until the Board saw a complete plan. He indicated that industrial parks generally set a standard lot size throughout, and set the roads up, and then if an indus- try or business came in and needed more space, they combined lots, whatever was necessary. He foresaw a problem with the 10- and 16 -acre lots, because they would probably be coming in to divide that later on " For the benefit of the developer, Mr. McLean reviewed in detail the procedure they gh ould follow in making his submission to the Board. The developer indicated he would like to submit his plan to the consultants before the next meeting, and was told this should be done two weeks in advance; also, he should submit the plan to Hugo as the property was on the county line.: The city would notify all prop- erty owners within 350 feet. Mr. Shearen moved to table the matter. Mr. Heath seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. It was noted the Board was in favor of a development of this kind. Next on the agenda was a request by Mr. and Mrs. Blain for variance to transfer less than 22 acres to provide frontage for tract B. Mr. Ellison, the buyer, and owner of tract B, was present. The land in question was 80 feet on the culdesac. Mr. Blain owned the house on tract A. Mr. Gotwald had put together this plan, which would still main tain frontage for the Blains, and give Mr. Ellison enough frontage for his lot as well. Mr. McLean indicated the culdesac had been reinstated at the last Council meeting in order to maintain the frontage. Mr. Gourley indicated a long driveway variance would be needed as well; however, Mr. Ellison said Mr. Gotwald had measured it, and found it was not necessary. Mr. Heath moved to recommend that this variance application be passed, con- tingent upon the sale. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion de- clared passed. .Page 5 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 Next on the agenda was the resubmission of Mr. Menkveld's Forest Glen plat. There were copies of a letter from Mr. Short dated October 15, which Mr. Doocey read, and Mr. Gourley said Mr. Short wished the Planning Commission to understand that in writing this letter he was reviewing the plat not necessarily as it had been reviewed before, but more in light of the things that had been discussed along with the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gourley asked if Mr. Menkveld had addressed himself to the items in Mr. Short's previous letter; Mr. Menkveld indicated the final plat had been approved, but not filed or signed, and not contingent on any conditions. The money had not been paid yet for the park dedication, which` had been set at $8,800; Mr. McLean indicated it was now at an acre. The street alignment with Sunset Oaks was dis- cussed and there was som 'rnausion as to what Mr. Short was referring to. There was one street that intersected with an existing street, and their outlots tied in with outlots A and B, but there were no other existing streets from Sunset Oaks connecting with the property:", There was a 30 -ft. easement along these outlots, and along the Sunset Oaks outlots, so -that eventually a street could be developed. Mr. Menkveld was asked what the proposed use of outlots A and B were; he said they would be sold to the adja- cent people for more acreage, because thetopography did nb allow them to be buildable. If the city needed them for ponding easement, they would be -deeded to the city with the streets. He indicated Rice Creek Watershed had been involved in this, and approved it at one time, but had not requested any precise area for ponding --the runoff did not go into any watershed, but collected in the natural low areas. Mr. Gourley read the parts of Mr. Gotwald's letter dealing with drainage, but he had made no reference to outlot A. Apparently the water was intended to drain between A and B. Mr. Gourley wondered if A couldn't be a platted lot rather than an outlot, and Mr. Reinert felt that as an outlot it would allow free movement of the water, and if so, you wouldn't want a private indi- vidual owning it:- Mr. Shearen noted there was a 2 -foot drop in elevation from outlot A to B. Mr. Gourmley said he would like the engineer to make a determination as to accepting that outlot or if it could be developed into lots. There seemed to be less buildable property on Lot 8 than on outlot A. He noted Mr. Gotwald's letter did say the back end of lot 8, block 6, should be reserved as a drainage easement, but outlot A was not addressed. Mr. Menkveld suggested part of this could be a drainage easement, and the rest lot 9., Mr. Gourley suggested lots 1 and 8 be extended. In reference to resubdividing, Mr.-Menkveld felt it would be possible with the exception of block 6, which wouldn't split well because of the low land. Mr. Menkveld felt the only thing that could be done was to recommend to the buyer that it was to his advantage to put the house to one side; he felt that it only could be suggested, but not enforced. The planner's letter from 1977 referred to a park dedication of 8 acres of land rather than money, which was discussed, and will be sent on to the Park Boarr Also, the letter referred to lot 1, block 6, as less than one acre; however, this had Been taken care of. Also, it noted the 30 -ft. road and utility easement was not shown on the plat, but Mr. Locher had for some reason wanted it on the deeds rather than on the plat. Mr. Gourley felt it should be shown on the plat rather than the deed, because if one man wanted to sell and another didn't, it could hold up the project. He felt this would be similar to Brian Dobie's situation, but Mr. McLean indicated that was not a plat. Mr. Gourley noted blocks 4 and 5 would need some type of easement if they were resplit. In review, he felt the drawings should be resubmitted to Mr. Gotwald so he could make a recommend- ation as to the drainage in outlot A, as to the possibility of combining that with two or three other lots in the area rather than accepting an outlot. Outlot B should be looked into also, to see if that could be handled with lots and drainage easements. Copies should also be submitted to the Park Board for their recommendation. A copy should also be submitted to Mr. Locher to have him make a recommendation as to how to handle the easements along the edge of block 7 and 8 to insure future road right-of-ways, as it was felt this should be shown on the plat. Also, easements for future streets in blocks 4 and 5 should be considered. Vi Schwankl moved to table the matter until the next meeting. Mr. Shearen seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. / Pa -g6.6 Planning and Zoning October 17, 1979 Mr. Menkveld asked if Mr. Locher had addressed the commercial/residential situation near 2cd Ave. Mr. Gourley indicated the Council had taken action not to allow resi ential use in a commercial zone without a rezone on an individual basis or for a whole strip. Mr. Menkveld indicated he had a number of one -acre lots right on the highway, which he had sold as residential, and he wanted to know how this should be handled. Mr. Gourley indicated the building inspector would not issue a permit; he felt perhaps the whole strip could be rezoned at once. Mr. Menkveld indicated he had two of the loth sold asresidential,,but didn't know yet what he wanted to do with the others. Mr. Gourley indicated the Board preferred to have all the lots zoned the same rather than having one residential, one commercial, and so on. Mr. Menkveld indicated the lots were on Highway 23 and 77th Street; the corner lot was not sold, the next two were sold as residential, and the next seven were not sold. Mr. Heath suggested the corner lot be kept commercial, and the rest residential. It was also suggested that one on each end could be kept commercial. The next item on the agenda was the sketch plan for Wollen Estates; this was the re- vised layout, dated 9-27. Vi Schwankl read Mr. Gotwald's letter in reference to this. The owners, present, wanted to know what basically had been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Gourley read the minutes of the August 15 meeting in reference to this property. He noted the Nordeen street matter still had to be taken care of. In refer- ence to the question of the commercial/residential use along the highway, the owners indicated the 5 lots along the highway would be commercial, and the rest in the back would be residential. Mr. Gourley noted the County Highway right-of-ways had been changed since the last meetin, A, ; Mr. Gourley noted the culdesac was very long, and Ordinance No. 56 stated long culdesacs are to be avoided, but they had been allowed where there were easements for a future street. The owners indicated the lots were all one acre or slightly over that, with two 10 -acre lots, one of which was very low. There was the possiblity of filling, and also they considered laying the plat out for resubdivision, perhaps offsetting the houses to one side. They indicated they would contact Mr. Gotwald about the storm sewers. Mr. Gourley noted the easement should be straightened, and the owners felt there was a better way to handle this, perhaps putting it to one side. Mr. Gourley indicated that if it could be reworked and given to the engineer and planner for their review, it could be put on the agenda again in November. Mr. Gourley noted Mr. Berget (Golden's Rice Lake Addition) was still not present. There was a letter from Mr. Mobley dated October 10 in reference to the Forrest Tagg property, which Mr. Gourley read. He requested the Clerk include Mr. Mobley's letter with the rest of the P & Z items on the next Council agenda, just as a matter of infor- mation. Mr. Gourley also read the letter concerning the Amelia Lake gravel pit. He requested the Clerk to forward this letter along with the other items to the Council as well. Mr. Gourley read another letter, which was from Elmett Dowdal, attorney at law, concerning the case of Minnesota vs Donald Holzmer. He noted the next special meeting was October 24; the Clerk was instructed to mail copies of the Five -Year Plan to all Commission members so they could review it before that meeting. Mr. Gourley and Mr. McLean reviewed what had happened at the Council -Park Board special meeting. The Clerk was also requested to notify by mail the Park Board liaison and Park Board Chairperson that they are requested to attend the October 24 special meeting. Vi Schwankl moved to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Mr. Reinert seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.