Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/1979 P&Z Minutes'June 20, 1979 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ken Gourley at 8:40 p.m., June 20, 1979. Members present: Bob Doocey, Vi Schwankl, and Larry Johnson. Members absent: Jim Shearen, Vernon Reinert, and Council liaison John McLean. The minutes of the May 16 regular meeting and the May 29 special meeting were considered. Bob Doocey moved that the minutes of the May 16 meeting be laid over, as Mr. Reinert had previously expressed some objections concerning these, but was not now present. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was declared passed. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the May 29 special meeting. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. McLean was not present to give the report on the Council. The first item on the agenda was a variance for Mr. Lyndal Nelson, for lot 12, block 2, Sunset Oaks. (Address: 87 Lilac Street). Mr. Nelson was not present at the meeting. The variance concerned the side setback on his house, and would be for more than 9 feet. The side setback requirement is 10 feet, and in this case, the house is about 6 inches inside the property line. The problem was apparently caused by the developer. Mr. Gourley had talked to the building inspec- tor and Mr. McLean, and it was their feeling that the P&Z should not be in the business of automatically correcting these problems that are builder -caused. There is a safety hazard in these cases as well, if someone builds a house close to the adjoining property line. The houses would be very close, which would constitute a fire hazard. There was a similar situation at the May 16 meeting; the variance granted was for a transfer of property and was not a setback variance. Mr. Gourley had been to look at and survey the property; there was a house going up next to this one (lot 11) --the forms were in --and there didn't appear to be enough room for each party to have a 10 -foot setback. Mr. Gourley moved to recommend that the variance be denied, and that the building inspector look at the properties and perhaps hold up construction on the house on lot 11 before the footings are poured so that something can be done about the situation. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion was declared passed. There are apparently more homes built that have a similar problem that is developer - caused. The next item was an application by Mr. Henry Tueiberg, 6388 Hodgson Road, lot 25, for a special use permit to raise chickens on a parcel of land less than 5 acres. The signatures of all the surrounding property owners had been obtained. Vi Schwankl moved to approve this for recommendation to the Council, subject to an annual review and also subject to the stipulation that the chickens be confined or contained to the property. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item on the agenda was a similar application by William Rivard, 1271 Birch Street for a special use permit to raise chickens. Mr. Rivard was present. He had not gotten the signatures of the landowners within 300 feet of his property. Also there had been complaints from the nieghbors about the chickens. Mr. Johnson moved to table it pending Mr. Rivard's contacting the clerk and getting the neces- sary signatures. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Page 2 Planning and Zoning, June 20, 1979 The next item was a variance for Kenneth Skoglund, 7481 Lake Drive, to build a garage five feet from the lot line. This was a one acre lot. Mr. Skoglund was present and presented a drawing of the proposed garage location. He has a lot of trees on his lot and rather than cut them down to put in the garage, he would like to build in the location close to the back lot line. The applying ordinances were consulted; the rear setback requirement is 20 percent of the depth of the lot (about 40 feet) and the garage must be 20 feet behind the dwelling. There was a problem with meeting these requirements as the 40 -foot setback requirement plus the 30 -foot garage put the location at 70 feet from the back lot line, which was where the house was. There is also, then, no room for the 20 -foot allowance between the house and garage, as required. Mr. Johnson moved that the building inspector contact Mr. Skoglund and look at the property with respect to the size of the building and the setbacks and make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item was a variance request by Mr. Brian Wendland, not present. Mr. Wendland wanted to split a piece of property into two parcels, A and B (directly in half). A survey had been done and presented to the Commission. Both lots were in excess of one acre. Frontage for lot A is on Leonard Avenue and frontage for lot B is on Sunset Avenue. This was in accordance with the policy established by past actions. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend approval of this variance on lot 2, block 7, Sunset Oaks. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Next on the agenda was El Rehbein and Son's rezoning application for Reshanau Estates. This would be for outlot H, the east 200 feet of outlot J and part of outlot K, in Lakes Addition II. Mr. Blackbird was present. Letters from the Centerville Fire Department, Core of Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources were available. Mr. Blackbird felt the project conformed in all aspects except the critical ones of being in an area that is not zoned for multifamily housing and the idea of its not not being acceptable to the local residents. One unit, 36A or another one,would have to be deleted because a pond is required there. He also presented a density concept for this project which would consider all of Lakes Addition II. The figures on this were not yet available. There would be a total of 250 homes on that side of the lake within an estimated 160 acres. He also brought up that structural improvements on the overall acreage did not exceed 35 percent (approximately 64-65 percent clear area). Mr. Johnson brought up a motion made by Mr. McLean at a Council meeting recently, which in effect he felt called for a moratorium on all rezoning until the Comprehen- sive Plan was done. He felt that the intent of the motion was to insure that changes were not made piecemeal; that no major changes were made in regard to the guidelines as set down in the Comprehensive Plan until after the new plan was fin- ished; and that in essence no changes would be made in ordinances. The excerpt from the minutes in question was read by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Gourley felt that the purpose of the motion was to not deal with any major changes to the Comprehensive Plan or any related ordinances until the Planning and Zoning Commission completed, and was able to present, them all at one time. The Comprehensive Plan presently allows for multifamily housing, but not specifically in this area because the sewer in this area was not foreseen at that time; the interceptor trunk line was going to come up Highway 8 and run north, which would indicate development would be along Highway 8. Since then, Metro Council had revised this and the only existing sewer line in the city now ran along Birch Street. Multifamily housing Page 3 Planning and Zoning, June 20, 1979 had been allowed for in the anticipated sewered area, but since that time the sewer had actually been built along Birch Street, and that is where development would be expected, even though it was not indicated in this specific area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blackbird indicated that there are 144 units (36 buildings, 4 units each) in this plat and that technically they are called attached single family dwellings. He also pointed out that it would not be a transient population. Mr. Johnson brought up a situation in North Saint Paul where at the request of the surrounding residents they rezoned a 40 -acre tract to conform with their wishes. Several people in the audience, residents of this area, expressed their viewpoints. One man felt that this project changed the entire nature of the neighborhood, presently single family dwellings. The high density in particular concerned them, and the fact that it is such a large development. There was agreement with Mr. Johnson in his interpretation of Mr. McLean's motion, to the effect that no changes should be made until the new Comprehensive Plan was finished. He felt that the residents were trying to maintain the status quo, and that the "burden of proof" should be on the developer. Another resident felt that as a Commission it was the Planning and Zoning Commission's responsibility to listen to the members of the community, particularly those affected by the development. He felt there had been no signi- ficant changes to justify a rezoning for the land; he quoted from the Comprehensive Plan, "The most significant determinant of future land use is the existing pattern of the built environment." Mr. Gourley presented some information he -had from the June 5 hearings at Metro Council, pertaining to immiment legislation requiring moderate income housing. At present there is provision for 12 moderate income homes, whereas according to the Metro developement guide there will be approximately 50 required. Mr. Gourley also brought up some information from the June issue of Housing Magazine in reference to a court case involving zoning. Mr. Johnson felt that existing property values would be depreciated by the development. The residents also indicated that an opportunity had been given Mr. Blackbird to meet with them but he had not taken advantage of it. Mr. Gourley suggested that the matter be laid over until the next meeting, as there were not enough votes to carry a motion either way. In the meantime, Mr. Blackbird could get his figures on density and they could be confirmed by the engineer. Clarification from Mr. McLean on the intent of his motion will also be gotten. There was an opinion from the attorney that whenever a meeting is held it has to be open to any business that comes before it. The Planning and Zoning Commission has been open to anything that comes before it, based on the assumption that the material has been gotten in advance. The next item was a rezone application from Mr. Brunner, replacing an application in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Casler, who had sold the property in question to Mr. Brunner. This was in regard to the duplex at 790 Vicky Lane, which came up at the May 29 planning meeting. At that time the building inspector had been requested to inspect the property, which had been done. Vi Schwankl moved to recommend approval to the Council. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The next item was a preliminary plat for Fran Burque, not present. The engineer's and planner's letters were sketchy because the design material was imcomplete. Mr. Gourley moved that the clerk contact Mr. Burque and advise him of the informa- tion that was missing, and the Commission could consider it again at the next regular meeting. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. 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, .Page 5 • Planning and Zoning, June 20, 1979 a land use permit from the building inspector had been required and Mr. Klenck was now in violation of city code because he did not have the land use permit for the barn. The Building Department could be asked to clear up the situation whereby the barn was built without a land use permit, and then could be dealt with at a later date. This was a matter between the Building Department and the Council. There was some discussion as to whether the Planning and Zoning Commission was within its rights to review their previous recommendation to the Council in regard to the vehicles in view of the damage to Rolling Hills Drive; it was felt that since the special use permit had never been issued, and since an annual review is automatic in any case, that it was within the capability of the Commission to do so. Mr. Johnson moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission rescind its initial recommendation for approval of the special use permit and recommend denial upon receipt of information from the City Maintenance Department in regard to the damage to the road sustained by his trucks. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. •lotion declared passed. Mr. Gourley brought up a situation in Lakes Addition No. 4, on Sandpiper Drive. The Building Department had issued a building permit to build a house on lot 1 and there was a house already in existance there. There was also a problem with who is going to build a road in there; whether the landowners want a road there and the situation with the assessment back to the benefiting property owners. The Clerk is requested to contact the city attorney and have him research the existance or nonexistance of Sandpiper Drive and to let the Commission know exactly how many lots are there because lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 seem to be there; lot 2 is only partially pencilled in, and lot 1 doesn't appear at all. The next item was a petition bearing the signatures of 11 different residents for street lights in the Shenendoah area, the Birch -Totem Trail-Hokah culdesac. In regard to street lights, there was also some communication dating back to November of 1978 concerning a request for street lighting at the intersection of County 14 and County 84. The Clerk had written a letter to the Anoka County Board of Com- missioners in regard to this, and they had replied that the installation and main- tenance of street lights along a county road was the responsibility of the local government. There was some futher communication in regard to this, which Mr. Gourley read. Mr. Johnson moved that the request be forwarded to the Council with the recommendation that action be delayed until the completion of the street light ordinance, as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gourley seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley brought up the matter of the outline for the work load on the Comprehen- sive Plan, and the time frame. Since there were only 4 members present at this meeting, it was decided to carry it over until the next meeting. A special meeting was scheduled for June 27 at 8 p.m. Mr. Gourley suggested to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission that they route their calls to the city attorney through either himself or the Clerk in view of the billing situation. There was an opinion from the attorney on Ordinance No. 20, one of a continuing number of changes that needed to be made to the ordinances. Vi Schwankl moved that this be moved up to the next regular meeting. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Gourley brought up a point of information on a matter involving Sunset Estates. Apparently there is a problem with one of the developers building homes without inspections. The houses will have to be opened up for inspection. Page 6 Planning and Zoning, June 20, 1979 Mr. Gourley brought up the fact that there had been some oversights pertaining to the Baldwin Lake Trailer Court addition: (1) There was a street coming from the south side of the plat that had narrowed down to 28 feet. The requirement was 30 feet, so it was not in compliance with the ordinance. (2) There was an objection by the owners to the sidewalks, based on the fact that Ordinance No. 56 did not require sidewalks. The ordinances the Commission had looked at were Nos. 39 and 39A, which were superceded by Ordinance No. 56. However, it was still within the capability of the Commission to require sidewalks. (3) The plat had lots on the north side which were only 50 feet in width. Ordinance No. 56 requires a width of 60 feet. Another variance procedure would be required to allow the 50 -foot lots. A previous variance had already been issued in reference to the angling of the trailers and there was some reluctance to consider another variance. (4) Ordinance 56, section 6.11 states that fire hydrants be required throughout the area in such a way as to satisfy the Fire Marshall. According to Mr. Magnusen, no hydrants were required by the Fire Marshall. Mr. Gourley suggested that the Commission should perhaps consider changing this ordinance in the future, as it seemed very broad. (5) A letter from the city attorney indicated that there must be a rezoning on some of the parcels included in the expansion. This comes under Ordinance No. 56, as this usage is not commercial. The Clerk had been instructed to write Mr. Magnusen and give him a copy of the attorney's letter and request that they fill out an application for a rezone. Mr. Gourley pointed out that the problem lies in the fact that these ordinances are on the books, and that it is not realized that these are superceded by ordinances of a later date. Ordinances Nos. 6, 39, and 39A are no longer in effect and are superceded by Ordinance No 56. The Clerk had also been asked to contact the Fire Marshall and find out about the fire hydrant situation. Vi Schwankl moved to adjourn at 11:40 p.m. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. -fov &41. .7) ate- (Lerytt ,w- 0-24 c -a Lam. c to c, �. � J 1 ,- (-"vl t.Cf' ii' clIeLH en M,cr.'�L� C-1T'✓1 CzJ� w.�j �1%v► J (e, 1),