Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973.09.12 PC Minutes PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE VILLAGE OF HUGO SEPTEMBER 12, 1973 The public hearing was called to order at 8:30 PM by Mayor Carlson, who read aloud the notice of public hearing which had been published in the White Bear Press on August 30, 1973. He then introduced the village council members who were; Bjorum, Lease, LaValle, and Leroux, and also the planning commission members present; Spitzer, Paulson, Johnson, and Ehret. Also present was the attorney for the village, Charles Johnson, and village planner, Carl Dale. Mayor Carlson stated the purpose of the hearing was two-fold; to inform the village council of the residents opinions on, and problems with, the proposed zoning ordinance, and to inform the public of what is transpiring. He said the format of the hearing is devised to collect ideas to form the zoning ordinance to be to the best advantage of the Village of Hugo. Each zone would be discussed separately, and residents should check the zoning map for their own particular situation. Dan Spitzer, chairman of the planning commission was the next speaker. He stated that deliberations on zoning actually began a couple of years ago with the formation of the Village of Hugo. At the start of the comprehen- sive plan, public hearings were held to determine residents ideas of what the village should become. It was learned at that time the residents wanted to keep the eastern two-thirds of the village in a rural state. Business- men wanted a small commercial area maintained. The village planner and the planning commission then began the formulation of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Spitzer then referred to a large map showing designated zoning areas. He said according to the zoning map, the agricultural areas conform with what the residents wanted to keep rural. Also, the planning commission wanted the zoning map to be inconformity with the future village sewer system. Charles Johnson, village attorney, spoke next. He Stated that in 1965 the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation aimed at planning and redevelop- ment in municipalities in Minnesota. Minnesota Statute 462.351 to 462.364 provides municipalities with the necessary powers and procedure for muni- cipal planning. Authority is given to engage in planning activity, provide studies and reports that might be implemented. Municipalities can hire and expend money for outside services, and they also have the authority to establish planning agencies. Mr. Johnson finished by stating that a zoning ordinance, map, and a subdivision ordinance are tools by which the compre- hensive plan would be implemented. Carl Dale, planning consultant hired by the village,said according to the legislature, municipalities cannot zone haphazzardly, but must have a plan. The process is rather involved, and contains four steps. 1. Analysis of the village-economics, land values,population, age structure, social desires, housing, land use, transportation, and village facilities. 2. Public hearings held whereby public can speak their views on what they would like the village to become-goals for the future. 3. A text and map explaining the village plan is prepared. 4. Plan implemented through one tool such as a zoning ordinance. • page 2 Mr. Dale stated the plan for Hugo is not like those for Roseville, St. Louis Park, Bloomington, etc. There is a new and better way for Hugo, and we have enough land here to develop correctly. Many communities are presently trying to decide on correct lot size, and some are choosing five acre parcels. He stated the planners did not try to pre-zone every piece of land, rather set a minimum guide line and residents may come before the planning commission and council to rezone their land. Attorney Charles Johnson spoke again in more detail about the proposed zoning ordinance. Districts are to be designated as follows: Agricultural, Conservancy, Single Family Estate, Single Family Urban, Limited Business, Retail Busniess, Concentrated Business, and Industrial, and each district must have uniform requirements. Each district had permitted uses, accessory uses, and special uses. For a special use, residents must go before the planning commission and council with their plan and obtain a special use permit. There are also provisions for rezoning. Zones can be changed. If a plan for rezoning is reasonable without disrupting the entire village, more than likely it will be granted. In the making of the zoning map and ordinance, an attempt was made to take into ccn sideration land as it is presently used. Minimum lot sizes as proposed at the present time are as follows: 1. Agricultural - 20 acres per dwelling unit 2. Conservancy - 20 acres per dwelling unit 3. Single Family Estate - 1 acre per dwelling unit 4. Single Family Urban - 10,400 square feet per dwelling unit 5. Limited Business and Retail Business -non residential lot area-15,000 square feet 6. Concentrated Business -non residential lot area-8,000 square feet 7. Industrial-non residential lot area-15,000 square feet. The minimum requirements that are established also relate to front yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, height limitations and maximum percentage of lot usage. In agricultural, conservancy and single family estates districts, 30 per cent of land usage can be utilitized with buildings. In limited business and retail business it*s 40 per cent, in concentrated business it's 60 per cent and in industrial it' s 40 per cent. Mayor Carlson then stated that concluded the informational part of the meeting and it was now open for questions or ideas from the audience. The first district to be discussed was the Single Family Urban, and attorney Charles Johnson gave a description of the district and its principal uses, accessory uses and special uses. Comments from the audience are as follows: Perry Copeland-St. Paul Attorney-said he noticed mobile home parks were excluded from single family urban, and only allowed for in the industrial district. He considered this bad planning and strongly urged that mobile home parks be included in siggle family urban and also in single family estate districts. He also suggested adding "such other uses not listed, that are compatable with those listed" to the uses in each district. Howard Moe-5989 Oneka Lake Blvd.-questioned where single family urban was located on the zoning map. He wondered if horses were allowed in the area. Attorney Johnson stated that the keeping of horses is permitted as a spe- cial use. You can keep non domestic animals in the single family urban and single family estates by a special use permit. If you have horses already, any use of your land is a legal non conforming use and you can continue on doing whatever you are doing. page 3 Ken Tschida-Grace Development Co. SE Hugo-wanted to know how much land is needed to keep horses in the single family urban district. If you had a few acres, how far could you cut it down and still keep horses. You could keep on with horses as long as reasonable and no nuisance de- velopes, according to attorney Johnson. He said this is a legal non-con- forming use. Donna Stroman-8039 165th St.-wondered what was to be considered reasonable. She said some people think a horse is content on five acres, while someone else thinks he would be fine on one acre. Mayor Carlson stated the minimum is 10,400 square feet as far as lot size is concerned. Jerry Moore-5120 165th St.-wondered where the north line of the single family urban was located on the map. At this point, attorney Johnson stated to attorney Perry Copeland, that the proposed ordinance provides that in the granting of special use permits that any use which is not listed in the zoning ordinance must be similar in character to one or more listed as permited special uses in the district in which it is to be located if it's to obtain a special use permit. In other words, anything not listed is covered. Attorney Johnson then gave a description of the Single Family Estates and listed the principal uses, accessory uses, and special uses. Comments on that district are as follows: Dr.Chapman-12833 Goodview Ave-stated he thought each person at the hearing should have gotten a map showing precisely where his property was to be placed. He also wondered if the vote for the plan as proposed could be a general election vote rather than relying completely upon a few council members. Attorney Johnson said the provision is governed by Minnesota Sta- tutes as to the adoption of the plan and it requires that after the adop- tion of a land use plan for a municipality, the planning agency for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals for the land use plan may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. The governing body may adopt and amend the ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members,and there is no provision for a referendum. Dr. Chapman- stated the planning board should be elected by the people and the council by the people and the two should not even be separate. Dr. Chapman also wanted to know why land in the south east toward White Bear was to be zoned SFE when it's all agricultural at the present time. Carl Dale stated this was based on how they thought sanitary sewer could be expanded over the years. This was based on the village engineers pro- jected sewer service area.Dr. Chapman wondered what recourse the people in that area had to keep their area from being down graded. He said it was unjust to have the north east area remain rural, when actually a green belt should be maintained between Hugo and White Bear Lake. Mayor Carlson suggested that Dr. Chapman present his views on rezoning in a formal letter to the council for their discussion on the ordinance on September 20th.Dr. Chapman mentioned he had been in planning many years in the past and commented that the plan for Hugo was a good compromise but has some fallacies. He felt the planners had "bit zoned" from the very beginning, and you should zone on people, not on sewers. He also felt this should go before the people in a vote. Theodora Peltier-Goodview Ave.-wondered what would happen to those farm- ing in the SFE district. Attorney Johnson stated that all farms in exis- tance at the passage of the zoning ordinance could be maintained as such. Mrs. Peltier also wondered why a noise clause was not put in the ordinance. Attorney Johnson said things such as this would be covered by other ordi- nances. page 4 Donald Lobsinger-13327 Goodview Ave.-questioned what the term"dog kennel" meant. Charles Johnson stated a dog kennel is any place where four or more dogs over six months of age are owned, kept, bred, and or offered for sale except a veternary clinic. Mr. Lobsinger also mentioned that he had five acres and didn't like the idea of minimum one acre lots across the road from him. Said it would make the value of his land go down. It was not reasonable. Mayor Carlson questioned whether Mr. Lobginger was suggesting that his area be zoned agricultural and he said it would defi- nitely be better. Dr. Chapman-suggested continuing the public hearing to some future date with the only subject for discussion being changes that the council is considering from its present draft. Ed Harold-Upper 126th St. Oakshore Park-said there is a five acre parcel in the oakshore area designated for park use, but not public park Use as stated it should be in the ordinance. Wondered if they would have to obtain special use permits to put up ball diamonds. Attorney Johnson said they could probably apply for a variance under a hardship case. Robert McCloud-9627 122nd St.-suggested putting the propozed ordinance up before the people for a vote, rather than leaving it entirely up to the villagecouncil, some members of which he did not approve. Attorney Johnson again explained that the adoption of the plan or its rejection was up to the village council. Ken Tschida-Grace Development Co.-owns property in Sections 30 and 31 of the village, is zoned (proposed) SFE and objects strongly to this. He questioned Carl Dale whether future sewer area should be zoned this way. Mr. Tschida thought this area should be zoned single family urban. Mr. Dale stated that if the majority of the property owners want to be zoned dif- ferently, they should let this fact be known to the village council. Theodora Peltier-wanted to know from the planning commission if they had to use the sewer service area as a guide for the residential zoning. Dan Spitzer stated that they did not have to, but chose to, to provide orderly development of the village along with developing services and to avoid placing an undue hardship on those people who might be zoned for a more densely populated area where the plans .f the village for extension of sewer system is not feasible at this time. Attorney Johnson then gave a description of the Limited Business, Retail Butines3 and Consentrated Busniess Districts, with principal uses, access- ory used, and special uses.Comments were as follows: Eugene Peltier-Owner Countryside Center-read aloud a petition he had brought to the village clerk's office September 12th regarding the rezoning of approximately a five block area along and on the east side of Highway # 61 from 170th Street to 175th Street. According to the present proposed zon- ing map, this area is to be zoned agricultural, and there are commercial businesses located there at the present time.Would like this area to 4e zoned commercial, as they feel they have a right to grow, and would not be hurting anyone around them. Attorney Johnson next gave a description of the Industrial District, its permitted uses, accessory uses, and special uses.. Greg Cardinal-165th Street-wondered if the junk yards now in the village would have to go eventually, as they are not zoned industial on the map. Attorney Johnson stated that where there is an open use of land, there would be a phase out eventually, and if the operation is to continue, and meet the requirements of planning, the alternative would be to come in and ask for a rezoning. page 5 Attorney Johnson then gave a description of the Agricultural and Conser- vancy Districts, their principal uses, accessory uses, and special uses, Commentb were as follows: Taylor Stricklin-8460 170th Street-asked Mayor Carlson where else in the Metropolitan area or in the state was there a wild idea of a twenty acre minimum lot size.Mayor Carlson stated that Carver County south of the Metropolitan area is working such an idea at the present time.Grove Town- ship west of us is proposing twenty acre minimums.Marshand Township in Hastings has a ten acre minimum requirement in effect. Mr. Stricklin then stated his farm had been in the family for over six generations and the rural area had certainly paid their share of the tax burden. Said it was unfair to say that a farmer couldn't sell less• than twenty acres if he wanted to, and it was out of reason to think young couples starting out could afford twenty acres for a building site. He also thought this twenty acre minimum would bring the real estate value down. He had been told at a previous meeting that he couldn't build a home for himself on just one acre of his land, and thought this grossly unfair. Stated the whole situa- tion was very grave. Mr. Stricklin then asked the planning commission where the twenty acre minimum lot size came from. Dan Spitzer said it came about from a desire to keep the land open. If there was to be any hope of main- taining a reasonable tax base, there is a need to keep the land agricul- tural. Mr. Spitzer stated the commission also wanted to stay above the Minnesota State Statutory requirement of ten acres as an agricultural tract. He said that even though a person's land was in the green area, this did not mean he could never build on anything less than twentyacrs. He could • y g apply for rezoning, and in an area where septic systems could be supported, this could be allowed.He said the planning commission worked on a plan they thought residents wanted to build a good future for their village. Mr. Stricklin then wanted to know if the twenty acre minimum had anything withSpitzer's to do tMr. purchasing twenty acres in the rural eastern part of the village, and Mr. Spitzer said it certainly did not. Kathy Ashbey-5980 Oneka Lake Blvd.-wanted to know what assurance there was that if the people did not want this plan, that it wouldn't be gone ahead with at]1.Mrs. Ashbey was under the impression that the people had a vote in this matter. She said she understood why people should keep up their property, whythere were dog leash laws, why people couldn't lease desease& elm trees laying around, but she failed to understand why someone else should be allowed to tell people if they could or could not sell their own land, and how much to sell. She thought that under the constitution aper- son should be able to do what ever they want with their own land. Mayor Carlson statedy this was a power granted by the state legislature to muni- cipalities to zone their areas. Jerry Moore-5120 165th Street-said that part of Article 5, Constitution of the U.S. stipulates that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. He would question the legality of this if the twenty acre minimum goes through. Attorney Johnson stated that the acts to be contemplated are provided for by the legislature of Minne- sota. They are a specific delegation of power to the various village coun- cils. He said there are also procedures set forth in the statutes whereby a person could challenge an ordinance if he would so choose. Mr. Johnson said that wanting to keep the area open and not let little dubdivisions pop up is looking out for the welfare of all. Mr. Moore then stated he thought two and one half to five acres would be practical, and if that area didn't meet requirements,then larger tracts should be required. page 6 Gavle Frost-170th Street- said she had thirty two acres,was a widow with ten children, and really didn't need that much land. She wanted to know if she could sell twenty seven acres and keep five to live on, without going before the council. She said future sale ofthatland is her livli- hood. Attorney Johnson stated if shewas selling the twenty seven acres as a lump sum,there would be no problem (which was how she had it listed with a realtor) ,and if she was going to sell lots below the minimum, there would be a rezoning and subdivision. Micheline Wood-Goodview Avenue-said she and her husband had just purchased six acres and she felt this was a big enough tract of land to build on. Said young people couldn't afford any more.(She and her husband were quite young) Donald Rollie-Stillwater Attorney-stated he represented various land owners in the area of agricultural and conservancy districts. They felt it was unreasonable to consider a twenty acre minimum lot size, especially for the property owner ready to retire. He said the village council should reconsider this aspect before acting. He intends to submit a formal letter to this effect. Theodora Peltier-questioned where the number "5" hogs came from. Attorney Johnson stated hog farms can be a problem and they are trying to control something that'll; known to be a problem. He also said again that farms in existance or brought in by anexation shall be allowed, and she should have no problem. Mrs. Peltier also wanted to know if there was anything in this ordinance which would prevent people from working on their cars or tractors in their own garages. The answer was no. Mrs. Reynold Ar.cand-812 5 122nd S t. No.-stated they own about seventy five acres and they hope to retire on what they realize from the sale of this property. Felt twenty acres was too big a lot size for their area. Said five acres would provide good septic systems and drainage for people Who want to be out in the urban areas. Said people with only a few acres should not have the power to determine what people with more land sell, after they have worked the land for years and now wish to retire. Ron Granger- 165th Street-said he lived on two acres and recently bought four acres an each side and wanted to know if he could do anything with the four acre lots.Mayor Carlson statedthere would be no problem. Mr. Granger also stated the council was going to hurt the economy of this area if they passed the twenty acre lot size. Lawrence Jasinski-Greystone Avenue-stated he had eighty acres up for sale in ten or twenty acre lots or bigger, but he has found that ten acres is too large. (Been trying to sell this for two years)He's found that the average person today cannot pay the going price for ten acres and then go to a lending institution and build a home on it. When he hears twenty acres, it scares him. People just can't afford it. Robert McCloud-9627 122nd St.-said he had lived on a ten acre tract and itwas too small for farming and too big for a garden. Felt it was wrong to have a twenty acre minimum. Said the council should not prohibit people from making money selling their land when they have been paying taxes for a long period of time. Marie Zager-- Ingersoll Avenue-agreed with the last two people. Said twenty acres was "ridiculous" . John Bergman-170th Street- said he owns a strawberry farm on seventy two acres and wanted to know if he would be put out of business if the ordi- nance went through. Mayor Carlson stated that all farms shall be permitted if in existance at the passage of the ordinance. page 7 Robert Walker-14310 Homestead Ave.-thought twenty acres was excessive. He asked for a show of hands of those in the audience who thought the same way.(almost unanimous) He thought a more suitable figure might be ten acres. He felt the reference to a tax base by Mr. Spitzer was rather unwarranted. Mr. Walker also wondered if the agricultural use of a farm was to be restricted. The answer was no it was not. Ron Granger- wanted to know who on the planning commission was farmer from the eastern rural area. It was stated that Larry Ehret was from that area. And Goiffon-8124 147th• Street-said he doesn't agreewith the twenty acres. ered f the people passing on this ordinance would be willing to go out and buy twenty acres.Mr. Goiffon also wanted to know when the zoning ordinance would be passed on. Mayor Carlson stated there would be a meet- ing with the planning commission on September 20th to discuss comments gathered from this public hearing. The final decision would probably be made at a village council meeting. George Riceprist-North St. Paul-said twenty acres is too much in the econ- omy we have right now. Mrs. Clifford Axelson-Goodview Ave.-said she was zoned SFE and there is a gun club behind her in the Conservancy. She wondered how she could de- velope her land with the rifle range behind her. Mayor Carlson stated the ordinance committee could work on a gun control ordinai ce. She also stated she had a farm right now and might want to be zoned agricultural. Mayor Carlson said she should submit a formal letter stating to this effect. Taylor Stricklin-said again this was a very grave situation, and council should reconsider before they try to push anything through.. Mayor Carlson then stated he was adjourning the public hearing until Sep- tember 25th, 8:00 PM,at the Hugo Elementary School, for the purpose of considering any changes that might be made in the zoning ordinance or the zoning map. Hearing adjourned at 12:30 AM to be reconvened on September 25, 1973. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Hanson,Deputy Clerk