Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 2, 1974 , \ , J \, , / J : ) '~'~I"()W T()Wn~hi~) \ \ ) A meeting of the Grow Township Planning and Zoning Co~~ission was held April 2, 1974 at the Grow To,vnship Community Center. Chairman Art Jaworski called the meeting to order at 10:15 PM with Co~~ission members Johnson, Miles, and Rither present. Chairman stated that the purpose of the meeting was to allow Don Erickson to present additional information regarding his application for variance. Chairman noted that action to table due to insufficient information was taken by the Commission on March 26, 1974. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Miles to take from the table the Erickson variance application; discuss the matter for fifteen minutes and if no decision is reached, it should then be .cbntinlled.;until: :ther next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. Erickson presented drawings developed from information obtained from County Surveyor showing subject lot to have approximately 78 feet of frontage on South Coon Creek Drive and approximately 96 feet width at the front setback line. Discussed possible easement to Coon Creek; Erickson stated that there is a possibility of it being done and also that a road could be built along the southerly line to serve the lots which might someday be created on the adjoining property. Discussed possibility of obt~ining additional land - the pie shaped corner on So Coon Creek Drive. Miles asked if the adjoining property owner had been appoached and how much would be gained. Erickson stated that he had not talked to the owner, he would gain approximately 350 feet according to his calculations. Miles noted that it would be a good solution. Rither reviewed variances and appeals sections of Ordinance No.8 noting that the parcel is over five acres; loation appeared to be unique and that it would appear that granting the variance would not have a detrimental affect on adjoining property nor would it adversely affect existing or potential use of adjacent land. After Discussion, it was moved by Miles, seconded by Rither that the variance request of Don Erickson be approved. Discussion of the motion followed. Johnson stated that he could not see where there was a hardship involved; the characteristics must relate to the parcel and not the property o,vner; statements were made at the last meeting that Erickson's father could give a parcel on a County Road rather than this particular parcel - there is no real hardship; will this be the best use of the land in the years to come? by stabbing one house in the center of the parcel; we intend to preserve the area along .Coon Creek and try to provide access to it. Aye: Jaworski Nay: Johnson, Rither Abstained: Miles Motion defeated. Jaworski stated that we must resolve the problem. Johnson-asked if it was the place of the Commission to devise a course of action. Miles stated that he would like to see some alternatives for the property. Jaworski stated that in his opinion it is the best use of the property, that we should provide a solution. Johnson stated that he is not sold that it is the best use of the land; there were no assurances of a road easement, it was always in the future; all they want to do is put a house there and when that happens the Township will never derive another thing out it including the ease- ment to the creek; the intent is fine but everything is in the future; you sell the house and the new owner feels no obligation ) , \ . , '- i ".. ) f31"f)W Tf)wn~hip P. 2 - , " ) ERICKSON 4/2/74 at all. Miles noted that perhaps if an easement is provided the consideration might possibly be more favorable toward the granting of the variance. It was moved by Miles, seconded by Rither to table action on the Erickson variance application until April 30, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Rither, seconded by Johnson to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting a~jOU~p'M. Sk~ Clerk, Planning and Zoning Commission J ) \ , / ; -\ , , j ) "' ,- \ , \. '43l'"vw T vwn~hipJ ; ) ( PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND KEEPING OF HORSES, FOALS, AND PONIES WITHIN THE T01VNSHIP OF GROW GROW TOvn{SHIP COMMUNITY CENTER - 1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD ml APRIL 2, 1974 7:40 P.r-!. JUDY BUSH ART JAWORSKI DEAN JOHNSON ALLAN MILES ROBERT RITHER MARY VANDERLAAN ( ( ( ( The Hearing was called to order by Chairman Jaworski and the jurisdictional documents were made a part of the record: one (1) copy of the proposed Ordinance. The following Commissioners were in attendance: JUDY BUSH ART JAWORSKI DEAN JOHNSON ALLAN MILES ROBERT RITHER Appearances were made by the following parties: TIM TRONSON JANET STEFFENSON KENNETH HEIL JUDY CONGER RICHARD SCHNEIDER LINDA GIBSON JIM ISLE l,'lALTER ARNTZEN MARY TRONSON ROGER FUNK MARLENE ADLER HELEN FRANTZ Chairman Jaworski reviewed the status of the proposed Ordinance noting that pursuant to a directive from the Grow Township Board of Supervisors, the Commission, on October 30, 1973, held a meeting to discuss the proposal and at that time appointed a Horse Ordinance Steering Committee with Commission member Miles appointed Chairman. The Steering Committee was requested to develop a proposed ordinance and present its findings to the Commission on January 21, 1974 which was subsequently done. At a Commission meeting held February 27, 1974, the Commission reviewed the proposal. Chairman reviewed the minutes of the February 27, 1974 Commission meeting. Commission read proposed Ordinance, taking comments at the completion of each section, or where appropriate. / " / , 1 _/ , ) \ ' \ .' " ) '~r()W T()wn~hip P. , ) \ , 2 HORSE - 4/2/74 In response to a question by Tim Tronson, Chairman noted that the total property required includes the home site. Janet Steffenson stated that she felt the two and one-half acre requirement and the rear yard requirement were contradictory. Jaworski noted that for the most part the two and one-half acre lot was for the most part a residential classification, a large residential lot; homes may be situated in different ways, it may be off to one side and if that is the case then you may have to ask for a variance but for the most part the homes will be located toward the front lot line. Kenneth Heil stated the he has about eight acres and in Hartfiel Estates, which is on the rear of the property, and consequently his property will become the front yard of those properties. Jaworski noted that Heil's property existed before the Hartfiel subdivision, there will be a road separating the two. Miles noted that the Heil property is over five acres and by State statute the Ordinance would not apply . because it is deemed an agricultural lot. Judy Conger asked for a definition of set-back. Rither read from Ordinance No.8, Zoning Regulations, Section 3.02 Definitions (EEEE) Setback The minimum horizontal distance between a building and street or lot line. Distances are to be measured from the most outwardly portion of the structure at ground level. Rither also reviewed (YYYY) Yard, Rear (ZZZZ) Yard, Side, and the various required distances of setback as listed in Section 6.02 r~nimum Require- ments. Judy Conger stated she. objected to the setback and asked how others might have their feelings known. Chairman stated that rather than have everyone speak, there could be a show of hands. It was noted that there were sixteen objectors to the setback. Richard Schneider asked the Commission how many ever had a horse, how many have a horse now, or have ever taken care of a horse; had any of the Commissioners ever contacted any other community to see how their ordinances were working out? Chairman noted that the Steering Committee was asked to formulate the Ordinance and that they had contacted other communities, and had met with Minnetonka and a couple of others. Schneider stated that it is an improvement over the Ham Lake Ordinance, Ham Lake only requires a half acre; the Committee went to an acre and whose idea was it to go to two and a half acres? Chairman stated that the Commission felt the one acre size was inadequate and therefore suggested the two and one half acres; the Commission was 100 percent in favor of the two and one half acres except for Allan Miles, who was the Chairman of the Steering Committee. Schneider stated that Miles knows some- thing about horses, and asked for reasons for the two and a half acres. Chairman stated that the reasons are in the minutes as previously reviewed; the Commission looked at the development in the Community and noted that when you look at the acre lot and deduct the space for the house, garage, front yard, there did not seem to be enough remaining space for the animal, that we did not feel what was left was adequate. r~les stated that the Committee reviewed the Ordinances from Ham Lake, Minnetonka, East Bethel and the State Horsemen's Council model ordinance and we decided that within the Township a majority of those wanting horses the one acre minimum would be an ideal lot size for horses. As we discussed it, the Commission brought out that the Township is getting a lot of phone calls from people on one acre lots who want to have horses; in the north end of the township there are ./ '. ) , I " ~ ) \ \ ) 3 HORSE 4/2/74 . , . \ \. ! '. ) f;r-()w T()wnship P. some eighty homes on one acre lots and if everyone wanted and had a horse then we would have a problem. The Committee felt this would be provided for by the proposed permit system; the Committe would review the application and the Town Board could refuse the permit. Judy Conger inquired as to what was meant by "adequate"? Chairman noted that if the one acre lot is in the rural area then the variance section would apply. However, if the one acre lot is in a large residential area we have to take into account that the people on the other one acre lots will be disturbed by the smell, will be disturbed by the problems that horses will create, we must take them into consideration as well as the horse. Judy Conger stated that a horse that is well cared for, well exercised, can live very happily in a ten by ten boxed stall. Chairman noted that the Commission had been told that and understood it but noted that there was a question as to how many people are willing to take the time necessary to make that situation work.on a one acre lot. Commission noted that in some cases the animals are kept in the front yard and it results in a situation which detracts from the appearance and cleanliness of the neighborhood. Discussed set- backs. Richard Schneider asked why all the variances, the people can buy alot of hay for the twenty-five dollars variance expense; why not have the Council decide whether they can have it that way or not? Chairman replied that the Town Board had directed the Commission to develop an Ordinance and subsequently the Commission asked the Horse Steering Committee to formulate the Ordinance; the Committee did their work and now the Commission has done its work and has changed three minor points of the Ordinance; that is why we are hearing this discussion tonight. Chairman noted that with one exception, Miles, all other members of the Commission agreed with the changes. Richard Schneider stated that people who don't know nothing about horses are making the decisions, and that he was objecting to the two and one half acres. Linda Gibson stated that she can understand both sides of the situation; if there is plenty of open land around the one acre then there should be no reason they can't have the horse but if it's built up and developed - it is possible to see both sides of the coin. Miles stated that it boils down to the fact where you apply your variances to; how many variances each one of these is going to require and how much hearing time and cost is involved. If you request a variance from the 2t and rear setback then there will be alot more variance requests - if you change it [to 2t acres] there are going to be more refusals for permits, Miles said. Jim Isle asked if the proposal held any connotations for other animals such as cows. Commission noted that Ordinance No.8 provides for cows, pigs, chickens, and so forth under the classification of non-domestic animals and therefore permitted in the R-l District as an Agricultural Use, Rural as defined in Section 3.02. Miles pointed out the proposed definition of Pleasure/Recreational Animal. Commission noted that any changes to Ordinance No.8, must be administered as specified by the Amendments section of the Ordinance. Discussed HOrsemen's Committee. Walter Arntzen asked if the members would be only those involved with horses or would there be some who aren't involved with horses. Miles replied that it was the intent ) / , / . , i . _....../ , ) / '\ \ ) HORSE 4/2/74 . \ . \ I . , \. . \. J f3rf)W Tf)wn~hip P. 4 of the Committee to have a mix; a horsemen, a veterinarian or some other person involved in the humane aspects and an interested by=stander either pro or con; it would not be in the horse people's interest to have a horsemen's council that was ineffective because they were overzealous for horse people. Richard Schneider asked how a person who doesn't know anything about horses could make an inspection and make a decision on whether they are misused or: not. ~liles replied that was the reason for the mix on the committee. Schneider stated that he didn't think it would make much difference if the person didn't know anything about horses. Walter Arntzen stated that the neighbors may be misused by the people with horses and you have to consider them also, not just the horse. Commission agreed that the Horsemen's Committee would consist of five members. Discussed variances. In response to questions, Miles stated that the Clerk, Building Inspector,and other Town officials will provide help in filling out the variance forms and that one application will cover whatever is asked to be varied and that it can be revoked if the conditions of issuance are not met at some future date. Rither noted that the variance procedure is often abused and misunderstood; based on experience, the variance usually comes about due to a situation in which in one way you cannot meet the parameters of the ordinance, in other words it is a border- line case in which you almost meet the requirements consequently what you must do is come to the Town Board and ask them to waive the requirements of the ordinance so Y9u can do it. In most cases this is what the situation will be and you will know right away if you can comply or not; the ordinance is very clear on what is required. If you are way out of line and it is obvious you can not make it then it should not be pursued. Miles stated that one of the reasons for the acre lot size was to cut down on the number of variance requests+ versus the Council going out and looking at each lot and notifying the people that it is or is not suitable. Rither replied that the way out is to not have any requirements at all but it does not solve the problem of the horse in the residential area. Mary Tronson stated that we should go to the one acre requirement. Commission noted that any conflicts between Ordinance No. 8 and the Proposed Ordinance would have to be identified and resolved. Jim Isle asked if a variance would be needed for abutting property owners to share the same fence on the lot line. Miles said that in his opinion it would have to have a variance in order to be legal; the reason for the ten foot set-back is that you cannot allow your animals to reach through or over or anything else to nibble on your neighbors kids, dogs, gardens or whatever. Jim Isle asked if anyone would be excluded from the ordinance. Miles noted that those with five acres or more would probably be excluded except for cases of inhumane treat- ment. Kenneth Heil stated that if two people agreed on a common fence on the property line he did not see why there would be a need for a variance. Miles pointed out that if a neighbor on either side complained you would be in violation of the ordinance. Walter Arntzen stated that the thing we have to bear in mind is that this ordinance is the same as in any other ordinance, it isn't a problem with the horses it's a people problem; just like with a car, we wouldn't have to have traffic cops if everybody obeyed the laws but some people don't and probably everybody here treats their' horses right and have respect for their neighbors but there are some ; ./ ) -~ \ ) , \ \ ) HORSE 4/2/74 \ , \ \. ) \. j 't3I'"()W T()wn~hip P. 5 people in the Township that don't do that and that's the reason you have to come up with an ordinance like this one, and have some means of enforcement; the horses are definitely a problem to those who don't take care of them properly, who don't make proper fences, and don't have respect for their neighbors; it is un- fortunate but these are the reasons you have to have the ordinances; I can show you cases in this township where the animals are not being treated properly and I might add that it is no one in this room; some are over five acres in area and some are less than five acres. Jaworski asked if Arntzen was an expert in these matters and as long as we are going to point fingers, you are not an expert. Arntzen replied that he was not an expert but he felt he could tell when something wasn't being done right. Jaworski noted that he could be pointed at as not being expert; that the horsemen committee would be able to determine the merits of each case and in that way would be valuable in helping Arntzen enforce the ordinance. Artnzen stated that in matters of inhumane treat- ment yes, but in cases of space, fences, buildings, he could make that determination. Roger Funk stated that he had over five acres and asked if it would apply to him. Commission replied, no, only with respect to humane treatment. Richard Schneider asked if the ordinance would apply to donkeys. Miles indicated that it would. Schneider stated that you don't see them much any 'more but that about twenty years ago a fellow brought up a whole truck load of burros up from Mexico and if you want to hear a racket when they start braying that beats anything else all to heck. Miles noted that was the reason we intend to change ordinance 8 and add the PLeasure/Recreational classification so those situations would be covered. Judy Conger indicated that she had read an article about the keeping of horses in Dallas, Texas, and other big cities in California, some of the really big cities, where they have horses in the city on an acre lot, on some less than an acre. The ordinance is enforced - the stuff has to be cleaned up. Our ordinance will cover this - you have to keep it sanitary or you lose your permit. Conger continued by giving an example of a person wholived on an acre lot and went to the Horsemen's committee and applied for a permit. The Committee went out and approached the neighbors - which I think they will - and it was o.k. and the horse was kept up along with the property. She stated that things are fine and then a neighbor moves out and a new one moves in and then complains but then the new one who moves in shouldn't move in next to a horse. Johnson stated that perhaps the people didn't knovl the horse was there; all they saw was a little shed; they may be from out of state; they come out to look at the house one time and they look at the inside of the house, walk around the outside yard and everything looks fine and what they don't realize is that there was, a horse" there'--, ,the droppings had been picked up - and there you are - it still smells. Judy Conger asked if the problem wouldn't take care of itself. Johnson stated that it probably would not because there are a lot of people who would never complain. Linda Gibson agreed stating that is her situation at the present time; the neighbor has horses and although it bothers her they have been reluctant to say anything in the interests of maintaining friendly neighborhood relations, but when it was turned into a horse corral then they had to do something; we need this ordinance regulation. Chairman stated that the ordinance would prevent these / ./ ~ ) \ , \ '; "-SI"UW T Uwn~hi../'P. 6 \ rtORSE 4/2/74 difficult neighborhood situations, as just discussed, from arising; there are some areas in the township which would look very desirable for horses, on acre lots, but they are just at close quarters with their neighbors. In response to a question by Roger Funk, Chair- man stated that the Town Board makes the final decision in all matters. Discussed distinction between variance and permit; when they apply and what is required in each case. Rither stated that the small lot provision would probably result in many more applications for variance than on the larger lot size; the chances of meeting the requirements on the larger lot would be greater; there is more room and the density is lower; there will be more area zoned for 2t acres than for one acre; we are about $5 to 90 percent zoned for 2t acres right now and we have some 2t acre plats coming in this summer. Rither asked if anyone in the audience would be adversely affected by the requirements in the ordinance. Commission noted no response. Jaworski noted example of a one acre lot, if there is one, located in an area of the township which:is not developed, with nothing but open space around; there should be no trouble in granting a variance in that instance. Chairman explained that the Commission would make a recommendation to the Town Board; it would be reviewed by the attorney. Miles stated that it will be noted that 22 or whatever the count was would be included in the minutes and in any report sent to the Town Board, as being opposed to ,the rear set-back. Richard Schneider asked if the acreage had been put to a count. Chairman stated no, it had not been. Johnson stated that the audience was very biased. Rither stated~that putting it to a vote is an easy way of determining for or who is against an issue; that if we are going to vote on one issue then the entire ordinance, point by point should be voted on. Jaworski stated that any vote on the acreage should be put up to the entire Township. Judy Conger asked for a vote just to see what the result would be; it is hard for us' to see it your way and it's hard for me to see it our way and yet we know what you mean. Marlene Adler stated that there is only one instance where one acre would be better; Adler described a~horse she purchased from a lady who lived in a house on an acre lot and kept the horse about a half mile down the road on a farm which had about twenty acres fenced along the road; there was lots of room for the horse; teenagers used to torment the horse by throwing rocks at it, cut off its tail; she now has another horse; the reason she couldn't ride that [other] horse was that she was afraid of people;.she now has a horse which she keeps in her back yard, a half acre; she said that horse a completely different horse; and she's sure that if she kept it at the same place she kept~the other one it would be the same way. Rither noted that the point is that the horse was not subjected to the torment, 'by the teenagers at the new location. In response to a question by Janet Steffenson, Miles noted that reflectorized clothing was the intent of the Committee. Commission noted that both horse riders and car drivers should exercise caution when operating on public rights-of-ways. Helen Frantz asked if under the Ordinance it would be considered a nuisance if the horses winnered; if he talked to another horse in the vicinity. Miles and Jaworski agreed that if he did it all night it probably would be a nuisance. Rither noted that the attorney stated some time ago that the person filing a complaint must show that the activity is a nuisance; proof must be shown. ./ \ / '. / \ ) -\ ) HORSE 4/2/74 " \ - , ' '- f3rvw Tvwnship'p. 7 Frantz stated that a party complained that their horse got out because her horse winnered. Jaworski noted that in reviewing the requirement that all droppings be picked up we decided that this was a modern day use of saddle bags. Jaworski stated that if there are no further comments the hearing will close. Commission discussed hea~ing comments. Miles noted the feeling of the audience with regard to the lot size and setback saying that the audience expressed concern but no negative comments. Johnson noted the small crowd and felt it was very biased; he heard no new valid reasons that would sway him that the one acre is better than the 2t acres; felt that after discussion - 2t acre is superior - we should not go back to the one acre. Jaworski felt that the require- ment should be over 2t acres - although seeing as how we all agree on it he would go along with the 2t acres. Miles stated that the Committee attempted to draft an ordinance which would take care of the horse owners and also those who do not care for horses. Rither expressed concurrence with Johnson statement. It was moved by Rither, seconded by Johnson, that the Grow Township Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Grow Township Board of Super- visors the adoption of an Ordinance Relating To The Keeping of Horses, Foals, and Ponies within the Township of Grow as promulgated by the Horse Steering Committee and as amended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Discussion followed. Commission noted that certain portions of Ordinance NO~ 8 would need to be amended in order for the two ordinances to be compatible. namely; Definitions, with the addition of Pleasusre/Recreational Animals and Section 4.21 Fences and Walls. Commission agreed that the attorney should examine the ordinance as to legality; Ordinance No. 8 should be examined for other possible amendments; the Commission and the attorney should carry out this task; Amendments to Ordinance No. 8 should be acted upon at the time the Horse Ordinance is adopted. Rither withdrew motion. Johnson withdrew second. Commission concurred with withdrawals. It was moved by Miles, seconded by Johnson, that the proposed amended ordinance be submitted to the Township Attorney with a request for a written opinion as to its legality and to determine the conflicts it represents to Ordinance No.8. Motion carried unanimously. Jaworski stated that it is nice to have the attorney do this but we are the Planning and Zoning Commission. Miles noted that the Committee reviewed the Ordinance No.8 and felt it had covered most of the sections but it should still be reviewed for the possible one item which was overlooked, an item which might crop up in the future and result in a problem. It was moved by Rither, seconded by Miles, that the Public Hearing be continued to the April 30, 1974 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Hearing ended at 10:15 P.M. s~r.~ning and Zoning Commission G~VW TVWNSIiIP April 2, 1974 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GROW TO~NSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GRO':l TOWNSHIP PLATJNING AND ZONING COMM'ISSImr PROPOSED CHANGES - ORDIlJANCE#10 SUBDIVIDING AND PLATTING Gentlemen: As you recall, the Commission submitted to the Board a series of proposed changes to Ordinance #10 Subdividing and Platting. Subject changes were contained in a report dated December 8, 197J. Subsequently, the Township engineering consultant and attorney have reviewed the proposed changes and have_made their comments available to the Commission. The Cowmission, at a meeting held March 26, 1974, reviewed the proposals in light of the comments and herewith submit an addendum to the original report. Section 7.010mit the following: "State law provides that "in any municipality which had platting regulations in force,----" Section 9.07: Add the following: "In all new sub- divisions, industrial plats, and commercial plats, ten percent of the gross area,----" Section 14.0l(J): Change to read: "(J) was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half acres in area and 150 feet in width on January 1, 1966 or is a single parcel of land not less than twenty acres and having a width not less than JOO feet.~ Commission notes that all types of development should provide land or cash payment for park land acquisition; Township requirements are to be inserted in lieu of reference to State law, and all references should be consistent within the Ordinance. Art Jaworski, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission