Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 25, 1974 \ ) ( .~ , j \ j \ \. ; / \ \. j (31"()W T()wnship AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING - 7:30 p.m., June 25, 1974 Grow Town Community Center. 674-1 674-2 674-3 674-4 674-5 674-6 J 674-7 674-8 674-9 674-10 \ J 1.) Review/Acceptance of minutes and motions from the May 30, 1974 and June 6,1974 Special Meeting. Continued Public Hearing proposed Horse Ordinance (//~/A'CUCC(- Letter from Township Attorney - dated June 10, 1974 Public Hearing - April 2, 1974 and Regular Planning Meeting Minutes for April and May, 1974. j ( -' J- { :> ,It- - 7/7-5u,,- - IILL . <<- r; JC )?efhu-;;! alt -<.Q-"-IC(,UC~ b C. ,,!<2 Alcltf; e.( Reference: Minutes of and Zoning S.S. Morris - Request for SPECIAL USE PERMIT ___ U.?/1!feL-'I and June 26, Marlow Strand - Request for VARIANCE Refer to minutes of May 29, 1974 Rod Samson - Request for VARIANCE /1/t~.,<c.;c_c/ Gerald Windschihitl - Request for VARIANCE- ue.-uec/' 1973. Sketch Plan - Kiowa Terrace - Area of proposed sketch plan South of l59th and West of CSAH #7 OPTIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Discuss current problems relating to: County Register of Deeds - recording lots that have been conveyed by "metes and bounds", that are under 5 acres or now 20 acres. Review Ordinance 11-8,-Section 4.11 - House moving for conflicts with Ordinance 11-4. Review Suggested changes to Ordinace #8, relating to the proposed Horse Ordinance. Review Discussion - Statement on Implementation from the Metropolitan Council - Dated May 30, 1974. ~ / 1174-1 , \ \ , \ . .I 1 \ , , \ / \. / (31"f)W Tf)wn~hip Minutes of the REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Grow Township Planning and Zoning Commission held June 25, 1974 at the Grow Town Community Center. Attending were: Chairman Miles, Commission members Bush, Jaw- orski, Jack, Johnson, Rither and Vander Laan. Meeting was called to crrder at 7:35 by Chairman Miles. Bush moved that the Commission adjourn no later than ll:p.m. Vander Laan seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the May 28, 1974 and June 6, 1974 meetin~s were re- viewed. Commission noted the following errors: (1) Page 4, pp 2, of May 28, 1974 minutes, change June 26, 1974 to June 26, 1973. (2) In recommendations to Town Board of Supervisors-- Fern variance request: change date from June 26 to June 24. Vander Laan variance request: Insert "not", to read....on h0use was not utilized. Jaworski moved to accept as corrected the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of May 28, 1974 and of June 6, 1974. Rither seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. First item on the agenda was the continuation of the Public Hearing on the proposed Horse Ordinance. Chairman Miles noted the Commission had a letter f~Gm the Township Attorney expressing his opinions on the proposed ordinance. Reference in the letter by Hawkins to a contract the Township has with Crimson Cross Kennels was questioned. Commission noted we do not have a con- tract with them,to impound horses. Chairman Miles expressed that the steering committee had felt there would be no pr~blem in housing a stray animal within the Township. Commission took the following action: Vander Laan moved that Section 1, Subd. (f) be incorporated into the proposed horse ordinance as rec- ommended by Attorney H~wkins. Jaworski seconded; motion carried unanimously. Rither moved that Section 3, Subd. (a) should be ammended to read, Minnesota Statutes 346.20--346--26. Vander Laan seconded; motion carried unanimously. Rither moved that Section 4, Subd. (b) be allowed to stand as proposed and that there be no change in this section in the proposed horse ordin- ance. Bush seconded; motion carried unanimously. Vander Laan moved that the words "state law" in Section 4, Subd. (i) be sub- stituted for "town ordinance". Rither seconded; motion carried unanimously. In reference to the Attorney's advice to add a provision to repeal all inconsistent provisions in the ordinances, Rither moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission initiate procedures to amend Ordinance #8, Section 302, Definitions, to read: under (e) Animals: 6'(4'-2 G~VW TVWNStllP Page 2 l3) Pleasure/ Recreational Animals, such as horses, ponies, and foals kept for the purpose of pleasure and/or recreation, which do not norm- ally reside in an occupied residence. Johnson seconded; motion carried unanimously. Johnson moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Board of Supervisors that the proposed Horse Ordinance be app- roved. Bush seconded; motion carried unanimously. By way of review, Commission noted that the Town Board of Supervisors originally directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to form- ulate an ordinance to control the keeping of horses, ponies and foals within the Township and at that time we were without ade- quate controls for the keeping of those animals. The Planning and Zoning Commission then requested interested horsemen in the Township to serve on a steering committee to formulate the Ord- inance. The document presented to the Town Board of Supervis- ors is the result of work done by the steering committee, the Commission, and input from the Public Hearing held April 2, 1974. Commission indicated that the next Public Hearing on the proposed Horse Ordinance will be held July 30, 1974. Chairman Miles read a letter from Pat Lindquist listing points to consider adding to the proposed Horse Ordinance from Mrs. Oliphant of Ramsey Town- ship. No action was taken. S.S. Morris appeared to request a Special Use Permit to construct a memorial park in Grow Township. He presented a map of the property located near the "Y" on 7th Avenue and stated the amount of property he wants to develop into cemetary is 20.58 acres. The following adjoining property owners were also present: Hy Itman, William Itman, James Stack, Palmer Levenhagen, Helen Cogan, Thomas E. McKee, Richard J. Sybrant. Jaworski noted that the property, according to the Soil Limitations map, has a high water table of one to four feet with severe limitations for urban development. He also observed that the property con- tains soil from group three classification indicating severe limitations due to excessive slope. Applicant agreed that there is a little high ground on the property and as it continues north- ward there is a severe drop off and there appears to be a lot of surface water there. He felt it was not suitable for homesites. Albert Buscher, brother of adjoining property owner Cogan, ques- tioned if it wouldn't be too low for burial sites also. Applicant stated his plans are to cut and fill to the necessary elevations as far as necessary topography in conformance with State Laws relative to memorial parks. He said there are special laws in the State to apply to this type of situation because of the per- petual fear of people to have relatives being buried in water. He indicated his intention is to work with Anoka County and the G~VW TVWNS~IP Page 3 engineers of Grow Township as to how they want the graveyard constructed. He said he first had to determine if the permit would be granted for this particular area and then to work with the Township in conformance with any regulations it has. Morris assured the Commission he does not want to use swamp area for a cemetary at this time but to begin on the high ground and fill the low area, using fill from construction jobs in the area. Stack pointed out that there are only four or five acres of high ground on the site. Morris answered that a total of 0nly one to one and a half acre of lots is generally sold per year in a memorial park and that the five acres then would give him five years of operation and time to fill in the low areas. Applicant told the Commission in memorial parks there is a perpetual care fund required which is State controlled. Stack said he does not want to live by a cemetary. Levenhagen said the park would be right near his back door, that his house is about 40 feet from the property line. Rither asked if there is any land which potentially would never be suitable for cemetary purp~ses. Applicant stated that obviously, from a cost factor, the piece would not be developed in total. He further indicated State Law permits 1,093 graves per acre. Rither asked about roads and any other buildings. Chairman Miles asked if applicant would be preparing a plan. Stack asked if there would be poll- ution from graves located in watery areas. Chairman Miles asked if this area is in a watershed area.. Discussion continued con- cerning the creek located on the property. Rither stated it was incredible that Morris has not presented a development plan to the Commission. The rest of the Commission concurred that Morris needed a plan and it was stated a plan of the development of the entire area would be prefered. Morris insisted he had not been told he needed a development plan. Buscher indicated the Commission should find out if this particular memorial park is needed; will it be beneficial to the whole Township; will it benefit everyone or just the developer; will it hurt anyone; will it prevent adjoining property owners from selling? He said many times developments such as this often come up short of funds and cited examples in Brainerd and Fargo. He stressed that local people should develop a cemetary in the area to take care of the burial needs of the community. Levenhagen said he felt the cemetary would devalue his property. Miles read from the minutes of February 27, 1974 indicating Morris had been directed to the Town Clerk at that time for forms and procedures to be followed. Rither read from Ordinance #8 that in reviewing a Special Use Permit application the Commission must be concerned with the health, safety, welfare or morals of the community. !1orris indi- cated he had planned to begin construction this Fall and that he has tentatively hired a general manager of the cemetary. It 674-3 G~VW TVWNS~IP Page 4 was determined to postpone action on the Permit and Chairman Miles asked that notices be mailed to the adjoining property owners to again appear at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Comm- ission. Stack asked why can anyone put a cemetary next to his land with him unable to say anything about it. Buscher suggested the Commission examine the background of Morris. Jaworski moved action be tabled until the July 30th Meeting of the Commission. Jehnson seconded; motion carried unanimously. Next item on the agenda was a variance request for Marlow Strand. He explained the cost for the platting of his lot was very high and wished to be excused from the requirement to plat his property for resale. Robert Munns, Attorney, appeared with Strand. Vander Laan read from the June 26, 1973 minutes indicating that the Commission had reviewed the variance before and had determined a lot split could result in density zoning. Rither read from the May 29, 1974 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission at which Strand had also appeared and at which Commission determined no action should be taken on the variance request. Rither explain- ed that the need for requirements for platting information on soils and topography are due to the excessive drainage problems in Grow Township. It was stated that Strand had conveyed the property with the provisions that in the event a Building Permit could not be issued, it would revert back to him. Johnson pointed out that Strand had informed the Commission at his last. appearance that he would plat the property. Jaworski moved that Chairman Miles should contact the Township Attorney to check if there has been a violation of Ordinance #10 and State Law and then that the Town Board of Supervisors be advised accordingly as to the course of action. Rither seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Bush, Jaworski, Rither,Vander Laan; those abstaining: Jack, Johnson, Miles. Motion carried. Munn stated that Strand's appearance before the Commission was merely to get a variance and that he felt it was not proper he be subjected to prosecution because of his admissions at this appearance. Johnson stated that variances are granted due to the hardship of the land and not the property owner and it has been determined that lot splits create problems and that there is no reason that Strand should be granted.avariance~ Dis- cussion continued. Jack pointed out that if the plat was brought before the Commission it would be no guarantee that it would be accepted without question. Strand indicated the engineer had suggested he appear for a variance. Vander Laan moved the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Grow Township Board of Supervisors that the variance request for the lot split for Marlow Strand be disapproved in that the criteria listed in the G~VW TVWNStllP Page 5 June 26, 1973 minutes still apply and that it was expressed then according to Ordinance #10, Sec. 17.01 that a variance is grant- ed when the conditions have to do with the characteristics of the land and that granting of the variance does not adversely affect the adjacent property owners and the Comprehensive Plan or the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Rither added that the Commis- sion had indicated at Strand's other appearances that the Town- ship would encounter density zoning if a variance were granted for a lot split a~d that it would encounter difficulty in exercising strict control over urban development, and that not only the lots to be created would be affected but also those adjacent proper- ties, and that denying the variance request will not deprive the applicant of a substantial property right. Bush seconded; motion carried unanimously. 674-4 Rod Samson appeared regarding application for a variance so that the closing of the loan on his home could take place as he has built a home on a private road in the Township. He stated he had purchased property from Brookdale Land Companies and had a home built by Creative Homes Concepts and that now the loan corp- oration would not hold a closing on the home as it is not on a public road. It was noted the Building Permit was issued November 6, 1973. Jaworski explained that the roads in the development had not been accepted by the Township but that the developer, LHT Investment Corporation, had continued selling lots at that time, and that at the present time, services are discontinued to the residents in the area. Applicant stated he is now living in the home. It was suggested by the Commission that he get a Statement of Occupancy from the Building Inspector. Rither moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the variance request for Rod Samson be appro- ved because the house is already built and because of a failure to grant the variance, the applicant would be deprived of a sub- stantial right. The necessity for a variance arises from the requirement that building sites must have frontage on a public road. Jaworski seconded; motion carried unanimously. 674-5 Gerald Windschihitl appeared regarding application for a var- iance in order to convey a substandard lot with regard to size, that he wishes to split his lot in order to sell a hone located on the property. Applicant indicated the land was surveyed in 1965 and that no harm would be done to adjoining property owners as he is the only property owner of adjoining future lots. Applicant presented several possible subdivisions of the property for the Commission's examination and stated his reason for selling the home was that he no longer lives there and cannot clain home- stead rights with regard to taxes and that tIlere has been vandal- ism to the home. Rither stated he felt that the hardship was 674-6 \ G~VW TVWNS~IP Page 6 not created by the shape of the parcel and any subdivision of the parcel would be premature as it is located in the proposed sewer and water area. Jack stated that he felt the plan as submitted by the applicant for a 2-t acre lot subdivision would be most desirable. Jaworski moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Grow Township Board of Supervisors that the variance request for Windschihitl be denied on the grounds that (1) it is premature with things as they are in the present situation in the Township, (2) it is not in concurrence with Ordinance #8, Sec. 6.02, Lot Sizes, Minimum Regulations, in an R-l Zone. Bush seconded; motion carried unanimously. Sketch plan for Kiowa Terrace was presented. Developers indicated that in lieu of a parcel of land for park purposes they prefered to make a cash donation to the Park Fund. Commission discussed pros and cons of accepting land instead of cash. Vander Laan noted Township has a Park Advisory Board who would be giving a recommendation to the Commission in order to make a final decision on that issue. Bush noted there is development in adjoining areas and it is presently without a park. Miles pointed out that many of the lots may not be acceptable if a previous recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission that 75% of the area of the lots be in Groups One and Two of the Soil Limitations Map is adopted. Vander Laan suggested the developer bring in a Soil and Capability Study as prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Rither expressed concern with the plan for Makah Street. Chairman Miles noted a meeting is scheduled for July 1st, with the Township Attorney. Vander Laan moved the meeting be adjourned. Bush seconded; motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:45.