Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 24, 1974 \ \ / c ) , '\ \. J ~ ) \ , ) f7rvw Tvwn~hip GROW TO\~~SHIP PLANllING & ZONING AGENDA - SEPT~lBER 24, 1974 - 7:30 p.m., AT THE GROW COHHUNITY CENTER. 774-4. 974-1. 774-1. 974-2. 874-4. Hyit Realty Company - Sketch Plan Gerald Windschitl - Sketch Plan Changes to Ordinance #8 Revision of Firearms Ordinance #12 - Regulating the discharge of firearms throughout the Township Review of Cemetery Ordinance GROW TOWNSHIP PLANNING & ZONING (CONTIIWED) AGENDA - OCTOBER 1, 1974 - 7:30 p.m., AT THE GROW CO}n~ITY CENTER. 974-3. 974-4. 974-5. 974-6. / , ) Lawrence Blesi - Variance Melvin Castner - Variance Kenneth Olson - Sketch Plan Harlow Strand - Sketch Plan 774-4 f3~()W T()WNSIiIJ> Minutes of the REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING of the Grow Township Planning and Zoning Commission held September 24, 1974 at the Grow Town Comuunity Center. Attending were: Chairman Miles, Commission members Bush, Jaworski, Jack, Johnson, Rither and Vander Laan. Meeting was called to order at 7:40 by Chairman Miles. Chairman Miles asked for the approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting held August 7, 1974. Commission had no correct- ions or comments. Rither moved to accept the minutes of the August 7, 1974 meeting. Bush seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Chairman Miles asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion held August 27, 1974. Commission had no comments or correct- ions to those minutes. Rither moved to accept the minutes of August 27, 1974. Jack seconded the motion; motion carried unan- imously. Jaworski indicated that the action dealing 1Vith Rosella Sonsteby's request was so brief that the Town Board member who moved to deny it had to add items. Chairman Miles said he agreed with Jaworski, that we must insure that we list all of the items that pertain to our findings. Bruce Folz, Engineer from Orr, Schelen, rfuyeron and Associates, appeared on behalf of the Hyit Realty Co. to present a revised sketch plan for a piece of property of about 20 acres located on the east side of County Road #7 and the west side of County Road #58. He pointed out that the tract of land has a drainage ditch running North to South to about the center and then West. Folz explained that he had met with the County Engineer, who had re- viewed the sketch plan and then presented a letter from him stating that the Engineer's only comment on the access was that it should not be closer than 660 feet, and would like to see a future road plan for the division of the property. Chairman Miles read the letter, dated September 20, 1974, for the County Engineer, indicating that along each of the County Roads involved, a minimum right of way width of 150 feet should be shown. The letter also specified that for the four lots fronting on County Road #58, a pattern for future development should be prepared showing the location of streets that would intersect County Road #58, and that the spacing of these intersections should be no closer than 660 feet. Folz stated he felt that taking 75 feet from a lot and restricting the access borders closely on confis- cation without compensation. Commission discussed this with Folz to determine if property owners had been refused compensation for this right of way. The sketch plan showed a proposed area to be donated for a parkway or walkway system. Rither objected that there, would be no way to join this property and that located across G~()W T()WNSIiIJ> Page two Sept. 24, 1974 the road except by an overhead walkway, and that pedestrian traffic should not be permitted to cross County Road #7. Vander Laan said on checking the Soil Limitations Map she observed that Lot 4 is entirely in Soil Group 3 and would consequently have limitations for use as a building site. Miles said he had met with the Township Attorney on the proposed Ordinance concerning Building Site Criteria based on Soil Limitations and that Haw- kins had said the adoption by the Township of the State Plumbing Code, Appendix E, gives us all the criteria necessary to control the issuance of Building Permits in areas where there should be no building allowed because of soil conditions. Miles read from the t1innesota Individual Sewers Disposal Systems Code regarding restrictions on the installation of septic systems. He explained we also are facing disapproval of another plat in the Township by the Metro Council and that it has a much lower water table than the property for which Folz had presented a sketch plan. Miles said he feels that' are some very serious problems with this piece of ground in the "Yll in regard to the installation of sep- tic systems and that percolation tests should be taken to deter- mine if there are buildable lots in any of that area. Folz asked the Commission if before any more money is spent, do they approve of the concept? Miles stressed that what we are dealing with is a piece of land, that no matter what is done, it is in a marginal condition for building. The Soil and Capability report from the ASCS W3,S studied and discussed by the Commission. Jaworski stated that while at present we have no restrictions as to the amount of high ground contained in a lot, that he would require fifty to sixty percent of the lot to be high ground. Rither said that the serious reservations he has regarding the subdivision are that the topography is such that at this point in time development results in an undesirable subdivision. This piece by its nature has a substantial amount of lowland which is unbuildable and because of the need to limit access onto the County Roads it is proposed that the residents share driveways and that he didn't know how desirable that is. He also indicated that this area may be difficult to resubdivide at a later date because of the shapes of the lots. He said it may be ideal to first serve the area with sanitary sewer and than develop it. He continued that based on what our goals in the Township are, it just doesn't seem to fit. Jack said he felt the future subdivision of this area would be very cumbersome and that the proposals for access to County Road #58 are,' just a means of circumventing the requirements of the County and that we must be careful of leaving the property owners in a position to negotiate. He said at this time the development of ttis area is somewhat immature and undesirable. Chairman Miles again stressed that he felt by developing the area we are headed for problems. He suggested that the developers use a frontage road but again stressed that he felt while they meet the existing Ordinances dev- ~~uw TUWNS~I~ Page three Sept. 24, 1974 elopment is an undesirable use for this land at this time and that the State Pollution Control Agency may object because the perco- lation rate w~ll be too fast. Commission informed Folz the plan will be sent to the Park Advisory Board for review. Hither noted that we refer to Ordinance #8, Section 2, Intent and l~rpose of the Ordinance, giving a list of items to consider when we look at a proposed development. At this time Folz presented a second sketch plan, llhich he refered to as Item C, for a piece of land consisting of 108 acres located Ilest of County Road #7. He said he had met with the County Highway Engineer who had informed Folz that the proposed County Road #7 calls for a 50 curve on the northern end of this property and had indicated by letter that 75 feet of right-of-way would be required. After Folz explained the road plan, Miles sugeested that the roads showing on the proposed future subdivision be constructed and the existing roadways be designated for future subdivision in order to get rid of the narrow lots. He explained the lots are against the Ordinance in reference to Hidth. Commission expressed concern that the streets do not line up with those in the Stenquist Addition a~d observed there are double faced lots in the plan, which are not permitted. Miles said when the developers get to the preliminary plat stage, he would like to see individual lot percolation tests. Commission again stresseQ that they are not in favor of undersized lots. Miles asked what happens to the land left over by the curve on the proposed County Road #7, and Folz stated it may be used for com- mercial purposes someday. Vander Laan asked if the owners had found an abandoned cemetary on this property as was indicated by an adjoining property owner at a Public Hearing held in July for the proposed memorial park. She said she was concerned if it exists that it would be included in one of the lots, and asked the owners check on this carefully. It was generally agreed Commission would accept for study preliminary plats on the properties if Folz chose to present them. 974-1 Rither moved that the meeting should adjourn at 10:30. Jaworski seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Next person to appear before the Commission was Gerald Windschitl who presented a sketch plan for his property on Crosstown Blvd. He explained there was a proposed set-back of 75 feet, and the park area contained 2.6 acres. ~indschitl asked the Commission if that park area would be accepted for this plat and a future one. Miles advised applicant that the dedication would get lost as the other parcel would not be dp.veloped until later. Applicant stated there is no existing park land in the area. Windschitl explained that while the original intent was to file a plat showing one lot with the existing house and just future lots, that the Town Board <<;~VW TVWNSIiIJ> Page four Sept. 24, 1974 had suggested the entire plat be filed now because at some future date it may not meet Ordinances in effect at that tillE. Commission concurred that Windschitl may plat to 13,000 square feet but, of course, would not be issued Building Permits. Miles indicated he felt the sketch plan meets the criteria of the Ordinances and that a point of discussion is the dedication of the park land. He suggested when the preliminary plat is brought in, it should show the extension of his temporary cul-de-sac. Jack moved the Commission adjourn for a ten-minute recess. Bush seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. 974-2 After a break, the Commission reconvened for the Public Hearing for proposed changes to Ordinance #8. Miles explained it had been originally incorrectly published and that the COffimission had been asked to combine the changes from separate actions. Chairman Miles read the following changes, published September 13, 1974: (1) Page 1, Section 3.02 Definitions; add under Item (E) Animals: (3) Pleasure/Recreational, Animals not normally kept in a residence such as horses, ponies, foals, donkeys, burros, mules or others. (2) Page 1, Section 3.02 Definitions; change item (C) to read: ......as well as the raising thereon of domestic animals, non-donestic animals and the raising and keeping of pleasure/recreational animals. (3) Page 1, Section 3.02 Definitions; change last sentence of item (D) to read: It shall include the raising of domes- tic and pleasure/recreational animals. (4) Page 14, Section 8.19 der item (F) Animals: first sentence. Other Nuisance Characteristics; un- Delete "and horses" from the (5) Page ?, Section 4.09 Platting: Retain only the first sentence of this section and add the following sentence: All subdivision of land shall be in accordance with existing Platting Ordinance. (6) Pa~e 5, Section 4.11 Relocated Structures; add, before the present paragraph, the following sentence: All relocated structures shall comply with the Ordinance regulating the Moving of Buildings over streets and alleys in the Township and providing for the protection to the Township from damages arising out of such oper~tions. (7) Page 7, Section 5.02 be ammended to read: Property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the property in question shall be notified in writing, al- ( -2 6~VW TVWNS~I~ Page five Sept. 24, 1974 though failure by any property owner or occu~ant to re- ceive such notification shall not invalidate the pro- ceedings. Notification shall be by mail. The applicant shall submit a list of the property owners and occupants within 350 feet as part of the application. (8) Page 7, Section 5.03, C 2 shall be ammended to read: The Clerk shall refer the application to the Planning Commission. Property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the property in question shall be notified at least (7) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, although failure of any property owners or occupants to receive such notification shall not invalidate the proceedings. Notification shall be by mail. The petitioner shall be required to submit a list of the pro- perty owners and occupants within 350 feet as a part of the ]etition. Bush moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Board of Supervisors that the changes be approved. Vander Laan seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Next item discussed was the revision of Ordinance #12, Regulating the Discharge of Firearms throughout the Township. Miles explain- ed that the Town Board wants the firing of rifles to be restricted completely in the Township and allow shotguns to be fired only with a Township permit and on 10 acres of land, and that the person discharging the shotgun be carrying that permit. Rither asked if the propblem is of sufficient magnitude that we go to this res- trictionand ~hat documentation is the Town Board prenenting to us to indicate that we should adopt these changes to the Ordinance. Miles explained the problems relate to the indiscriminate use of land by persons other than those who are residents of the the Town- ship. Rither asked how many complaints and over what period of time has the Township received these complaints? Johnson said his understanding of the Ordinance when it was passed was that people objected then because they needed a permit to fire a gun on their own land, and that the Town Board Chairman was deluged with requests for permits and consequently there are many lot owners who have permits to fire a rifle on their property. He continued that his understanding of the Ordinance is that you must have a permit to fire on your own land and that you also must have permission of the property owner to discharge a firearm on his land so why do we need changes to the Ordinance? He stressed that all that needs to ne done is enforecment of the present Ordinance. Miles said the Town Board felt that while the present Ordinance is not enforced, it is not enforceable. Rither asked how will changing the Ordinance make it enforceable? Miles explained that requiring the person doing the shooting to have a permit allows whoever is doing the law enforcement to determine at that time if the person is in yjolation of the Ordinance. Johnson said he was not familiar with f;~()W T()WNStlIP Page six Sept. 24, 1974 the present Ordinance, that he had been refering to an earlier Ordinance. Miles explained the Town Board wants the boundary re;~oved from the Ordinance, to make it effective throughout the entire Township. Jack stated there are sizeable areas to \lhich gun control should be applied. Rither suggested as the Township of Grow is now more urban than suburban and recognizing that we have a number of open areas, even though there is some development contiguous to these areas, and noting that discharge of firearms in these areas has resulted in concern of residents of these areas, that we would recommend that it should be unlawful to discharge any rifle or"shotgun.in the boundaries of the Township of Grow and then require the applicant for a permit to demonstrate the two items listed in Section 4, ~ermits before being granted a permit.. Miles read the Ham Lake Gun Control Ordinance. Johnson suggested we delay action. Jack suggested we find out from the Law Enforce- ment Officers what is enforceable. Jack moved the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Board of Supervisors that we would encourage enforcement of our existing gun Ordinance to its full intent and that the Law Enforcement Commission advise the Town Board and Planning Commission as to the feasibility of restr- ictions in the Township in all manners of firearms and bows and arrows. Bush seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. 874-4 Chairman Miles informed the Commission that he had contacted Bill Hawkins regarding a proposed Cemetary Ordinance and was advised that Grow Township has all the controls it needs to administer or control cemetaries within its confines by the use of our Zoning Ordinance and Special Use Permits. 574-1 Chairman Miles informed the Commission that,the Attorney's feelings regarding the proposed Building Site Criteria 'Ordinance are that we cannot enforce the requirements as drawn by the Planning and Zoning Commission and accepted by the Town Board. Miles continued that Hawkins said that Appendix E of the State Building Code is the tool given the Building Inspector to regulate the problem and has already been adopted by the Township. Jack suggested we should talk with the Building Inspector. Rither directed Chairman Miles to talk with Arntzen to find out if the State Building Code will accomplish the same thing we are proposing. Rither moved the meeting be adjourned. Johnson seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at lO:26. ommission