HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 27, 1973
r '\
\.J
r\
\.J
:J
r9 g_e...YLJo._
I. Hor-se. Ot'-c1."~o..Y\.e e.
.;l,. -rin-. Ir-ol"son Vo...l';ClL~c.c...
$. R:c.\..o...~J I/o....ci Sp.e-c.;t:t.! as~ ~ie/l')/:r-
</. o(Jo h...... LOJ Q '" SKe.-I-c.J, pitt 11
S. t3 ('(.c..e.e. +\.o..."{ Va..... ~ .......... c. -e...
,. O<",cL"Y\A.Y\.ee.. /6 ""D;S(tKS~":()"""""-
o
':J
G~VW
TV W N S Ii I J>
/
The regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Grow
Township Zoning and Planning Commission was held November 27,
1973 at Crooked Lake school. Chairman Art Jaworski called the
meeting to order at 7:35 PM with Commission members Bush,
Johnson, Miles, Newell, Rither, and VanderLaan, present.
Horse Ordinance - Committee Report
Allan Miles reported on the activities of the Horse
Ordinance Committee. Miles stated that the first meeting was
held November 15, 1973; all members were present; Pat Lindquist
was elected secretary and minutes will be kept of all meetings.
In addition, Miles noted that meeting dates have been set and
permission received to utilize the Township attorney if needed.
On November 29, 1973 the Committee will review the Minnesota
State Horse Council Model Ordinance and on December 20, 1973
the Committee will conduct a public, advertised, meeting in
order to gather comments from the public. Miles stated that
the target date of January 29, 1974 has been set for completion
of the Ordinance.
Jaworski noted that the next regular meeting of the
Commission falls on Christmas day and that a decision should
be made regarding postponement of the December meeting or a
rescheduling.
Tim Tronson, 15416 Nightingale St lliv appeared before
the Commission regarding an application for variance. Tronson
stated that the variance is requested in order to use an
accessory structure for an animal shelter and stora~e. The
property is described as the East 240 feet of the 32 of the
N~ of the SEt of the Invt, Section 22 T32R24. Tronson stated
that the structure was erected without securing a building
permit; done on the basis of what was observed in area around
the property; felt that if others had done it, it was O.K.
to proceed. VanderLaan stated that she had had a discussion
with the applicant and was left with the impression that the
violation of the Ordinance was not willful but due to ignorance
of the Ordinance requirements. Newell noted that the property
is located in the R-1 Zoning District and noted that the rear
yard setback is six feet where ten feet is required by Ord.
#$, 4.05(D); meets side yard setback for an interior lot; does
not meet Ord. #$, $.19(F) Animals. At the request of the
Chairman, Newell read Otd. #$, $.19(F) Animals. Newell noted
that according to the applicant, the lot abutting the property
to the ~ is an "occupied" lot as described in the Ordinance.
Commission noted that the Tronson dwelling is located seventy
feet from the proposed structure while the Ordinance requires . \
a separation of 100 feet; that the "occupied lot" to the ~ l..C...Je.st
will be located six feet from the proposed structure while
the Ordinance requires a separation of fifty feet or more.
Miles asked if there were any objections from adjacent property
owners. Doug Boyer, 2060 154th Ave m1 stated that he was
"more than welcome to have it there."
W f;.S-r
/
, )
,
I
Page Two - November ~/, 1973
T()WNSt1IJ>
€~()W
,
/
In response to a question by Richard Siewert, 1532$ Nightingale
St IDN, Grow Township Building Official Walter Arntzen stated
that not finished, the structure complies with the State
building code. Rither noted that there were two issues at
hand; first that the structure did not meet the rear yard
setback as an accessory structure; that as a practical matter
the setback is four feet short of the requirement and that
the requirements for the granting of a variance must have
to due with the characteristics of the'land and not the
property owner (5.04 of Ordinance #8); that if the building
is up then it becomes a matter of either granting the
variance after the fact to make the structure comply with
the Ordinance or make the property owner move it. Second,
the proposed use of the structure is in violation of Ordinance
#$, $.19(F) Animals; that there just isn't enough room on
the property to make the use compatible with the Ordinance.
After brief discussion, it was moved by Newell, seconded by
Rither, that the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend
to the Board of Supervisors that the application for variance
by Tim Tronson be disapproved for reasons stated in Ordinance
#8, 8.19(F) Animals and that there is no hardship condition
noted as described in Ordinance #$, 5.04. During discussion,
Johnson noted that if this situation were just a storage build-
ing then the only problem would be the four foot descrepancy
in the rear yard setback. Tronson asked if there were no
objections of the neighbors, why the problem? Newell stated
that the main problem is with the requirements of the Ordinance,
and we must be considerate of the-neighbors in that they may
change their minds or the people themselves may change.
For: Newell, Rither
Against: Bush, Miles, Johnson, VanderLaan
Miles stated that the intent of the Ordinance is not to
create a hardship for the property owner; that the barn would
be used for both storage and animals - maybe later for only
storage depending on what type of horse ordinance is adopted.
It was moved by Miles, seconded by VanderLaan, that the
structure be allowed to stand as an accessory building noting
that no more than two horses would be kept in the structure
and that the structure does comply with the Ordinances except
for the rear yard setback for accessory buildings (4.05D);
6.02; $.19(F) Animals, and that according to the Building
Inspector, no other practical location exists for the building.
During the discussion, Newell stated that he did not feel
the Commission legally permitted to make a limitation on the
number of horses; and that no hardship has been demonstrated
as required by Ordinance #$, 5.04. Miles stated that there
is a hardship in that there is no other location practical
for the structure. Rither stated that his original comments
were still valid adding that the Ordinance represents the
minimum standards for the community and that those standards
must be maintained; there is simply not enough room for the
proposed use in order to conform to the standards; the standards
maintain a minimum separation between the uses in order to
carry out the purposes of the Ordinance; to grant the variance
, /
)
Page Three - Novembe. 27, 1973
6~VW
TVWNS~I~
would set a precedence with implications for the future; to
grant a variance means to allow something to occur which is
not permitted by Ordinance; to grant a variance when a
situation fails to meet three different. sections of the
Ordinance is unheard of and unthinkable. VanderLaan stated
that she was attempting to be fair and merciful, that the
structure came about not as a result of an intent to violate
the Ordinance.
For: Bush, Miles, VanderLaan, Johnson
Against: Newell, Rither
Chairman declared the motion carried.
Newell noted that according to Ordinance 8, $.19(F) Animals,
"The governing body may order the owner of any animals to
apply for a special use permit if it is deemed to be in the
interest of the public health, safety, or general welfare."
stating that in this case none had been applied for.
Richard Hand appeared before the Commission
regarding an application for Special Use Permit to use a
model home at 3060 Bunker Lake Blvd. Nfl as a real estate
office. Commission reviewed Ordinance #8, 7.03 Special
Uses noting that while the proposed use is not listed under
the Residential District special uses, it is not specifically
prohibited thus it could be considered under the Special Use
category. Jaworski noted that while the Ordinance is generally
comprehensive, it cannot cover all situations, it is not all
encompassing; if the Permit was violated in some unreasonable
way then the Permit could be revoked. Commission noted that
Section 5.03(C)6. allows the imposition of "conditions (in-
cluding time limits)" as felt necessary. Commission noted
that it would seem unreasonable to prohibit model homes and
real estate sales from those locations within a housing
development. In response to questioning by the Commission,
Hand stated the development [Meadowcreek Estates] has
approximately 45 sites left to be built; there is off street
parking space for 12 vehicles; the parking area is black-
topped; access to the model home is from a service road
parallel to Bunker Lake Blvd. to Jonquil Street mq; business
hours will be those customarily found for real estate sales;
there will be one lighted sign, currently on the premises at
3060 Bunker Lake Blvd. ~~i containing approximately 100 square
feet of space and located more than 130 feet from any occupied
dwelling; the model home will not be an occupied dwelling.
Commission reviewed Section $.07 Signs, noting the provisions
of Section (E) General Provisions (g). Hand stated that no
application for a Special Use Permit.for sign permit had been
made. Commission noted that the proposed use will not have
an adverse effect on property values nor will it be detrimental
to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
occupants of surrounding lands. It was moved by Rither,
seconded by Miles, that the Zoning and Planning Commission
Page Four - November
,
-, ,
1973
G~VW
TVWNSl-tIP
recommend to the Grow Township Board of Supervisors that a
Special Use Permit be issued to conduct real estate sales
from a model home at 3060 Bunker Lake Blvd. WN; that a sign
be allowed on the premises providing said sign is in con-
formance with Ordinance #$, Section 8.07; that said Special
Use Permit be subject to reviewal by the Governing Body
at the end of each six month period until said project,
Meadowcreek Estates currently under development, is completed
at which time said Special Use Permit shall automatically
expire. Motion carried unanimously.
1
John Logan appeared before the Commission and
presented a sketch plan for a five acre lot development within
the ~1~t of swt of Section 26. Chairman stated that Logan
wanted to know how his plan complies with Township Ordinances
so that contact can be made with Township engineer. Logan
stated that proposed Crane Street NW is presently a private
drive but would be improved and brought up to standards.
Discussed cul-de-sac length in excess of 500 foot minimum
according to Ordinance 1110, 9.03(G); Drake St NVl has not been
constructed; jog of 69 feet between the streets is permissable
according to Ord. #10, 9.03(E). Johnson asked how the five
acre lots fit into the proposed Comprehensive Development
Plan. Jaworski noted that the Plan and the Policies have
not been adopted as yet. Johnson stated that the proposed
layout does not appear to be a very good one; it could be
improved substantially. Miles agreed, indicating that he
was not sure that there was an alternative. Logan noted
that the property on the south side of Coon Creek, approxi-
mately 13 acres, may be conveyed as park land. Miles said
that if that were so, Drake Street NW would have to be
extended to the park property if it were so dedicated.
Miles noted that Logan should be careful of the soils limit-
ations on the southerly three lots. Commission examined at
length the soils limitations map of Grow Township provided
by Nason, Wehrman, Chapman and Associates. Jaworksi stated
Logan should show how the five acre tracts could be re-
subdivided in the future; the area will become R-3 or R-4
in the future when sewer and water comes in; indicate to
the OVlllers of the lots what could happen in ten or twelve
years from now; use care in siting the homes so that [they]
do not end up in the middle of some future street extension.
Commission noted that the plan should be revised; drop
excess length of cuL-de-sac by extending a street easterly
from Drake to Crane. Commission noted that Anoka County
Ordinance 70-1 Sections 4.0;4.1,4.11(a) also apply. Discussed
lots F,G,H; Newell suggested that the usable portion of G
be added to F and the remaining portion of lot H. Commission
discussed the future zoning of the area and agreed that there
is, at the present time, no sure way of saying; a comprehensive
plan would enable the Commission to say with some reasonable
certainty what the future development and density would be.
\
/
"
Page Five - November 2 I / 1973
6~VW
TVWNSIiIP
\
)
Commission requested that Logan provide street signs as
specified by the Township engineer; that Logan return in
January for further review of the proposed development.
Logan stated that he had plenty of time in which to work
up the plan to the satisfaction of the Commission.
\
)
Chairman called for Bruce Hay regarding an
apllication for a variance. Hay not present. Rither read
Ordinance #$, Section 5.04 Variances and Appeals which
states, "3. The petitioner shall appear before the Planning
Commission in order to answer questions." Miles stated
that the Commission does not know what the applicant wants,
cannot ask him questions, therefore cannot take any action
on the application. Commission agreed and instructed the
Chairman to hold the Variance Application in abeyance until
the applicant appears before the Commission. No action taken.
Commission discussed the contents of a letter
written by Orren Fricke, P.E., Consulting Engineers Diversified,
Inc., Dated October 31, 1973 which contains proposed changes
to the Subdividing and Platting Ordinance No. 10. Jaworski
noted that copies of the letter had been sent to all members
of the Town Board as well as the Planning Commission.
In addition, the Commission discussed two changes which were
not contained in the Fricke letter. The Zoning and Planning
Commission unanimously recommends to the Grow Township Board
of Supervisors that the following changes to the "Subdividing
and Platting Ordinance No. 10" be implemented as soon as
possible:
Section 7. Change to read "There shall be no
conveyance of land described by metes
and bounds if the conveyance is less
than twenty acres in area and 300 feet
in width." Commission notes the problem
of increased~large lot development wherein
the Community has little authority to
review the proposed developments to insure
that the developments comply with Town-
ship standards with regard to streets,
drainage, future subdivision, among others.
Section 7.02-a Change to read "---at least 23 calendar
days---"
Section 7.02-e Change to read "---hold a public hearing
on the preliminary plat within sixty days
after---"
Section 4
Change Definitions to read in part:
Sketch Plan is ---- submitted to the
clerk for consideration---".
)
Page Six - November 21;' 1973-
G~VW TVWNStllJ>
Section 9.02-c Change to read in its entirety:
No preliminary plat shall be approved
wherein lots front only on the right-
of-way of arterial roads.
Section 9.03a. Change to read in its entirety:
a. Widths. All street rights-of-way
shall be sixty-six feet unless other-
wise directed by the Planning
Commission on the basis of anticipated
traffic volume, planned function of
street and character of abutting land
use. The roadway surface shall be
in accordance with standards and
specifications which have been adopted
by resolution of the Town Board and
shall be in accordance with the
anticipated function of the street and
the character of the abutting land uses.
Section 9.03-i. Change to read in its entirety: Half
streets shall be prohibited except
where necessary to complete the right-
of-way of an existing half street.
Section 9.03-p. Change to read: "Rights-of-way of
street intersections---".
Section 9.07 Dedication of Parks or School Sites:
Change to read: "----ten percent of
the gross area subdivided shall be
dedicated for public recreation space
or school sites, with such ten percent
being in addition to property etc.---."
"---if no land in the subdivision is
suitable for such use, the subdivider
shall be required to pay a fee of one-
hundred dollars ($100.00) per lot----".
Section 10.03-a Change to 150 percent
Section 10.03b. Change to 150 percent.
Section 10.09- Add the following sentence:
Drainage facilities shall be provided
to convey surface water to publicly
owned or controlled drainage facilities.
Section 11.01a. Change in part: "---, the subdivider
shall file 7 copies of the final plat
and 3 copies of improvement plans and
specifications with the clerk---".
,
-, /
Page Seven
NovemL ) 27, 1973
~~vw
TVWNS~IP
\
J
Commission noted that the Ordinance has been in effect for
approximately one and one half years. The changes proposed
are those thought necessary to make the Ordinance more work-
able and responsive to the practical applications of the
regulations as brought out through usage. The changes proposed
in Section 9.07 reflect the recent authority given by the
Minnesota State Legislature and a reflection of increased
land values.
There being no further business to come before the
Commission, it was moved by Newell, seconded by Miles to
adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:4$PM.
ommlsslon
\
)
J
'./
f \
Variance - Tim Ti . .{son " )
November 27, 1973
Grow Township Zoning and Planning Commission
~.
r ~ ~
~
..
~~..
~-~ tJ
II'
~~ "tf ~t ---- L
d)
!II I) f' f"..
r: :z; ~
G\ m ~ l
-f- [;) ~ 0.. ~"'"
o I/' ~J~ l~ - "
01 ~ ~ j
i~ i . . . . . ~
! V\
Z .:
I'l
- r-
~ ii1
~ ~ 0 t'
,Ci fi Z Z
~ Q
~
/~ 1} '&
II)
V\ r .
~I :r ~
~':9 ~ ~ ()J
"L ;z: - &....
o - ~
fJ' ~
cJ ~
J.
~ f' en
:lC1
j; ~
~J:!:
~ {;
cr.
If'
z
~
::l~ \0\.1. ;'<:1'
;
6~VW
TVWNS~IP
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December $, 1973
GROW TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION
VARIANCE - TIM TRONSON
/
Gentlemen: The following is submitted for consideration.
The applicant appeared before the Commission at
a meeting held November 27, 1973.
1. Property is described as the East 240 feet
of the st of Nt of the SEt of the rn~t Section 22 T32R24.
2. Structure was erected without secural of a
building permit from the Grow Township Building Official.
3. According to the applicant, building was
commenced without a permit based on what was observed in
the area; that it appeared acceptable because others had
done it.
4. Variance is requested in order to use said
accessory building or structure for an animal shelter and
storage.
Commission noted the following:
1. Property is located in the R-1 District.
2. Proposal does not meet the requirements of
Ordinance #8, Sections 4.05(D);6.02; and $.19(F) Animals.
3. No other practical location exists for the
structure.
It was moved by Miles, seconded by VanderLaan,
that the structure be allowed to stand as an accessory
building noting that no more than two horses would be kept
in the structure and that the structure does comply with the
Ordinances except for the rear yard setback for accessory
buildings (4.05D); 6.02; 8.19(F)Animals, and that according
to the Building Inspector; no other practical location
exists for the building.
Motion Carried: For: Johnson, Bush, VanderLaan,Miles
Against: Newell, Rither
Art Jaworski, Chairman, Zonlng and Planning Commission
;
, \ \
'"'O'...'..l.ctnce - .i.'.:,UIl l'l\.--...SO.i:'l. \.. )
November 27, 1973
Grow Township Zoning and Planning Commission
-'J - I
,.,."--oSl...4
~ IT l
I ~, f~
I ~~~ l~
~ 1
~
,
k U1
1--- "'-o.J >1
~ "I' .)...
~ ~--~ N
<II
"
to ____ .fi-
r
d); !:-
{'>-
'Jl ~~
1~ - I'
:r
t
'^
:r:
111
r
;:t
r
g
z;
III
.
:r R
2
~ ~ ;n oj
A - /JJ...
~ ~
:J
(i1
z~ P? ~~
~6~q
;: :t: ~
(j\ m (\l
-l- f'> ~ 0,
o I/' ? ~
010 ~
(Tl 0 ~~-?f . . .
:z: i ~
"0(1) Z
1:: g
~~
0
~~ z Z
~
' -& 1/
V\ ~ ~
~~
-z; ;z:
o if
c1 ~
':t.
6' ~
;;t\J
:t: ~
~~
~ c.
(f\
(f'
z
~
)
.....,
-
;)~., \i.l. -\; S \
\
/
\
, /
6~VW
TVWNSIiIP
\
/
December $, 1973
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
GROW TOVmSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPOSED CHANGES - ORDINANCE #10
SUBDIVIDING AND PLATTING
)
Gentlemen: The following is submitted for consideration.
Your attention is drawn to a letter dated
October 31, 1973 written by Orren Fricke, P.E. of
Consulting Engineers Diversified, Inc., Township Consulting
Engineer to William Hawkins, Esq., Township Attorney
regarding several proposed changes to Ordinance #10.
At the regulary scheduled meeting of the Zon-
ing and Planning Commission held November 27, 1973, the
Commission discussed at length the proposed changes. As
a result of those discussions, the Zoning and Planning
Commission unanimously recommends to the Grow Township
Board of Supervisors that the following changes to the
"Subdividing and Platting Ordinance No. 10" be implemented
as soon as possible:
Section 7. Change to read "There shall be
of land described by metes and
conveyance is less than twenty
and 300 feet in width."
Section 7.02-a. Change to read "---at least 23 calendar
days---"
Section 7.02-e. Change to read "---hold a public hearing
on the preliminary plat within sixty
days after---"
Change Definitions to read in part: Sketch
Plan is ---- submitted to the clerk for
consideration---".
Section 9.02-c. Change to read in its entirety: No
preliminary plat shall be approved wherein
lots front only on the right-of-way
of arterial roads.
Change to read in its entirety:
a. Widths. All street rights-of-way
shall be sixty-six feet unless otherwise
directed by the Planning Commission,
on the basis of anticipated traffic
volume, planned function of street and
character of abutting land use. The
road-way surface shall be in accordance
with standards and specifications which
have been adopted by resolution of the
Town Board and shall be in accordance
with the anticipated function of the
street and the character of the abutting
land uses.
no conveyance
bounds if the
acres in area
\
/
Section 4
Section_9.03a.
/ " ,/ ~\
\ j \ )
Proposed Changes to Ordinance #10 - Page Two
Change to read in its entirety:
Half streets shall be prohibited except
where necessary to complete the right-of-
way of an existing half street.
Change to read: "Rights-of-way of
street intersections---".
Dedication of Parks or School Sites:
Change to read: "----ten percentof the
gross area subdivided shall be dedicated
for public recreation space or school
sites, with such ten percent being in
addition to property----". Also, "---
if no land in the subdivision is suitable
for such use, the subdivider shall be
required to pay a fee of one-hundred
dollars ($100.00) per lot----".
Change to 150 percent.
Change to 150 percent!
Add the following sentence: Drainage
facilities shall be provided to convey
surface water to publicly owned or
controlled drainage facilities.
Change in part: "---, the subdivider
shall file 7 copies of the final plat
and 3 copies of improvement plans and
specifications with the clerk---".
The Commission notes that the Ordinance has been
in effect for approximately one and one-half years. The
changes proposed are those thought necessary to make the
Ordinance more workable and responsive to the practical
applications of the regulations as brought out through
usage. The changes proposed in Section 9.07 reflect the
recent authority given by thecMinnesota State Legislature
and a reflection of increased land values.
Section 9.03-1.
\
/
Section 9.03-p.
Section 9.07
Section 10.03-a.
Section 1O.03b.
Section 10.09-
Section 11.01a.
'\
J
Art Jaworski, Chairman, Zoning and Planning Commission
~. )
~~vw
TVWNS~IP
December $, 1973
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
GROW TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - RICHARD HAND
Gentlemen: The following is submitted for consideration.
The applicant appeared before the Commission at
a meeting held November 27, 1973.
1. Applicant desires to conduct real estate sales
from a model home located at 3060 Bunker Lake Blvd. Wn within
a residential home development known as Meadowcreek Estates.
2. Said subdivision has about 45 sites left to
be built.
3. Access to the model home will be from Jonquil
St. W# onto a service road parallel to Bunker Lake Blvd.
4. The parking area will have spaces for 12
vehicles and the surface is blacktopped.
5. Business hours will be those customary for a
business of this type.
6. There will be one, lighted, sign currently on
the premises at 3060 Bunker Lake Blvd. rn1, containing
approximately 100 square feet of space and located more than
130 feet from any occupied dwelling.
7. Said model home will not be occupied.
8. No application for a sign permit has been made.
Commission notes the following:
The proposed use will not have an adverse effect
on property values nor will it be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals , and general welfare of the occupants of
surrounding lands.
It was moved by Rither, seconded by Miles, that
the Zoning and Planning Commission recommend to the Grow Town-
ship Board of Supervisors that a Special Use Permit be issued
to conduct real estate sales from a model home at 3060 Bunker
Lake Blvd. ~11; that a sign be allowed on the premises
providing said sign is in conformance with Ordinance #$,
Section 8.07; that said Special Use Permit be subject to re-
viewal by the Governing Body at the end of each six month
period until said project, Meadowcreek Estates currently under
development, is completed at which time said Special Use
Permit shall automatically expire.
Motion carried unanimously.
Art Jaworski, Chairman, Zoning and Planning Commission
i