HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 20, 1971
{r~~"~4~ &g-
A public hearing was conducted by the Grow Township
Zoning and Planning Commission on April 20, 1971 at Crooked Lake
school. The hearing was called for the purpose of taking
testimony regarding an Amendment to the Township of Grow Ordinance
No.8, Zoning Regulations. The Amendment was initiated by the
Grow Township Board of Supervisors and was referred to the Town-
ship of Grow Zoning and Planning Co~~ission on April 2, 1971.
Notification of the public hearing was published in the legal
newspaper, the Anoka County Union on April 9, 1971.
Zoning and Planning C02mission Norm Stout called the
public hearing to order at 8:05 PM with Co~~ission members Bradley,
Christenson, Holasek, Jones, Langseth, and Rither present; Board
of Supervisors Appleby, Schneider and Winner present; Township
Clerk West and Township attorney Babcock present; residents and
non-residents of the Township of Grow also present.
Chairman Stout announced that the Amendment initiated
by the Township Board of Supervisors seeks to amend Ordinance
No.g, paragraph 4.04 Lot Provisions subparagraph (A). Chairman
read subject paragraph:
4.04 Lot Provisions
(A) A lot or parcel of land for
which a deed or contract for deed
has been recorded in the office
of the Anoka County Register of
Deeds upon, or prior to, the
effective date of this Ordinance
shall be deemed a buildable lot
provided it has frontage on a
public right-of-way and said
space requirements for the district
in which it is located can be
maintained or adjusted to conform
as follows: a lot or parcel of
land of record upon the effective
date of this Ordinance which is
a Residential District and which
does not meet the requirements
of this Ordinance as to area,
width, or other open space, may
be utilized for single family
detached purposes provided the
measurements of such area, width,
or yard space are within sixty (60)
percent of the requirements of
this Ordinance; but said lot or
parcel shall not be ffiore
intensively developed.
Page Two - Amendm€
- Public Hearing - April
, 1971
Zoning and Planning Commission Chairman Norm Stout
called upon Louis Appleby, Chairman, Grow Township Board of
Supervisors, to read Amendment as initiated and to explain
why the Board proposes to amend the Ordinance.
Appleby read amendment:
Section 4.04(A) of Grow Township Ordinance
No. 8 is hereby amended to read as follows:
A lot or parcel of land for which a deed
or contract for deed was recorded in the
office of the Anoka County Register of
Deeds upon or prior to January 1, 1971,
shall be deemed a buildable lot pro-
vided it has at least 100 feet frontage
on a public right-of-way and an area of
at least 15,000 square feet.
Appleby stated that the amendment. was intended to help "John
Brown in the north of Township, who faithfully and honestly
paid taxes for many years, had the lot recorded and now wants
to build a home on the lot; the lot would have been legal but
now it isn't; with the amendment it would be legal even if it
was only 100 feet wide."
Lawrence Blesi stated that he came in with a plat and
the Board specified the lots to be built, that he did not record
the lots because he did not feel it was necessary. Blesi stated
that, "Now I can build on every lot but now I can't because the
lots are not recorded."
Stout noted the 40,000 square foot provision of the
Ordinance.
Christenson asked Appleby to give his impressions on
the effect the amendment will have on the Ordinance.
Appleby stated that, "I see no definite impact - I
don't think there are very many metes and bounds plats."
Christenson: "Do you know how many?"
Appleby: "No."
Christenson: "Do you know where they are?"
Appleby: "No."
James Nash asked, "iHll this affect lots on Genie
DRive? Will they be saleable? Are you requesting a rezoning?
How many lots will be affected?"
Appleby stated that "It honestly affects people who
had bought lots a long time ago and who have honestly paid taxes
for many years and who now want to build on their lot."
Nash asked, "Are we talking about a speculator or
Page Three - Amendr~nt - Public Hearing - Aprj' 20, 1971
land dealer?"
Appleby stated that there was no land dealer or
speculator involved.
Holasek stated that, "People with lots which do not
meet the requirements of the Ordinance can apply for a variance."
Nash stated that the amendment "suggests wholesale
rezoning."
Judy Nelson asked if the lots on Genie Drive had been
sold to which Nash replied, "Yes."
Attorney Babcock stated that "The Ordinance regulates
the use bf land and not the sale."
Christenson asked what Zoning District the lots would
be in if the lots were deemed buildable under the amendment.
Attorney Babcock stated it would depend on the area
in which the lots were located. "As to other requirements
excluding lot size, it would need to conform to the district in
which it is located; if in the R-l zone, then R-l; if in the
R-2 zone, then it must meet the R-2 requirements."
Christenson stated that "If the lots do not meet the
requirements of the district in which they are located, there is
no category of lot size, then to what area do they conform?"
Babcock stated that "If in the R-l district they must
meet the R-l requirements and if in the R-2 district they must
meet the R-2 requirements."
Appleby stated that "The amendment is to help those
who bought a lot and have honestly paid taxes and we can't
deny them the use of their property."
Al Parent asked "'i'lhat happens to a person who has
250 feet of frontage and 40,000 square feet; bought the land a
long time ago and built on part of it; they wouldn't subdivide
until ready to sell?"
Stout read Intent and Purpose of Ordinance and stated
that, "It is recommendation of practically every planning group
and without sewer and water it could mean trouble." Stout
read requirements of the R-) Zoning District and stated that
large lots prevents skip development and resultant expensive
sewer installation. Well depths were discussed.
Stanley Knoll stated that "I do not believe that the
Town Board could in good conscience adopt this amendment; it
should not be allowed."
Page Four - Amendrr t - Public Hearing - Apri- '0, 1971
Mary r.1cGregor stated that "We have nice country - we
do not want density zoning. If John Brown has a lot and wants
to build then why doesn't he come in for a variance? You have
nice, lovely country - don't let the developers ruin it."
Appleby asked McGregor, "Shall we deprive a family
a home in this lovely country?"
George Ripley asked how the change will be effected.
Babcock replied that the Zoning and Planning Commission
conducts a hearing, after hearing has adjourned it is submitted
to the Town Board which then either denies or grants adoption
of the amendment.
In response to a question by Ripley, Stout replied that
the hearing will probably be continued.
Art Jaworski stated that he had bought a lot which he
now considers too small. "We have had sewer trouble and so have
four other neighbors. IVhy, when we are already having trouble
with our sewers, should we encourage even smaller lots and closer
together? It will mean sewers sooner than is necessary."
Jim McGregor asked, "When will action be taken? What
happens to homes which are under construction? What about homes
in Oak Ridge Manor?"
Stout stated that all but three or four meet the
ordinance requirements.
McGregor stated that, "I live in the area and Stout
certainly must have misjudged or be misinformed because of 35
homes only one meets the code. I have tried to ask Mr Langseth
about this matter but he is either not available or not at home."
Stout asked Langseth to explain about the square footage.
Langseth stated that he has been in the construction business for
some twenty years or better, that his experience goes back to
World War II. Langseth stated that he considers living area as
one floor and that the square footage is figured on a wall to wall
basis. If the area is livable then it is figured wall to wall.
If there is adequate light on the lower level and it can be
finished off into a livable area, then it can be considered as
livable area. Langseth stated that the homes in question have
large windows on the lower level and can be finished off and
that consequently he figured one-half of the lower level in the
total square footage of the home.
Page Five - Amendrr t - Public Hearing - Apri- '0, 1971
McGregor stated that, "There is nothing in the
Ordinance which says anything about light."
Nash noted that the Ordinance excludes the basement
or cellar.
Langseth stated that the lower level is a room, it is
figured in the square footage because it is livable.
McGregor stated that Langseth should read the Grow
Ordinance.
Langseth stated that the BOCA Code was adopted as
a part of the construction code of the township.
Nash asked for the attorney's opinion.
Babcock stated that "It is apparently questionable
if split entry includes part of the lower level; if they wish
to allow this building then omit the words cellar and basement."
Nash asked, "Are they in violation of the code?"
Babcock replied, "They are not meeting requirements."
Stout read definition of "Floor Area" from Ordinance.
Langseth stated that he has had lots of building
experience and that it is generally understood that one-half
of a split is included in the floor area.
Babcock rose from his seat and, standing in front of
the audience, stated, "I would like to back up the building
inspector. I was not aware of the fact that one-half of a
split is included in the square footage until this afternoon."
Stout noted that "Our code does not say this."
Langseth said that "Vie have the BOCA Code and the
technicality is beside the point."
Nash stated that "The technicality is the point - are
we going by the code or by the building inspector?"
Stout stated that "Our code is more restrictive."
Jaworski asked, "Where is the light? 'i'lhere are all
the windows?"
Stout noted that the code requires ten percent of the
floor area be devoted to lighting area.
Discussion was held regarding definition of basement.
Mr McPherson, representing E-V Builders, stated that
the Ordinance apparently did not require a basement. McPherson
Page Six - Amendmc
- Public Hearing - April " 1971
stated that under the terms of the ordinance it is possible to
have a block building, above ground and because rooms are used
for living space it is not considered a basement.
Chairman announced that, "'i'le're getting off what
meeting was called for."
Chairman complied with Dave Jacke request to re-read
the proposed amendment.
Dr. Hugh Schoephoerster asked, "How long will it be
before we as citizens take a stand on exploitation by speculators?
I would like to welcome the Town Board to the Twentieth Century.
I appreciate the man who has the lot and did not get it sold
before January 1, 1971. The Town Board should defeat the amend-
ment resoundly. How they could do otherwise is hard to understand."
Appleby stated, "We are not protecting speculators."
Schoephoerster stated that, "We should not repeat the
mistakes of other areas. We should learn from their mistakes
and learn how to avoid them."
Appleby stated that, "It is not going to affect very
many lots."
Jaworski asked, "If we let it go this time when will
another amendment be needed?"
Appleby asked Jaworski, "What is your conception of
the amendment?"
Jaworski stated that he saw it as "allowing it for
someone."
Schoephoerster commented, asking, "Why the exception now?
Why on 100 foot lots? Do people buying [these lots] know what
will happen? Do they know what they will be drinking?"
Nash stated that "People are able to obtain a variance
on lots vlhich are under the code."
Appleby stated that "This is a blanket variance."
Al Froiland, representing E-V Builders, stated that
"This land [Oak Ridge Manor] vvas surveyed and registered in
November - the Wallenbecker property - "
John Wallenbecker stated that "It was surveyed and
approved in November. I don't know why these people are upset."
Stout reminded the audience that the meeting was
Page Seven - Amenc 1t - Public Hearing - Apr 20, 1971
called to consider the amendment to the ordinance.
'i'lallenbecker stated, "I want to discuss my land."
Stout replied, "We are concerned with the amendment."
Bradley requested clarification for people who had
lots recorded prior to January 1, 1971, and asked Chairman to
read Section 5.04, Variances and Appeals. After the reading
Bradley noted that a variance can be granted on any parcel of
land.
Moore asked, "Doesn't Grow Township have any feeling
for people? Are we going to throw it all out and let it go
down the drain? Why prevent people from using their land?"
In reply to a question from Gerald Eisenschenk
regarding fees, Bradley re-read variance procedures.
Eisenschenk stated that, "People must pay another $25.00 to
get a buildable lot."
Stout asked, "Do you want 100 foot lots with 50 to
60 houses and pollute the wells?" Stout related experience
regarding handicapped children in Thompson Park in Coon Rapids.
Ron Fleissner asked Stout if it was a documented case.
Harvey Fisk stated that, "My well is 100 feet deep
and I would rather take a bath in the toilet."
Jaworski asked "What is the minimum well depth allowed?"
to which Stout replied, "45 feet."
Fleissner stated that as a real estate broker he has
some experience regarding well depths in the area based on tests
and that depths range from 65 to 100 feet.
Stout noted that "I have two wells on my property,
20 feet deep, the cesspool is 75 to 80 feet away and nine feet
above the water table."
Froiland asked i~ the handicapped children Stout
referred to "Would not be the same. Has the size of the lot
changed anything?" Froiland continued, saying, " Area of lot
does not solve the problem. It cannot solve it and sewer is
needed, then the 200 foot lot width will require a premium
for sewer assessments."
Menkveld stated that "The code calls for state
standards on wells."
Page Eight - Amen~nt - Public Hearing - Apr
20, 1971
Langseth stated that "I thought it was 45 feet which
was in the old code. I have been checking with the well drillers
and normaldepth is 80 to 150 feet. It is rare but some go to
200 feet."
Stout reviewed meeting held on December ), 1970 at
which time the soils in the area and the areas of impermeability
were discussed by staff of the University and the local County
Extension office; reviewed construction ordinance regarding wells.
Bradley stated that, "To be on the Board is not a
spot to be in. What we must know is what lies under-
We know more about the moon than the ground beneath us.
related results of studies conducted in Iowa of nitrates
in soil and discovery of nitrates in wells up to 200 feet deep.
Bradley noted that "Iowa is a different situation;
that their methods and soils are different but it is a point
to be considered. Continuing, Bradley stated that, "Minnesota
soils, particularly this area, are permeable and that positive
predictions cannot be made because so little is known. Bradley
stated: "This is what this Commission is for: It must do the
best for the most, for the longest period into the future."
Bradley stated that "It might be interesting to have a showing
of hands here whether we would be economically embarrassed or
economically enhanced by what action the Board takes."
Rosella Sonsteby asked, "How can you do any planning
and zone R-4 right next to an area of open land. It shows
partiality in my mind."
George Ripley commented on the intent and purpose of
the Ordinance saying that, "What you read, about the benefit and
welfare - it means pollution for some and financial for others.
I can't do it on three acres. I favor repeal of the Ordinance."
Christenson asked Ripley, "Have you seen the Zoning
and Planning Commission regarding your land? Does the Ordinance
allow you the opportunity to solve your problem?"
Ripley replied, "Yes it does. I plan to do so."
Hughes asked, "If you spend $25.00 for variance and
don't get it, do you get your $25.00 back?"
Attorney stated that fees are used to cover the cost
of handling the application and are not returned.
Dave Jacke asked Chairman to clarify amendment.
popular
ground.
Bradley
Page Nine - Amendrr ~ - Public Hearing - AprL" '0, 1971
"Does it mean that requirement of 60 percent of 2t acres will
go to 100 by 150 foot lot - a reduction from 2t acres to 100 foot
lot width?"
Attorney replied that "It will wipe out the 60 percent
requirement."
Stout asked Menkveld how many lots of his would be
affected by the amendment. Menkveld replied, "About 30 or 35,
I'm not certain."
Holasek noted that on the Menkveld variance application
there was a total of 132 lots.
Menkveld stated that "I know of 27 individuals who
want to build."
Nash stated that "You should ask for rezoning instead."
Menkveld stated that "There is a lavlSuit pending."
Stout noted that "We have pretty well covered things."
In a comment directed at Attorney Babcock, Christenson
stated that, "Current provisions of the 60 percent requirement
means a correlation of existing lots with the new requirements:
How will the proposed amendment allow that to continue?"
Babcock reiterated earlier interpretation that "If
the lot is . in the R-l District it would be covered by the
requirements of the R-l District; it does not create a new
zoning district."
Christenson asked, "How can that be? 1:lhen in that
category, R-l, sideyard setback is thirty feet; that doesn't
leave much room ona 100 foot lot."
Babcock replied, "You must go with it as much as
practicable."
Holasek stated that, "I am concerned that it will
be a rezoning of a piece of ground when it covers a whole area."
Babcock replied, "It applies to any and all lots -
it happens that I know of a block of lots that will be affected."
Holasek noted that "As the area gets built up it will
have to be rezoned; why don't they ask for a rezoning? If
there was a block now we end up leapfrogging with sewer. The
Ordinance provides for orderly growth."
Sonsteby stated, "\'le were told we'd have buildable
lots before January 1, 1971 and then when the new ordinance
came out they stuck that 60 percent in there, then they
Page Ten - Amendme-~ - Public Hearing - April ~0, 1971
double-crossed the public."
Menkveld stated, "Your own attorney wasn't aware of
the 60 percent requirement" and "I feel sorry for any man who
owns land, such as Holasek, who isn't under green acres."
Stout stated, "The ordinance has cost me money too,
about $120,000."
Christenson asked Sonsteby if she "Would like to have
a planner examine the amendment and use his expertise in
determining the impact."
Menkveld asked Christenson, "Are you going to fire the
attorney and let the planner take over?"
Christenson said, "We're going to ask planner for
planning advice and the attorney for legal advice."
George Williams stated, "Speaking of double-crossing...
I was told that we would be on large lots - every other lot -
then I found that I was double-crossed. We want large lots and
then developers come in and cram in homes."
Stout stated that, "I have to give Rose [Sonsteby]
credit, she agreed to build on every other lot before the
Ordinance was adopted."
Don Janssen stated, "1.Vi th the new amendment any lot
100 by 150 feet recorded prior to January 1, 1971 will be a
buildable lot and 2~ acres cannot be subdivided. How many lots
are involved?"
Appleby replied, "We do not know."
Janssen continued, "If we do not know, who is to say
that it will not have an impact? If we haven't examined all
aspects how can we make a decision? It is discouraging and
disturbing to see past mistakes; let us work to avoid the
mistakes."
Menkveld asked, "How much land do they have and why
didn't they buy more?"
Janssen said that "l.ve did buy an additional lot - wanted
to buy more but couldn't."
Mary McGregor stated, "Most of you are rural, \"le milk
cows and trust everybody. Enter business tycoons. Buy 'em a
cup of coffee and you're buddies for life - right?"
Page Eleven - Amen ~nt - Public Hearing - ApT
20, 1971
Fleissner noted that "The Metropolitan Council has
typically under-shot population predictions for sewer. The most
recent prediction for this area was not for 1976 as stated but
has been revised to 1974. If a large development is to come in
then sewer will be put in."
Stout noted that the Ordinance is designed for the
development of sewer and building at the same time.
Fleissner noted that the complaints are from younger
people. "Vle have families too. Our family discusses this
problem at home - my son is a student of Lyle Bradley and we
have some strong arguments at home. The question is where are
our children going to live? I work for industrial development
in the northern suburbs. If you have industrial development you
must have a place for these families to live. If the amendment
is not passed, what will happen?"
Attorney noted that a variance is not an automatic
procedure in this case.
Janssen stated that "All variances will be granted with-
out any research; variance allows individual research and
investigation. Vlhy spend two hours examining amendment?"
Appleby replied, saying, "Lots have been examined.
This is a mass variance. This is simple, it will save us a
lot of trouble."
Gerald Eisenschenk stated, "It is my understanding
that a variance is easy to get - that you get it within a couple
of days."
Babcock replied, "No. It could take a few weeks or a
month or possibly longer."
Eisenschenk stated that, "This [amendment] speeds
up the process."
Babcock noted that "This is a one-shot affair, this
only because of the newness of the Ordinance." Babcock continued
by noting that in his experience with other municipalities, amend-
ments have been used to solve a problem they had and that "As
a practical matter, I do not encourage problem solving in this way."
Gloria Rither noted that since the stated intent of
the amendment is to protect the single small lot owner and the
Page Twelve - Amer ~nt - Public Hearing - Ap
20, 1971
drawback of the amendment is that it would foster sewage problems
in areas where developers have a series of small lots, the amendment
should be adjusted to allow variance to scattered individual lot
owners, but not allow whole developments of undersized lots. "Can
you exclude the large developments? Is there a chance for a
compromise?"
Menkveld stated, "That is discrimination."
Fleissner asked Attorney Babcock, "Can suits be brought
if a man is deprived the use of his land?"
In reply, Babcock stated, "They could sue but it
questionable if they could recover. I would not ask the Town
Board and the Zoning and Planning Co~~ission to make a decision
based on this kind of pressure."
Holasek stated that, "vle can't come to a
Total lots should be considered and we should find
there are. Ive should consider the Mr. Blesi case.
ment should be given a great deal of study."
Stout asked, "Are there any here who have lots affected
by the Amendment? How many that would be affected that were
registered?" Stout noted that seven hands were raised.
It was moved by Bradley and seconded by Christenson to
take the amendment under advisement and not take action tonight;
We should get Mr. Voss or Mr. Schmid, planning consultants, to
examine the amendment and findings. Motion carried.
Winner stated, "We should have had the consultant here
at the meeting." Rither noted that Stout had asked Mr. Schmid
to be at the meeting. Stout said, "I talked to Schmid at the
April 14 Informational Meeting, approached Appleby and asked
for permission to have Schmid at the hearing but Lou said he
didn't think it would be necessary."
Christenson inquired as to when the Co~~ission must
take action. Babcock replied, "You must give your recommendation
before the next regular meeting of the Board which is the second
Tuesday in May."
Menkveld stated, "There's going to be lots of problems.
We're going to be sued for our money back."
snap decision.
out how many
This amend-
Page Thirteen - Arr lment - Public Hearing -
'il 20, 1971
Sonsteby stated that, "I suggest that the members
of tne planning com~ission don't get any pay until this
matter is all settled."
There being no further testimony or discussion,
Chairman Stout declared the Public Hearing adjourned at
10:10 PM.
Robert A. Rither, Clerk, Zoning and Planning Commission