Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 27, 1971 Ar.. ~AIO A 4-J7-?/ I. Ot'din4~'lC!& g Am.."'d.wae.Y\f D :..c... Sa '....N j". c.tu.I!JON PraliWliV\IHY 1'14.4 - Sed/oN .il. 3. V a.r j (1)\C Eo I.j, V ~ V"; o-V\e e. Son de. MaoV/,(Ue.LO 5. FOo.l( be l"-f L..-I Si>/i-J - 5...-1-...11/..:2../ ~ A meeting of the Grow Township Zoning and Planning Commission was held April 27, 1971 at Crooked Lake school. Chairman Norm Stout called the meeting to order at 8:07 PM with Commission members Christenson, Holasek, Jones, Langseth and Rither present. Minutes of the March 23, 1971 meeting were approved as corrected. Minutes of the March 30, 1971 meeting were approved as read. Gilbert Menkveld asked for copies of minutes for the August, September and October meetings. Stout replied that there were none. Jones asked if it was required by law to have minutes. Attorney stated that some municipalities pass them ahead of time for correctness; they are posted in a public place and not read at the meeting but corrected; it is not necessary to publish the minutes in the official npwspaper. Bradley arrived at 8:30 PM. Minutes of the April 2, 1971 meeting were approved as read. Chairman Stout announced that the Commission had held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Stout read the Ordinance as it presently reads and explained that the amendment eliminates the sixty percent requirement and allows a 100 foot by 150 foot lot. Stout read proposed amendment. Stout introduced Otto Schmid. Schmid stated that he was the principal designer with Urban Planning and Design Inc. and had worked on the comprehensive plan for the South Area of the Township and had also worked on the Zoning Ordinance; he had been asked for consultation on the proposed amendment and was asked to review the proposal. Schmid stated that he h~d some reservations regarding the proposal, that he did not think it wise to give blanket approval for the situations which face the Township; each should be judged individually, on their own merits. Schmid noted that at the time of Ordinance adoption the policy was to allow building on lots of certain size outside of sewer and in other areas to develop every other or every third lot until sewer was available. Schmid stated that the underlying soils structure is a delicate animal; easily polluted by too many septic systems and could pollute wells. Schmid reviewed the subdivision of lots in the TOvlnship, noting that various methods were used, using metes and bounds or quit claim deed as examples. Schmid proposed four possible courses of action. First, change the Ordinance. Second, rezone to classification it would fit in. If the lot size is less than 20,000 square feet then rezone to 13,000 square feet in the R-4 district. Third, grant variance. Schmid noted that this was an awkward way although it allows a review of each request, allows conditions to be added, and allows room for compromise. Schmid pointed out that rezoning does not ~llow conditions to be attached. Finally, leave it as it is, do nothing and hope that the problem goes away. Bill r.TcPherson, representinE; E-V Builders, asked Schmid if he suggested a moratorium on building when stating that building should be restricted to every other lot. Schmid explained the sixty percent requirement of the Ordinance and objected to the term moratorium noting what the Ordinance states recardi~g development in areas without sewer and water. Discussion continued re/jarding ground water pollution, whether 3 large lot cures pollution or will only delay it. Schmid noted that there are various sub-soils throughout the Township. McPherson asked if it is not true that the large lot will not purify, only -2- April 27, 1971 surrounding area aI,,,, sanitary sewer will do it. Schmid stated that it would depend on percolation. McPherson asked if this was based on a study or tests conducted and if so, what agency. Schmid replied that information was based on ASCS, University of Minnesota studies and others. McPherson co~~ented that, "You are going on others' information." Schmid stated that, "We are not experts - we go to them." McPherson asked if studied on an individual basis, would this give rise to spot zoning? Schmid replied that he would hope it would lead to some intelligent plannin8' Schmid noted further that in terms of unplatted lots, the Town Board and Zoning and Planning Co~~ission would like to see how they would fit in with the entire co~~unity. McPherson stated that it is not limited to residential but would include where multiple and commercial areas fit and then put them in. Does it result in spot zoning and are you in favor of spot zoning? Schmid replied that where land use is not approved it could lead to spot zoning. McPherson asked if Schmid would reco~~end a comprehensive plan for the entire Town- ship instead of for a small area. Schmid stated that was the reco~~endation to the Town Board; the South Area should be reviewed when the rest of the Township is completed, that all plans should be changed. McPherson asked, "As you revievl the problems of Grow Township are there any other municipalities or areas with similar problems?" Schmid replied that the names ~nd faces change but the problems seem to be the same. Schmid stated that Coon Rapids would be an example, his colleague did the planning, and that the ultimate goal is the same, and that the area south of Coon Creek could be a mirror situation with 30,000 people in the year 2000. Sonsteby asked, "Did you go out and view and check all the R-3 zones and others that were zoned?" Schmid stated that they consulted soils maps, aerial surveys - it is not a hard plan - it can be changed. Sonsteby asked about the ASCS and stated that a village was planned on swamp land. Schmid stated that the areas are not hard and fast - villages can be moved around. Geographically that is where the Village would go - promote the non-development as well as the development. If some areas were lakes, recharging areas, it could be an environmental mistake. Sonsteby commented on the zoning map stating that her property is closer to sewer and is zoned for 2t acres while another area is all open land and is R-4, and it was favoritism. Joe Faubert stated that he is in the R-3 area, has 1.84 acres, 144 feet frontage, 254 feet deep in the Nordeen addition, $35,000 house on the land and is an existing lot of a whole packet...what do I have to have and what do I have to do? Stout noted that the area is already down to R-3. Attorney noted that the variance procedure would be a way to bring it to your attention. Faubert asked what was required in the R-3 district. Schmid stated that building is permitted on every other lot, not more than one private sewer system per 40,000 square feet. Faubert said that nothing will be gained by chopping up the other lot and adding it on, the sewer is still in tne same place. Schmid read Ordinance variance procedures. Faubert stated that he could take footage off the back and make an L-shaped lot. Schmid asked if the other lot would then become substandard. Each case should be looked at individually and seek a solution, according to Schmid. Discussing continued regarding wells, Schmid stating that what State requirements say may not be adequate for Grow Township. Stout informed Faubert that no sewer was planned for his area, that the Metropolitan Sewer Board has no plans at this time. Faubert asked if he has the required area, would he have a chance for the variance. Stout replied that he could not say. Faubert stated that Langseth told him to ask the zoning board. Stout stated that there is danger in getting too many in an area where no sewer is planned; Faubert would be shy on requirements if two -3- April 27, 1971 homes are put on tIle property. Stout revieweo ~nformation on sewers obtained at the April 14 information meeting. Nash discussed variance procedures stating that $25 is charged to cover expenses for a request for variance; with this information would not the Zoning and Planning Commission ne doing a dis-service studying more than one lot? Schmid stated that the fee is used to cover the secretarial expense and as for what it takes to study the request that is up to the Township. Nash asked if the variance applies to 100 lots or 200 lots. Schmid noted that it is unusual. Nash asked if Schmid had run across it before in his experience. Schmid stated that he did not remember any similar experience. Nash asked if it would come as a rezoning. Schmid said that yes, it would be a rezoning and with a plat. Discussion was held regarding sewers. Jim Emerson noted that the area west of County Rd #9 would be served by Anoka and asked if it meant that the trailer court will not have sewer before 1974 or 5 or 6. Will this area be annexed to Anoka? Stout stated that he hoped it would not be annexed. Emerson stated that we should know what is going to get sewer, that we deserve to know. Menkveld said we should get back to the amendment. Holasek asked if this was a continuation of the public hearing. Larry Stenquist stated that he saw a variance in the Ordinance. One area requires sixty percent of 2t acres or 64,340 square feet while another area requires 40,000 square feet; why the difference when water is the reason? Schmid stated that it means fewer systems in a given area. Stenquist asked if in the R-3 area is there something about the soil and geological lay of the ground that takes care of the problem than in an area such as R-l? Babcock stated that 4.04 is to affect a rare situation where there was a lot recorded prior to January 1, 1971, not a separate zone, if it meets the sixty percent requirement then it complies. Stout restated Stenquist question and explained the zoning map and how it evolved. Stenquist stated that he agreed with the philosophy that an area was zoned R-l because no one applied for the zoning, but the people who o~TIed the land had no say. Stenquist asked how can there be sewer and 40,000 square feet and then require 64,000 square feet in the R-l District? Sr.hmid discussed the R-3 areas stating that the zoning map was based on plat maps on conveyances recorded in the Register of Deeds and that they tried to pin-point developments. Zoning them would keep them in a conforming status. If all were zoned R-l then they would be non-conforming. Some areas were hoped to have sewer in the near future. If all were zoned R-3 then there would be problems. The zoning means an easing into the situation and hope for both. Stenquist asked what were the square footage requirements set up by the Conservation department for one family. Schmid stated that he did not know, that it would depend on percolation tests. McPherson discussed the status of the land noting that the use of the land would be illegal and action would be taken. Schmid noted that the use of the land could not be more intensively developed. Langseth stated that a number of things in the map and Ordinance which should not have been in it. Schmid asked if there were areas that were omitted, to which Langseth replied yes. Rither stated that the Co~~ission should study the testimony taken at the public hearing and do research to determine just how many lots will be affected by the amendment. Menkveld stated that all Vlere there at ~he hearing and asking if this was another way of stalling. "You've done a good job of stalling and you should make a decision.", Menkveld stated. Stout asked if any brought plats which would be affected by the amendment. Lawrence Blesi noted that he brought in his plat for approval before the Ordinance went into effect. Douglas Bonde stated that he had submitted a variance. Langseth said that there -4- April 27, 1971 is another one in ~ne north of the Township. uchneider stated that there were developers that spent a couple of thousand dollars for surveyors and roads and they should be given consideration. Schmid stated that the Town should outright rezone the areas and put them in the proper category. Schmid continued saying that he does not know all the factors but that to change the Ordinance and to make an about face is a mistake. Menkveld stated that it is correcting a mistake. Schmid noted that some are filed on quit claim deeds, among others. Menkveld stated that public roads are filed by deed and that the roads had been accepted. Appleby stated that it was correcting a mistake in the Ordinance. "What I feel is right and just. People who buy lots should not be put through variance and rezoning to build. They are taxed for a buildable lot and should be allowed to be built." Schmid referred to the expense of rezoning and variance stating that if something is causing a hardship to a property owner then maybe the Town Board could initiate a variance. Babcock stated that the Board had initiated ~he amendment but they could also initiate a variance. Appleby stated that it has taken a long tiwe to get something through the Zoning and Planning Commission. This is not going to affect very much of the town. Langseth stated that people understood that what was prior to the first of the year was buildable but now there are lots of restrictions. They understood that they could build but now they are having proble~s. Stout displayed a copy of the original zoning Ordinance. Nash stated that the Rither suggestion is right, asking if you are aware that sowe Wallenbecker lots are less than 150 feet wide. Nash stated he questioned whether the Board knew what they did. Nash asked how do you measure? Nash stated that some do not go 100" on the cul-de-sac. Holasek stated that they must be 150 feet wide at the set-back - no actual check but that is what is said. Langseth stated that on a cul-de-sac the width is maintained at the set-back line. Holasek noted that Appleby referred to those. with hardships noting the case of Blesi, who has lots but which are not now recorded. Holasek asked, "How are we going to help him? How can it be rectified?" Bob Munns, representing Lawrence Blesi, noted that the roads were put in, the lots were surveyed, the abstracts were ordered and that prior to enactment of the Ordinance the Board was contacted and the sixty oercent would urevent him from developing the lots anyway. Munns stated that Blesi should be given some consideration. Bradley noted that at the hearing people with lots were asked to contact the Board. Stout stated that he looked at one two weeks ago and that there were three points that would meet the private sewer system code and two would not. Holasek noted that Schmid named four ways the situation could be handled asking if rezoning would not be a better way to do it, that to change the Ordinance there may be specific cases to which it may apply. It would be proper to go to the rezoning procedure, it would handle these other cases, the ones not recorded. For the large areas I can't see variance procedure, complicated to issue variances. Menkveld stated that the attorney said don't rezone, that if turned down you must wait onp. full year. This affiendment will take care of it. I know that some members of the planning commission feel it will help a developer or two to which they might feel antagonistic. Jaworski asked, "~fuo is going to stand behind the sewer? Would you like to put money in escrow, Menkveld?" Appleby discussed sewer and pollution stating they should have minimum requirements for sewer - we should - dn we have that? Stout stated that we have the State code. Holasek asked if we can go beyond the State code. Langseth stated yes but we do not. Ron Smith noted that in Blaine, Ostman addition, they had to go eight miles with the trunk main which meant sewer -5- April 27, 1971 assessments of $20u per acre to get the sewer 1nto the area. Stout noted the the Pollution Control Agency can order in sewer. Bradley asked Menkveld to give some details on his land, such as when it was purchased and developed. Menkveld related that on County Rd 20 the land was purchased in 1965 and lots sold each year since; Section 28 in 1968 and Section 33 in 1969; another parcel in December of 1969 which was sub-divided in May of 1970 before the Ordinance. Menkveld said that, "If I bought land now I would go to 2t acres." Bradley asked if Menkveld was aware of the recommendation of the North Anoka County Planning League and Midwest Planning to which Menkveld replied no. Schmid stated that it was his understanding that there was no platting ordinance and that there is none now. Babcock replied yes, but that the board is working on it. Schmid noted that the Zoning Ordinance is put in the position to do what a platting ordinance is supposed to do and the developer can convey as he sees fit; there is a lack of planning; none for parks and no assurance that streets will connect up...discovering that you find the most painless way out - maybe you should explore a compromise. Bradley directed additional questions at Menkveld; ~enkveld asked why he was singled out. Bradley stated that it appeared that Menkveld saw it as applying only to him and that answers were needed to make a decision. Menkveld stated that he apologized for ruffling some feathers. Bradley asked Menkveld what he had paid for the land, approximately, and that there was no need to worry about ruffling feathers. Menkveld objected to the Bradley question. Bradley then asked Menkveld if he would be financially embarassed by building on 2t acres. Menkveld replied that some of the lots have been sold to builders and if the Zoning and Planning Commission would pick up the fee for rezoning and roads on the lots he would go along. Bradley discussed the cost of bringing sewer over open land' and Menkveld cited experience in White Bear stating that there was no loss. Bradley pointed out that in the Ostman addition a federal grant had been received to cover the cost. Discussion was again held regarding how many square feet of ground can handle one private sewer system. Nash noted that Blaine had received a HUD grant in excess of $400,000 for water and-sewer and that the assessments were higher than ever before. They have adequate sewer systems but it is going to result in a high assessment. Faubert noted that you don't have to hook up. Jaworski replied that you must pay for the sewer then you may as well hook up to it. Discussion was held regarding 2t acres and whether the parcels would layout properly on hills and sloughs. Jaworski stated that Menkveld property already has water standing and asked what is to happen when the area is built up and the population increases. It was moved by Holasek and seconded by Jones to review notes on the p~blic hearing and reach a decision on May 4, 1971. Rither stated that we should study the public hearing testimony and examine the lots affected. We held a public hearing and co~ment8 either pro or con should be considered. Babcock stated that the report should be in before the next re~ular meeting of the TO\1n Board. Attorney stated that we are in the amendment section and the rezoning time factor is applicable. Attorney referred to the State statute suggesting that the Commission act before the May meeting and if not he would then advise the Town Board that they must act after sixty days have elapsed from the date of referral to the Com~ission. Christenson stated that we should be specific on what we are going to do and when we are going to do it. We should research the lots of record, weigh the public hearing and this evening. We shouJ~ assure ourselves that we are making our judgement on all levels. Discussion was held regarding how the -6- April 27, 1971 research should b~ done. Menkveld suggested "c contact Craig Willey in the Auditors office. Stout noted that he had asked people with lots to notify him. It was moved by Holasek and seconded by Jones to review notes on public hearing, research lots of record prior to January 1, 1971 and review co~~ents and testimony received on April 27 and submit a report to the Town Board of Supervisors on May 11, 1971. Babcock noted that if the Co~~ission could not meet the May 11 date the Town Board should be so notified. Motion carried. Lawrence Carlson appeared before the Commission regarding preliminary plat legally described as the NNt of Section 2 T32R24 Anoka County Minnesota. Subject plat is in the R-l Zoning District. Discussion was held regarding the natural features of the area noting that the individual members had toured the area in some detail in January of this year. Stout discussed the water table in the area. Carlson explained the protective covenants which would accompany each deed noting that there would be restrictions on the cost and square footage of the homes, namely; house value of $25,000 excluding lot and 1200 square feet for one story and 900 square feet on the first floor of two story homes. Holasek asked if Carlson was planning to develop or huild in the area. Carlson stated that he does not build but that he lets the people regulate their own area. Commission noted that out of a total of thirty-five lots, fourteen do not meet the lot width set-back requirements. Carlson stated that he was applying for a variance for the lots which did not meet the requirements. It was moved by Jones and seconded by Bradley to accept the preliminary plat legally described as the If Nt of Section 2 T32R24 Anoka County Minnesota with variances as applied. After discussion, it was decided to place the approval of the plat on the agenda for the ~fuy 4, 1971 meeting. Christenson stated that the Co~~ission should look at the preliminary plat, examine the variance and then decide. Discussion was held regarding the Bonde variance application. Holasek stated that he would like to read the variance. No action taken. M3tter placed on the May 4 agenda. Rither delivered the Menkveld variance report to the Co~mission members. After reading the report it was moved by Jones and seconded by Bradley to submit said report to the Town Board of Supervisors. Motion carried unanimously. Joe Faubert appeared before the Commission regarding lot subdivision in the Nordeen addition. Holasek stated that it should be looked into further, that if Langseth had been there and measured it he should know what to do. Stout noted procedures to be followed regarding variances. Meeting ended at approximately 11:30. Motion to adjourn was not heard. Robert A. Rither, Clerk, Zoning and Planning Co~~ission