Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 26, 1971 A~D /1) -_:1i~. ? I I. Dr, ri ha.tf'4IlU- Va.fia.ue. - Sed,O~ 33 .;(, Ca.,..1 :J..\Ja....\OUI::.~ - Sfel!t'a.l Use ?rm;+.Sf!~4,o.,.. 3a 3. Prel;l't\~J\Qf"'V Male..!>" BO""..J5 Pla.l - .5eef'DY\ 13 ~. Bect.l(drv's 3^", Add '1'\- See~'DY\ '7 fl' The regular monthly meeting of the Grow Township Zoning and Planning Commission was held October 26, 1971 at Crooked Lake school. Chairman Norm Stout called the meeting to order at $:30 PM with Commission members Christenson, Holasek, Jones, Nash, and Rither present. Doctor Louis J. Filiatrault, 13725 Eidelweiss, St. NW appeared regarding his variance application to subdivide property owned and occupied by him. Subject property is located within the R-l Zoning District. Subject variance application seeks to create three parcels, tracts A, B, and C, as described within the application. Filiatrault stated that his home is located on what is proposed to be known as tract A. Holasek noted the County policy regarding private driveways fronting on County thoroughfares and suggested that an easement be obtained on tract B frontage on County road 116; that the driveway on tract B enter on Eidelweiss St. Holasek stated that in any other area he would hesitate to grant a variance but because subject parcel is close to.future sewer lines and the area on the opposite side of Coon Creek is in the R-3 Zoning District he could see no objections to granting the variance. It was moved by Nash that the Commission recommend that the Town Board issue a variance as requested by Louis J. Fi1iatrault subject to easement requirements of Anoka County regarding egress, ingress on Tracts Band C having frontage on Anoka County Road 116. During the discussion, Hither asked the Commission to list the findings; facts which must be submitted to the Town Board. Rither asked if,failure to grant the variance denies the petitioner the reasonable use of the land and what factors regarding the land support the granting of the variance. Holasek read paragraph 5.04 of Ordinance NO.$ and stated that sewer would probably be a burden on such a large lot but other than that it would not qualify under the Ordinance. Holasek noted that tract C would seem to qualify under the Ordinance in that it is boxed in by the street(Eidelweiss) and the school property. Christenson stated that the variance is not a means to subdivide parcels, that the rezoning section would cover it. Stout stated that the Township attorney said a variance was proper. Christenson stated that he did not understand why the variance was applicable but if the -2- OCTOBER 26, 1971 attorney has said that is the way to fly, then O.K. but did not understand why. Nash asked that his motion be amended to read "C only". Nash asked that his motion be withdrawn. Filiatrault stated that he understood the concern of the Commission and would wait for the opinion of the Township attorney regarding what procedure should be followed. Stout stated that he would contact the attorney and determine if the variance is the proper procedure. Carl Jovanovich, 3420 136th Avenue Wi appeared regarding a special use permit application to erect a double bungalow on lot six (6), Block one (I) Chapman's Fifth addition. Stout noted that the attorney had notified the abutting property owners. Holasek noted that the lot area of 17,200 square feet meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Nash asked David Anderson if he was aware of the existing double bungalows when he purchased his home. Anderson stated yes, he was. Mrs Anderson asked what effect will it have on the water level. Commission discussed what effect a double bungalow would have on property values and came to no conclusion. Jovanovich stated that he would occupy one half of the bungalow. Jones asked why. Jovanovich stated that it was for financial reasons, that it was more economical to occupy a double bungalow than a single family home. Jones stated that the Township is presently asking for 40,000 square foot lots for single family and this request is for a double bungalow on a 17,200 square foot lot. Holasek asked if Chapman's Fifth addition was in the R-I or R-3 Zoning District. Rither read minutes of the April 2, 1971 meeting,,!at'cwhich titnec Chapman's.F:ifth addition preliminary plat was discussed and the question was raised whether subject plat was in the R-l or R-3 Zoning District. According to the minutes, "It was noted by Holasek that it appeared to be in the R-I Zoning District." Rither stated that Jovanovich is asking for a special use permit to build a double bungalow in the R-I Zoning District, which use is not permitted by the Ordinance. It was moved by Jones and seconded by Holasek to table action on the Jovanovich special use permit application until the Commission can determine whether subject lot is in the R-I or R-4 Zoning District. Motion carried. Ho1asek stated that without going to a larger lot size the building would not be permitted. Jovanovich stated that Stout had told him that a special use permit was needed and that his fee should be refunded and that in either case the permit would not be issued. Holasek stated that we should move ahead with other business. Jovanovich stated that in his opinion he was given -3- OCTOBER 26, 1971 incorrect information by the chairman, that at an earlier meeting he had been told that a special use permit was needed and that according to the Ordinance he was given incorrect information, that if a permit' cal1:not'_ be issued he is entitled to refund of his fee. Jovanovich asked what is the procedure. Stout stated that we must know what the zoning is before we can make a recommendation to the Township Board of Supervisors. Jones stated that we must go by the law. Jovanovich stated that he was misinterpreted by the chairman, verbally. Holasek stated that you are responsible for reading the Ordinance and that we will probably find that Chapman's Fifth addition is in the R-1 Zoning District, in which case the building would not be permitted. LeRoy Winner, and Byrd Norton, 1657 73rd Avenue NE, Fridley, appeared before the Commission regarding a metes and bounds sub- division located within the Nt of Section 13. Subject subdivision is located within the R-I Zoning District. Discussion was held regarding gas line easement and set back requirements. It was noted that lot 2 is primarily swamp. In response to questioning by Nash, Winner stated that approximately four percent of the park is high land. Nash noted the bad feature of the dead end street and cul-de-sac stating that there would not be a street extension in the future due to the difficulty of obtaining easement over private property located on the west side of the property. Nash discussed the problem of sand roads and inevitable erosion and asked Norton if any stabilization was planned. Norton stated that none was planned. Commission noted that the proposed lots meet the requirements of the R-I Zoning District with respect to yard space and set back. It was moved by Jones and seconded by Christenson to recommend to Township Board of Supervisors the approval of a preliminary metes and bounds plat legally described as lying within the SEt of WNt Section 13, T32 R24. Holasek stated that he was against lot 6 fronting on County Road No. 60; that the County policy is to discourage drive- ways fronting on County thoroughfares and that he would like to see a different treatment of road access to interior lots. Winner and Norton stated that they had attempted to realign the road but were unable to come up with a different configuration and still meet lot size requirements. Motion carried. Five ayes and one nay. Holasek stated that he did not like lot 6 frontage on County 60 and the alignment of the road. -4- OCTOBER 26, 1971 Norm Hoium appeared before the Commission regarding Beaudry's Third addition, that part of the NWt of NWt Section 7, T32 R24. Hoium stated that they had met with Grow on October 5 and the County on October 6, that the road was started long before the October meeting, that it was done in April 1971. Hoium stated that he can't see how they can be stopped, it is metes and bounds. \~at is wrong with the road? It was put in, brought in, discussed. Hoium stated that he brought in the road specs which we hadn't heard of; the Grow engineer did not answer call, did not answer call of the grader. Nash asked about park land that is not under water, that we care if the park is under water and if the roads are going to wash out. Hoium stated that he has page after page of metes and bounds and is tired of metes and bounds. Ho1asek stated that the plat as presented is no good because road fronts on County Road 7 and it isn't the Township's fault that the land doesn't allow the layout of the number of lots that are wanted. There is just so much land and that's it. Holasek noted that from 171st Lane to 173rd Avenue is 825 feet which isn't enough under the proposed platting Ordinance. Hoium stated that it isn't in effect. Holasek agreed and stated that we have to start. Hoium presented plat of Cedar Crest Estates Second addition and pointed out 80 foot power line easement and asked why the Commission gave its approval. Holasek read set back requirements of R-2 Zoning District and stated that the easement did not interfere. Hoium stated that Lot 3 Block 1 area would not be suitable for a road because of the hill. Holasek stated that it wouldn't be suitable for a driveway either. Christenson asked where the owners were, that we can't ask Hoium to make changes unless the owners consent, that the owners, therefore, should be here to represent their case. Holasek stated that it looked like they were trying to get too many lots out of land which does not permit it. Holasek suggested that we request this to be considered a preliminary plat with a service lane on County Road 7, which would reduce the size of lots 1,2,3,4,5, in Block 1 and reduce the square footage by approximately 12 percent plus or minus or, move the interior lot line in Block 1 to the east and reduce the square footage of lots 1 through 10 in Block 1. Hoium stated that one acre in this area is too small, it should be a 2t acre area. Christenson asked why the road can't be moved over. Hoium stated that it is built. Christenson stated that that shouldn't -5- OCTOBER 26, 1971 . '. .. make any difference. It was moved by Jones that we recommend approval to Town Board providing that the interior lot line in Block 1 be moved easterly fifteen (15) feet and a service road be constructed across the westerly frontage of Block 1, parallel to County Road 7 and that these lots be considered buildable. Nash asked if we have the authority to grant a variance without a proper motion; we would be telling the Town Board that we are granting a variance or rezoning, on presumably trifles, without the owners applying for it; we do not have that authority. Holasek agreed stating that either we are going to follow the Ordinance or we are not. Nash asked if Hoium knew how the owner feels. Hoium stated that they were going to take it to the County and see what they say. Nash asked Hoium if Lundheim thinks it's alright. Hoium replied, no, that Lundheim doesn't approve anything, he just wants, wants, wants. Christenson stated that more lots are advocated than the land can hold; we should ask that it be withdrawn and resubmitted. Hoium stated that the road needs some more work. Holasek stated that with no public road no building permits will be issued. Hoium stated that you want eight lots instead of ten and a service road. Nash stated that we can't put a number on the lots; we want what the County wants regarding their requirements. Hoium stated that they could go to four lots on County Road 7 instead of five plus plus the service road - O.K.- approve it subject to those provisions then. Christenson stated that we could not approve it "subject to", we have too many in that category now; we want to see the final plat. Jones suggested that we take it up on Thursday night. Holasek stated that Thursday is for a special meeting on the platting ordinance and did not feel that we should take up regular business at special meetings. Jones' motion died for lack of second. No action taken. It was moved by Nash and seconded by Christenson to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM. Robert A. Rither CLERK, Zoning and Planning Commission .. () (J GROW TCWNSHIP PLANNL\1G A\D ZONING EOAlill rP..OCLEUINGS \J 1. SUBJECT OF PETITION: . () Rezoning () Sl1cciaI Use Pcrmit () Building Pcrmit (X) Plat or property division () Variance () Other 2... KA,'.lE OF PETITIONER: Byrd Norton Plmm;ss: 1657 73rd Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 3. LOCATION: SEt of mvt Section 13 T32 R24 4. DATE OF PLA.r...'NING M'D ZONING BOARD ~'EETING AT WHICH HEARING WAS lJELD: OCTOBER 26, 1971 S. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION: A rrotion was made by JONES '0 and seconded by CHRISTENSON Supervisors the approval of a described as lying within the to recommend to Township Board of preliminary metes and bounds plat legally SEt of mvi Section 13, T32 R24 . DATE: 6. r-1DffiERS VOTING: Christenson Stout Jones Nash Rither Holasek 7. VOTES: FIVE AYES. ONE NAYES. ABSTAINED. 8. COH.fE!\I'fS ABOUT PETITION: Holasek stated his concern regarding lot 6 frontage on County Road 60; that the County policT is to discourage driveway frontage on County thoroughlares ana lone al.lgnmelll.. uf l..he 1Jl'U1JUbed L uiid access to interior lots. . 9. SIGNED: Planning and Zoning Board Chairman: Norm Stout '~ Date: October 26, 1971 u (j . GRO\\' TOWNSHIP . " ~J PLANNL'lG AND ZONIl-'G EOAIID PROCEEDINGS 1. SUIlJ[Cf OF PETITION: () r-ezoninp, () S~ecial Use I'emi t () Th.tildillg l'ermi t . (X) Plat or property division () Variance () Otller 2.. ~:A.\lf OF PL'TITIC\\Ht: Byrd Norton NmRESS: 1657 73rd Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 3. LOCATION: SEt of m~t Section 13 T32 R24 4. DATE OF PLA.~'NING M'D ZONING BOARD ~'EEfING AT h'HIOI HEARING "[AS HELD: OCTOBER 26, 1971 S. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACfION: A ",otion was l7'.ade by JONES ~ ) \......I and seconded by CHRISTENSON to recommend to Township Board of Supervisors the approval of a preliminary metes and bounds plat legally described as lying within the SEt of NWt Section 13, T32 R24 . DATE: , ' 6. ~.lE-ffiERS VOTING: Christenson Stout Jones Nash Rither Holasek 7. VarES: FIVE AYES. ONE KAYES. ABSTAINED. 8. CO~rfE!\rrS ABaIT PETITION: Holasek stated his concern regarding lot 6 frontage on County Road 60; that the County policT is to discourage driveway frontage on Gounty thoroughlares ana r,ne a.Liglllll~ul.. uf I..htl P!upubt::d LUdd access to interior lots. . .... ~ .':' 9. SIGNED: ,-, ,Planning and Zoning Board Chaintm1: Norm Stout \.J . , Date: October 26, 1971 .' . , ,- . ,