The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-10-06 Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Centerville held its regular meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 1987. Chairman Tourville called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Lindgren, Vermeulen, and Council liaison Wilharber. Motion by Lindgren, second by Vermuelen to approve the minutes of the September 1 meeting, motion carried unanimously. APPEARANCES Will Sykes of Jer -neen Spring Manufacturing Company, Inc., 5613 North 152nd Avenue, Hugo, was to appear to discuss the possibility of building in the Cities industrial park on 20th Avenue. The Assistant Clerk spoke to him on the phone earlier today, and he would like to appear next month when he is better prepared. OLD BUSINESS Marcel Rivard, Jr. presented a sketch of the plans to add to his fathers building at 7087 Progress Road. He stated that they plan to add two offices and a small computer room. The size of the proposed addition would be 18" x 18 ". The addition is planned for the west end of the building with offset to the south, the reason being that the electrical system and the bathroom are there. Chairman Tourville suggested that building to the west would keep the building within setback limits. He also stated that P &Z requires a more complete sketch with footage, etc. and Mr. Rivard must apply for a variance. Discussion of Prachar request for variance to Ordinance #8, Article #2- 21.05. Chairman Tourville read information that Assistant Clerk received frnm Anoka and Manlewnnd nnncerning Cellular T towers in their communities. Maplewood requires a Conditional Use Permit from the City Council each time a tower is proposed. Anoka requires one foot of net clearance for each foot of tower height and they must have a Special Use Permit. Mr. Prachar stated that the land would have the same use after dividing that it has now. He doesn't see any possibility of development as it is mostly peat land. He feels that if there was a problem, it should have been brought up at lease time. Chairman Tourville referenced Ordinance #4, Article 3- 33.03, which reads: "1. The front, rear and side yards shall be increased one foot for each one foot by which the building exceeds the height limit established for such district." He also presented a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities concerning Metes and Bounds conveyances. (A copy is attached to and made a Planning and Zoning Commission Page Two October 6. 1987 part of these minutes.) He said the City Attorney told him that the City can grant a variance if the party can prove a hardship. Mr. Prachar stated that increased width would cause a problem with a shed that is already there. Council liaison Wilharber stated that the logic of Article 3- 33.03 #1. is that if the tower should fall it wouldn't fall on other properties and lot size is a real concern. A lengthy discussion of variances needed and how to resolve the situation followed. Motion by Lindgren, second by Vermeulen that Prachar get a signed statement from the Cellular I engineers swearing that if the tower were to fall it would fall upon itself, or the lot size must be increased to accomodate the 280 foot tower. Example: 280 ft. -35 ft. ht. limit =245 £t. +50 ft. front setback =295 ft. 280 ft. -35 ft. ht. limit =245 ft. +25 ft. back setback =270 ft. 280 ft. -35 ft. ht. limit =245 ft. +10 ft. side setback =255 ft. 295 £t. +270 ft. =565 ft. 255 £t. +255 ft. =510 ft. 565 ft.x510 ft. =lot size needed. - Aye: Lindgren and Vermeulen. Tourville abstained. Motion failed, lack of quorum. Mrs. Prachar asked what the next step is. Chairman Tourville stated that the Council can address it at the next meeting because a reasonable time has passed. The Prachar`s asked to be put on the Agenda for the next Council meeting. Discussion of Ordinance #8 regarding land swaps. Chairman Tourville stated a recommendation was made to the Council two or three months ago and P &Z stands by their original decision, unless the City is willing to absorb the cost for having the City Attorney review descriptions. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of a new member to replace Peter Buesseler on the P &Z Commission. A letter of interest has been received from Lloyd Drilling, 7248 Centerville Road. Assistant Clerk was asked to write him for more information about his background as it pertains to P &Z. Commission members were asked to talk to a couple of residents who had expressed interest to them. Discussion of City maps. Chairman Tourville asked Council liaison Wilharber if budgeted monies had been approved. They have not. Maps tabled until next meeting when we have the figures to work with. Planning and Zoning Commission Page three October 6, 1987 Chairman Tourville asked for a volunteer for Vice Chairman to replace Peter Buesseler for the remainder of the year. Member Lindgren volunteered. Motion by Tourville, second by Vermeulen that Lindgren be Vise Chairperson for November and December, motion carried unanimously. Discussion of the minutes of the last two Council meetings followed. Motion by Vermeulen, second by Lindgren to adjourn the meeting, motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:10. Respectfully submitted, J attc- T (2- i.c,/2C4/ Beverly A. Hughes O Assistant City Clerk lIII IIIh U league of minnesota cities September 4, 1987 Dan Tourville City Planning and Zoning Commission 6994 Centerville Road Centerville, Minnesota 55038 Dear Mr. Tourville, Now that I have finally had a chance to work on your question, I I can't reach you on the telephone, so perhaps I should write you a brief letter in case I am unable to reach you later in the day. I have enclosed M.S. 462.358, Subd. 4b, which is the statute relevant to your question on metes and bounds conveyances. As best I understand it, the only points in the six -point list of conditions that you need to be concerned with are numbers 5 and 6. What it all boils down to is that certain metes and bounds conveyances are permitted in cities having subdivision regulations, but they have to be conveyances of the sizes allowed by (5) or (6). In other words, only conveyances that are big enough are allowed. ,The second part of your question was whether the city could override the statutes and do what the statutes say you can't do. The simple answer to that question is no, not usually. Metes and bounds conveyances of smaller parcels of land are not allowable, not so much because the city can't do it, but because the county generally can't and won't accept them. In any case, the end result is that the city could make only those metes and bounds conveyances allowed by state law. However, the last paragraph of 462.358, Subd. 4b does seem to create some sort of loophole if the council agrees by resolution to waive compliance with the law where compliance will create an "unnecessary hardship" and will not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations, whatever that is supposed to mean. But it appears that each such conveyance will cost the property owner at least $100. And it appears that the county recorder still has some discretion in deciding whether the conveyance complies with the law. I have enclosed a few attorney general's opinions and a portion of a 1978 memorandum that discuss various aspects of metes and bounds 1 F33 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (6121227-5600 conveyances. Through the years the statute has undergone some changes in language, so you should keep that in mind as you read them. I probably didn't state any of this as clearly as I might have, but I hope it is sufficient. And I hope it will be of some help. It might be good to discuss all of this with the people at the county and see how it applies in practice. Sincerely, William Makela Research Analyst