Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-21 JPCJOINT. POWERS COMMITTEE AGENDA August 21, 1985 Washington County Courthouse County Board Chambers Stillwater, MN 55082 5:30 p.m. I. Public Hearing A. Continuation of Richard J. Anderson variance request from the 75' pond setback requirement to construct a porch. The property is legally described as Lot 3 Block 2, Long Lake Estates. II, Business Meeting A. Call to Order B. Approval of Minutes C. New Business 1. Richard J. Anderson Variance Request D. General Discussion E. Adjournment Dated: August 9, 1985 /s/ Dennis O'Donnell Minutes of the Joint Powers Committee August 21, 1995 RICHARD ANDERSON VARIANCE REQUEST MEMBERS_PRESENT Harry Peterson, Ray Senkus, Cathy Buck, Bill Lundquist ST ECHEM! Dennis O'Donnell, Rhonda Thode OT_HERS_PRESENT Richard Anderson, Judy Anderson, Bob Briggs, Barry Stack, James Eitter, Tom Keech CALL_TO_ORDER Harry Peterson opened the public hearing at 5:35 p. m. - Harry Peterson stated the hearing is a continuation of -a public hearing held February 27, 1985 to consider the variance request sQbmitted by Richard Andersen for'a variance from the 75' pend setback requirement to construbt -an addition. The property is legally described as Lot 3 Block 2, Long Lake Estates. '-- Dennis O'Donnell stated the public hearing has been held open from February so the DNR would have an opportunity to go out to the site and determine the high water elevation to measure the 75' setback from. If Mr. Anderson is going to fill, the addition from his house will be approximately 22' from that high water elevation. Barry Stack presented a site plan showing the water level at the time Long Lake and Long Lake 2nd Addition were platted. Long Lake 2nd Addition az that time had an elevation of 885.21. Long Lake Addition (which is where Mr. Anderson's home and lot is) did not have an elevation shown on the water at the time the plat was filed. The site plan also showed the drainage easements and water level as it existed in February 11, 1985 as Mr. Stack located it. In reviewing the site, Mr. Stack stated there is nothing to step the water from coming up, no natural outlet for this pond. He felt a lot of water has been dumped into the pond from the Croixwood development. At the time the home was built, the house was 75' from the pond. His concern, in addition to the variance, is the control of the pond level. Mr. Anderson's home is the only one that w i 1 1- be impacted adversely by the continued rising of the water, other homes in the area are above the 90� �' elevation. Ray Senkus questioned if the addition would be at ground_. level. Mr. Stack stated it would be at basement level, the same elevation -as the existing house, about 3' above the elevation set by the DNR. In response to a question from Cathy Buck, Mr. O'Donnell stated the addition has been started without a permit and is substantially completed. Joint Powers - Minutes Richard Andersen Hearing August 21, 1985 Pane c Bob Briggs stated the DNR had set the high water mark at 891' the first time, they went out and re-evaluated it, and came up with an elevation of 889.51. They also said they"would allow the Anderson's to fill out to the ordinary high water mark without a permit, which is their intent if the variance is granted. Mr. Briggs stated there are two problems, 1) the variance requested, and 2) the on-going problem of the high water. He felt the problem with continUing high water can be resolved with the help of neighbors, the Committee, and the Anderson's. In terrors of the variance requested, he urged the Committee to approve the request. He felt there was a substantial hardship related to the land due to factors outside the Anderson's control. He reminded the Committee at the last meeting the neighbors did not object to the addition, but were concerned with the rising water. Bill Lundquist questioned who has authority over the water 'level. Barry Stack stated it is the DNR because it is a protected wetland. Harry Peterson questioned if the variance were denied .if tree applicants would have totear-d!Ziwn the addition. Mr. O' Donnell ' if if the variance were denied ttre applicant would have 30 days from the time they received the Findings of Fact to appeal to district court or remove the addition. Mr. O'I)onnell stated that the request should be treated as if the addition is not there. It was the applicant's responsibility to get the permit and it should not put undue pressure on the Committee to approve it because they went ahead without the necessary approval. Mr. O'Donnell pointed out the importance of having setbacks. If the house was originally built closer than 75' it would be under water. One concern he had was if the request were approved and the water keeps rising, there may be some liability for approving the addition. He did riot see a hardship. Toni Keech and James Eitter, neighbors, stated the water has been getting higher every year and would like to see what could be done to alleviate the problem. Bob Briggs stated there was no question the Anderson's are at fault for building without a permit, but pointed out the addition is not creating any environmental hazards, the neighbors are riot objecting, and nothing would be gained by tearing the addition dawn. As far as,:l iabi 1 ity, a waiver could be worked out to protect the Committee and';Eounty. `There was general discussion regarding an engineering report presented by Barry -Stack.. - Harry Peterson stated the issue before the Committee is the granting of a variance. Control of the high water is an issue for a water management organization. The hearing closed at 6:10 p.m. DAVID T. MAGNUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE * Z03 THE GRAND GARAGE 324 SOUTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER. MINNESOTA 55082 (612) 439-9464 August 6, 1985 Mr. Nile Kriesel Stillwater City Coordinator Stillwater City Hall 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 In re: Zoning Ordinance Codification and Revision Dear Nile: You have asked for an estimate of my charges for revising and codifying the Stillwater Zoning Ordinance. This would include a revision of the existing Zoning Ordinance now in. place for the City of Stillwater and also developing an ordinance that would apply both to the old City -of Stillwater and the new industrial park that will come within the zoning jurisdiction of the City of Stillwater in January of_1986. Historically, zoning ordinances have been very difficult to develop and draft because of the many conflicting vested interests that are affected. by these local laws. I have checked with professional ordinance codifiers that have told me they will only contract for revising zoning ordinances on an hourly basis. This is because there is no way of knowing the extent of debate that will take place with regard to provisions of the proposed ordinance. I would like to handle the revision of this ordinance on an hourly basis, however, I would like to suggest a budget that I would make every effort to abide by and adhere to. This will be a goal to shoot for and the budgeted amount would only be exceeded in the event of some extraordinary occurrance that would require extra work. I would propose to revise the zoning ordinance for an estimated fee of $8,880.00. This fee is based upon an estimate of 3 hours of legal time per week and 5 hours of paralegal time per week for a period of 6 months. This cost, of course, includes any charges for typing, drafting, housing of personnel and all the incidental overhead expense costs exclusive of actual out-of-pocket expenses for copying. We would be most happy to begin work immediately. Yours very truly, PT David T.rnuson DTM/st