Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-15 JPC MINNotice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Joint Powers Committee of the City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township and Washington County will hold a public hearing on: Wednesday, September 15, 1982 5:30 p.m. Washington County Board Room Washington County Courthouse Stillwater, MN The purpose of the public hearing is to consider the request of Timothy Bockman and Richard Stout for an amended Planned Unit -.Development permit, minor subdivision, and variance to divide Lot 8, Block 1 of the Matt Hooley Addition into two separate parcels. A variance from the minimum road frontage requirement would be necessary in addition to the minor subdivision approval. An amendment to their original Planned Unit Development permit is also requested that would enable the two proposed lots to be sold separately. The public is encouraged to attend and testify. Both written and oral statements will be accepted at the hearing. /s/ Dennis O'Donnell September 1, 1982 Minutes of the Joint Powers Committee September 15, 1982 BOCKMAN/STOUT PUBLIC HEARING MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Lundquist, Ray Senkus, Harry Peterson, Cathy Buck, Ann Bodlovick STAFF PRESENT Douglas Swenson, Dennis O'Donnell, Rhonda Thode OTHERS PRESENT Oliver ddan, Bob Lohmer, Lucille Feely, Leonard Feely, Timothy Bockman, Richard Stout CALL TO ORDER Harry Peterson chaired the committee and called the public hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Harry Peterson chaired the committee and called the public hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Harry Peterson stated the reason for the public hearing was to consider the request of Richard Stout and Timothy Bockman for an amended planned unit development permit, minor subdivision, and variance to divide Lot 8, Block 1 of the Matt Hooley Addition into two separate parcels. Tim Bockman and Richard Stout showed the committee members a site plan of their property, explaining they would like to resubdivide the property, and are proposing a 20' easement on both east and west property lines to provide ingress and egress to the car wash. This would allow for separate ownership, with the intentto sell the portion where the car wash is located. O'Donnell stated that the lot did meet the minimum lot size and lot depth requirements. Peterson asked O'Donnell for the Planning Department's comments. O'Donnell stated the following concerns: 1. O'Donnell stated the original PUD permit was issued with the intent that the business would be owned and operated by the same individual. This would eliminate potential access problems to either of the two uses. For example, assume the car wash became very popular and would entail cars waiting in the drive area. This could create a problem for patrons frequenting the use on the front portion of parcel, thus requiring people to park on the road. If both uses were owned by the same individual a problem of this type could be rectified easily. However, with different owner's it could be very difficult to solve. A similar problem could arise if the use on the front portion of the parcel became popular and people started parking in the access drives, thus inhibiting access to the car wash. Again, it would be easy to solve if both uses were owned by one person but could be a difficult problem to solve with different owners. Joint Powers Committee - Public Hearing September 15, 1982 Page 2 2. In the past the committee has never approved a subdivision where the lot does not meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the lots meet lot size and lot depth but only one of the newly created lots contain the required 100' of public road frontage. Therefore, approval of this request would be contrary to past decisions and would set a poor precedent. 3. Since the proposed rear lot does not contain the required frontage, the applicant is seeking a variance to this requirement. As in the case of all variance requests, a "hardship" must be present in order to grant a variance. "Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner;and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute a "hardship". Since the applicant has reasonable use of the property and is creating the need for a variance by requesting the minor subdivision, we do not recognize a "hardship" O'Donnell stated he would recommend denial based on the above three reasons and that it would set a poor precedent since both lots do not meet all re- quirements in the ordinance. Richard Stout stated he didn't see any problem with what they were proposing and thought coming before the Joint Powers Committee was just a formality. Lundquist stated there were a lot of problems with a lot that doesn't have road frontage. Stout thought that was taken care of with the PUD permit. Peterson stated the PUD was approved on the basis of one ownership. Bodlovick stated the committee must conform to the ordinance for the safety of the public. Leonard Feely questioned what type of business would be going on the vacant part of the lot. Bockman stated they were requesting a resubdivision and there is no use for the vacant land as of yet. Stout asked the committee how they would feel if they proposed resubdividing the property allowing for 40' of road frontage instead of 10'. Bodlovick stated that would still not constitute the 100' road frontage required. ADJOURNMENT The public hearing was closed at 6:10 p.m. Minutes of the Joint Powers Committee September 15, 1982 MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Lundquist, Ray Senkus, Cathy Buck, Harry Peterson, Ann Bodlovick STAFF PRESENT Douglas Swenson, Dennis O'Donnell, Rhonda Thode OTHERS PRESENT Oliver Oddan, Bob Lohmer, Lucille Feely, Leonard Feely, Timothy Bockman, Richard Stout CALL TO ORDER Harry Peterson chaired the committee and called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ann Bodlovick moved to approve the August 18, 1982 minutes as presented. Seconded by Cathy Buck. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Ray Senkus stated he was against the Bockman/Stout request because it is poor planning, sets a poor precedent, and there is no basis for granting a variance. Buck moved that the Joint Powers Committee deny the amended PUD request which may or may not be applicable along with the variance request to divide Lot 8 Block 1 of the Matt Hooley Addition for the three main reasons outlined in Mr. O'Donnell's letter dated September 13, 1982; that is the ingress and egress problem, the request for tht minor subdivi- sion which then cuts off the 100 feet of public road frontage and thirdly, the lack of conformation of anything close to a hardship. Seconded by Bill Lundquist. Motion passed unanimously. GENERAL DISCUSSION O'Donnell stated he sent a letter to the realtors who are selling the Oasis building informing them that it is an industrial piece of property. Bodlovick asked if anything had been heard from Swager Bros. who wanted a P.U.D. O'Donnell stated they wanted to go for a rezoning to R-4 on the back portion of the property. ADJOURN1, ENT Ann Bodlovick moved to adjourn at 6:20 p.m. Bill Lundquist seconded. Motion passed unanimously.